�� Willie Martin

�� 13600 Quiet Cove

�� McLoud, Oklahoma 74851

�� (405) 386-7227

Pastor Jack Hayford

P.O. Box 60888

Los Angeles, California 90060

Dear Pastor Hayford:

I was watching your sermon on TBN on Sunday, June 4, 2000. And you were preaching, among other things, about how the Jews can become Christians and still be Jews. Well I must respectfully disagree with this with all the vigor that I man muster. A Jew cannot be a Jew and a Christian! The Scriptures clearly show this to be true for one cannot serve two masters, for he will hate the one and hold to the other. �No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.� ^[1]

Also, the Scriptures show that the Jews cannot be saved and a study showing that is presented later on in this document.

I don�t know why God wanted me to send this to you because I don�t believe you will even bother to read it; but I have been told to send it to you by the Spirit, so on the chance that you will do so, I send it to you as one brother in Christ to another. �Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.� ^[2] And if you ever start really teaching what the Word of God says, you will no longer be able to appear on TBN, the 700 Club or any of the other (Jew)deo-Christian television shows. You would no longer get those great big fat check, but will have to work for what God gives you; but you would receive your rewards when He comes, but while you teach this Jewish stuff, I am afraid you will miss out on God�s Blessings.

Apparently you believe that the Jews are God�s people. Well I suspect that you know better, but the Jews are no part of Israel; they are the decedents of the Khazar tribes of Russia; and the descendants of mixed marriages between True Israelites and the other races indignant of that area. The study which I have enclosed will show you the Origin of the Jews.

I remain

Sincerely yours,

In His Service

Willie Martin

First let�s start with the origin of the word �Jew.�

�� Origin of the Word Jew

Near the time of Christ, there once existed a metropolis city, which was a trade center for the then known world. This city of wealth was once destroyed in 146 B.C., and its treasures carried off to Rome. But Julius Caesar restored it a hundred years later, and the Roman colony flourished so much that it soon became one of the most prominent centers in Greece. Some would say that in the 2nd century it was the richest city in Greece.

This city was a city of wealth, of luxury and of immorality. It seemed to have one quality that marked it as a commercial hot spot of its day, for it is said that "Jews flocked to it." That city was ancient Corinth, the chief city in the Roman Province of Achaia. This is the city that Paul spent at least a year and one-half preaching the Gospel and encountering the full force and fury of the "Jews."

Times does not seem to change much do they? The same problem is facing most of the major cities in America today. The commercial cities we have in the United States are fast becoming breeding cesspools of corruption and all manner of evil. Could this be caused by a "Jewish" society and their influence? Many wonder!

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary refers to the first letter in the "J" section thus: "A modern addition to the English alphabet."� The words used prior were Iew, Iewe, Iewes. The use of the English terms, "Thee" and "Thou," were always used in reference to first person singular or plural, since the phonetic use of the word "Iew" is the same as "you," thus insulting. True Israelites.

The Compton�s Interactive Encyclopedia relates the following in reference to the letter �J�: THE LETTER J. The history of the letter J is linked with the history of l. The Romans and their European successors used l both for the vocalic "i" and for the consonantal "y" (as in the English word "yet").

The English letter J did not come into existence until the end of medieval times, when scribes began to use a tailed form of "i," with or without the dot, next to the short form of "i" (1). When printing was invented, the tailed form of "i" (2) was often used for an initial "i," which is usually consonantal. Not until the 17th century, however, was the distinction between J or j as a consonant and l or i as a vowel fully established. ^[3]

Strong's Concordance more or less defines the words "Jew" and "Jews" as: "in the sense of a country, i.e., a Judean." The word "Jew" is used 22 times in the King James Version of the Bible in the New Testament, and the word "Jews" is used 172 times and 170 times of those are from the same #2453 as the above "Jew" definition. There are another 6 times the plural word "Jews'" is used and all but one of these is this #2454. So for the 200 times, the words: "Jew, Jews, and Jews'" are used in the New Testament, at least 197 occasions are referring to a Judean in the sense of from a place, i.e., as from a country.

The question still haunts many and they have often asked just who are these people the Bible calls "Jew, Jews, and Jews'"? Why were these people not just simply called "Judeans," "Israelites," or "Judeans whose religion was Judaism?" This is the age old word problem of society problem that is surrounded with so many, many, lies and deceptions. "The Fear of the Jews" syndrome that plagues society today.

Much of it as a result of the so-called holocaust which we have been told 10,000 times 10,000 that the Germans cremated 6-million Jews during WWII. This story has installed a guilt complex in the American people, until the word Jew has become a non speakable word, and if one dares to utter the word except in reverence and humility they will be attacked by both Jews and Christians.

Therefore, we have prepared this study to prove to you and any other thinking American that the bulk of these people called "Jew" or "Jews" in the Bible, were not and are not of the House of Israel or of the House of Judah.

Then who are these people who have plagued the pages of history for so, so very long? The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines "Jew" as the same word of Strong's #2453 in the following words: "'Jew' denotes originally an inhabitant of Judah, ^[4] but later the meaning was extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham."^[5] The question which faces us here is who had the authority and the power that: "extended the meaning to embrace all descendants of Abraham?" Mr. Orr goes on to say in his definition that: "'Jews' (always pl.) is the familiar term for Israelites in the Gospel (esp. in John), Acts, Eph. etc."

This definition only serves to confuse the issue even more, who, how, when and why was such confusion entered into society and the Holy Scriptures? Why, if the term "Jew," refers to Israelites, did they not just simply call them Israelites or Judeans, whose religion was Hebrew?

It is an incontestible 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 on earth. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English language for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals," Chapter 2, p. 1, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." Prior to this use of the word "Jew" the word "Jew" had not become a word.

Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use 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?" You see there was not even a letter "j" or "J" until the middle of the 18^th century. Check any encyclopedia you wish for proof of this.

In the Latin Jerome 4^th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel by John reference to the inscription on the Cross, "Iudaeorum." It was in the 4th century that Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written.

This translation by Jerome is referred to still today, as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today. Jesus is referred to as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century editions in the English language of the 14^th 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 Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer any doubt.

The available original 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," "Ieue," "Iue," "I�ve," "Iew," and then finally 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 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 the editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" was thus stabilized.

The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it.

The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.

Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios." How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a NEW English word to them.

When one studies Latin they are taught that the letter "I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is pronounced like the letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in the words like "yes," "youth" and "yacht." The "I" in "Iudaeus" is pronounced like the "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht" in English. In all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th century "Jew" the letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes," "young," and "yacht." The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" when it was used in the place of the letter "I."

The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in "Jew" is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice," "jolly," and "jump."

This is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century the "J" in "Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the English "yes," "youth," and "yacht." Until the 18th century and perhaps even later than the 18th century the word "Jew" in English was pronounced like the English "you" or "hew," and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews." The present pronunciation of "Jew" in English is a new pronunciation acquired after the 18th century.

The German language still retains the Latin original pronunciation. The German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew." The "J" in the German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht." The German "J" is the equivalent of the Latin "I" and both are pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht."

The German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable of the Latin "Iudaeus" and is pronounced exactly like it. The German "Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus" just as the English "Jew" is the contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus."

The German "J" is always pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht" when it is the first letter of a word. The pronunciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the pronunciation of the "J" in German.

The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliff Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That was the 14th century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

In the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English the Gospel by John XIX.19, reads "ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Prior to the 14th century the English language adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus." The Anglo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader."

In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes."

In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." Also in the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Iesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes." In the Cranner Edition published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes."

In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves."

In the King James Edition published in 1604-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations were made.

The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'"

In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.

If the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew."

When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean." However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew."

It is a misrepresentation presented to the world deliberately by this well organized and well financed "pressure group" to deceive Christians. ^[6] (And to claim a heritage that is not theirs). This sure seems to be the more correct terminology. It appears from all our readings that the Jews of all ages, always do best what their father, the devil does - and that is lie. ^[7]

Now let�s look at the word �Gentile.�

From the way it is written, it would appear that many people are somewhat confused about what a "Gentile" really is. It would further appear that many are trying to obey the instructions given to Christians: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." ^[8]

Gentile: Strong�s Concordance: #1672� Hellen (hel'‑lane); from 1671; a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek‑speaking person, especially a non‑Jew: KJV ‑‑ Gentile, Greek.

Thayer�s Definition: #1672� Hellen‑:

1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies

2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship

Strong�s Concordance: #1671� Hellas (hel‑las'); of uncertain affinity; Hellas (or Greece), a country of Europe: KJV‑‑ Greece.

Thayer�s Definition: #1671 Hellas‑Greece = "unstable: the miry one" a country in southern Europe

Gentiles: Old Testament:

Strong�s Concordance: #1471� gowy (go'‑ee); rarely (shortened) goy (go'‑ee); apparently from the same root as 1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence, a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:� KJV‑‑ Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Brown-Diver-Brigg�s Definition: #1471� gowy rarely (shortened) goy‑as a noun, masculine: nation, people

a) nation, people

1) usually of non‑Hebrew people

2) used of descendants of Abraham

3) used of Israel

b) used of a swarm of locusts or other animals (figurative)

as a proper noun, masculine:

c) Goyim? = "nations"

Gentiles: New Testament:

Strong�s Concordance: #1484� ethnos (eth'‑nos); probably from 1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non‑Jewish) one (usually by implication, pagan): KJV‑‑ Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Thayer�s Definition: #1484� ethnos‑:

1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together; a company, a troop, a swarm

2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus,

the human race

3) a race, a nation, a people, a group

4) in the Old Testament, foreign nations not worshiping the true God, pagans, Gentiles

5) Paul uses the term for Gentile (non‑Jewish) Christians

Therefore, I am sending this to you as the Lord Jesus Christ has laid it upon my heart to do. In this presentation you will find some things you will not wish to believe, because it is completely opposite to the teachings you have been given from the pulpits of America. But I respectfully ask that you give me the courtesy to read it in its entirety before you throw it away. That is all I ask.

�� What is A Gentile

Gentile: "gentilis"

1). Among Jews, one not a Jew.

2). Among Christians, a heathen or pagan.

3). Among Mormons, one not a Mormon.

4). Of or pertaining to a gens, tribe, or people. ^[9]

Therefore, since you are a Christian you cannot be a "Gentile."

Now as you will soon see a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding has been caused by the use of the word "gentile" in the English translations of the Bible. So let us take up a brief study of it.

First: It should always be remembered that foreign languages often lose the strength� of their meaning through translation.

�� Second: It should also be remembered that some words have many meanings.

Take the word "man" as an illustration. Generically speaking it means "mankind" generally, both men and women. But if it is used in the same sentence with the word woman, it means the "male of the species." If it is used in the same sentence with the word "boy" it means the "mature of the species." Thus the word "man" has three meanings, the meaning of the word being determined by its use in the context.

Man: Strong�s Concordance: #120� 'adam (aw‑dawm'); from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): KJV‑‑ X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Brown-Driver-Brigg�s Definition: #120� 'adam‑

1) man, mankind

a) man, human being

b) man, mankind (the much more frequently‑intended sense in the Old Testament)

c) Adam, the first man

d) a city in the Jordan River valley

The word "Camel" generically speaking means "A large Asian or African ruminant with a humped back, used in the desert as a beast of burden." However, in America it also has come to mean "a cigarette by that name." Thus the word "Camel" has two meanings, the meaning of the word being determined by its use.

The word "Ivory" means "A hard, white, smooth‑textured dentine, the chief substance of the tusks of elephants, walruses; Any substance resembling ivory; The creamy white color of ivory; The keys of a piano; and type of soap used in cleaning.�. Thus the word "Ivory" has come to have five meanings, the word meaning of the word being determined by its use in the context.

Now you can understand that the word "gentile" is a translation of the Hebrew word "goi" [singular] and "goyim" [plural] and the Greek word "ethnos" [singular] and "ethne" [plural]. Thus when the translators use the word "gentile" to translate these words is often misleading because it is a misapplication of the Hebrew and Greek words as used in the Bible.

The modern use of the word has come to mean non‑Jew or non‑Israel, but that meaning cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence that will be presented in this study.

The Hebrew word "goi" is a collective noun meaning "nation" or sometimes a collective body of people. But it has been translated into English many different ways. The word occurs 557 times in the Old Testament. The Authorized Version of the Bible translates it "gentile" 30 times; "heathen" 142 times; "nation" 373 times; "people" 11 times; and "another" once. But the American Standard Revised Version cuts the occurrence of "gentile" from 30 to 9 times, and then shows in the footnotes of 5 of those 9 times that the word "nations" should have been used.

Of course the word "nation" is not always an exact equivalent term because there is too much of a political significance attached to it. But it is much better than the word "gentile" and some of our best translators prefer the word "nations." This is also shown by the way the Revised Version eliminates the word "gentiles."

The same thing is true of the Greek word "ethnos." It occurs 164 times in the New Testament. In the Authorized Version it is translated "gentiles" 93 times; "heathen" 5 times; "nation or nations" 64 times; and "people" twice. In the American Standard Revised Version it is "gentiles" 96 times in the text and 7 times in the footnotes, making 103 occurrences altogether. But in the footnotes it is corrected 15 times to read "nations," making the final count 88. So not only the Hebrew word "goi" but also the Greek word "ethnos" has been translated to read "nations" more than any other word.

Though the word "gentiles" and the word "heathen" are used many times in the Bible. We must face the facts that there are NO Hebrew or Greek words that would demand this translation.

If you will consult a good dictionary, you will find that the word "gentile" is derived from the Latin word "gentilis" and properly understood means "non‑something." As used by a Jew or an Israelite it would mean non‑Jew or non‑Israelite as we have already pointed out. But they are not the only people who have a right to use the word, which is why we presented the Mormon portion to demonstrate that point.

In other words, suppose a Buddhist priest spoke Latin and he wanted to refer to the nations that were not Buddhist, he would call them "gentilis."

In Hebrew and Greek, there is no EXACT equivalent to the Latin word "gentilis" or the English word "gentile." Nevertheless, if this same Buddhist priest spoke Hebrew and Greek along with his Latin and wanted to refer to the nations that were not Buddhist, he would call them "goyim" if speaking Hebrew and "ethne" if speaking Greek, and each time he would naturally include the Jewish and Israel people.

Likewise a Moslem priest could use the three languages and refer to the Jews or the Israelites as "gentilis, goyim and ethne."

One very important thing you must always keep in mind is that "goi" and "ethnos" are collective nouns and cannot properly be translated to mean an individual person. They always refer to a group.

There is no such thing as A Gentile; it is always plural. "Gentiles" in its plural sense may at times be used to translate "goi" and "ethnos" but its use gives an added thought not intended in the original word which cannot in every case be justified.

Another important word found in the Hebrew text, which needs only passing notice is the Hebrew word "am" and is found many times in the Old Testament text.

It is translated "nation" but 17 times. It is usually translated "people," for it occurs that way 1,835 times in our English text. Occasionally it is qualified by the phrase, "every people," but when it is rendered "the people" it usually means Israel. But this is not the word that has been the source of misunderstanding. Translations of the Hebrew word "goi" and the Greek word "ethnos" have caused the trouble.

The Hebrew word "goi" and the Greek word "ethnos" in their singular and plural forms are used in three ways in the Bible.

1). In referring to the Israel and Jewish people ‑‑ let us note the verses which follow below found in the Old Testament and New Testament which refer either to Israel or the Jews as a nation and use the Hebrew word "goi" and the Greek word "ethnos."

To demonstrate the absurdity of always translating the word "goi" or "ethnos" as "gentile" we suggest that you read the following verses substituting the word "gentile" or "heathen," for "nation or nations":

"I will make of thee a great nation [gentile/heathen]." ^[10]

"A father of many nations [gentile/heathen] have I made thee."� ^[11]

"Lord, wilt thou slay a righteous nation [gentile/heathen]?" ^[12]

"Two nations [gentile/heathen] are in thy womb." ^[13]

"A nation [gentile/heathen] and a company of nations [gentile/heathen]." ^[14]

�His seed shall become a multitude of nations [gentile/heathen]." ^[15]

"Ah sinful nation [gentile/heathen], a people laden with iniquity." ^[16]

"Send him against an hypocritical nation [gentile/heathen]." ^[17]

�� "Shall cease from being a nation [gentile/heathen] before me." �^[18]

"He loveth our nation [gentile/heathen] and hath built us a synagogue." ^[19]

"The Romans shall come and take away our place and nation [gentile/heathen]." ^[20]

"That one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation [gentile/heathen] perish not." ^[21]

"Worthy deeds are done unto the nation [gentile/heathen] by thy providence." ^[22]

"I came to bring alms to my nation [gentile/heathen]." ^[23]

Now can you see and understand. For from the foregoing verses and many many others that could be given, it can easily be seen that the Hebrew word "goi" and the Greek word "ethnos" do not always refer to non‑Israel people.

2. Now let us read a few verses where the same words are used and, as can be seen, refer very definitely to non‑Israel people.

"With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of (nations)." ^[24]

"And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a (nation)."� ^[25]

"For I will make him a great (nation)." ^[26]

"There was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a (nation)." ^[27]

"For I will cast out the (nations) before thee." ^[28]

"Have the gods of the (nations) delivered them." ^[29]

"Go not into the way of the (Gentiles)." ^[30]

"For nation shall rise against (nation)." ^[31]

"Led away captive into all (nations)." ^[32]

"And the (nation) to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God." ^[33]

"But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the (people) of Samaria."� ^[34]

"Because that on the (Gentiles) also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." ^[35]

In these verses three words have been used to translate the same Greek word "ethnos," and they are "nations, gentiles and people."

3. Now we come to the third way in which the words have been used, and that is to describe all nations, which of course always includes Israel and non‑Israel nations.

"And in thy seed shall all the (nations) of the earth be blessed." ^[36]

"Two (nations) are in thy womb." ^[37]

"Declare his glory among the (heathen); his marvellous works among all (nations)." ^[38]

"Let the (heathen) be judged in thy sight. Put them in fear, O Lord: that the (nations) may know themselves to be but men. Selah."� ^[39]

Notice: The last two verses have used the two words "heathen" and "nations" to translate the same word in one passage.

"And ye shall be hated of all (nations) for my name's sake...This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations." ^[40]

"Go ye therefore, and teach all (nations)." ^[41]

"But in every (nation) he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." ^[42]

We must also direct your attention to another Greek word erroneously translated "gentiles." The word is "hellen" and means "Greeks." It is used 27 times in the New Testament. In 20 places it is properly translated Greeks, but in 7 other places in the Authorized version it is erroneously translated "gentiles." This has been corrected in the Revised Version and nearly all subsequent translations. For example, the Authorized Version translates� John 7:35 to read:

"Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?"

Nearly all revised versions translate this to read:

�Will he go unto the dispersed among the Greek and teach the Greek?"

Another example can be found in 1 Corinthians 10:32:

"Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."

Now there are several articles by well‑known Bible teachers who reject the Israel identity of the Anglo‑Saxon people because they say that this verse gives the only classes that God now recognizes. In other words they claim on the authority of this verse that the human race is divided into Jews, Gentiles and the Church of God.

As you can see, this is a good example of how anything can be proved by taking a verse out of its context. The context shows that Paul was admonishing people to be conscientious in their walk so as not to offend a weak brother.

The division made in the text is only incidental to the point he was trying to make. And then too, the text does not say that there are only three classes of people. What it does say is, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."

Now if this text were given to show a division of humanity, then it leaves the vast majority of the race out entirely, because the word that is translated "gentiles" is a palpable mistranslation and should be translated "Greeks." This is exactly the way the Revised Version gives it, as is also true of most private translations. But you do not even need a Revised Version to discover this error. Any good Bible with a marginal reading will show this to be true.

The Greek word that has been translated "gentiles" in this verse is "hellen" and means "Greeks." So, if, as these men have claimed, this verse proves there are only three classes of people in the world which God now recognizes, then they are the Jews, the Greeks and the Christians. Everybody else is left out.

By using the same method of reasoning we could quote Galatians 3:28 and prove that God does not recognize any distinction in the human race; then we could go to the other extreme and quote Colossians 3:11 to prove that God recognizes eight divisions of mankind.

However in these cases we would be taking the verses out of their context just as these men have done. But all of the confusion over this text would have been avoided if the word "Greeks" had been used instead of "gentiles." Paul was writing to the Corinthians. Corinth was in Greece.

There were three classes of people mentioned here; Jew, Greek and Christian. Had Paul been writing to the Romans he no doubt would have said, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Romans, nor to the church of God."

Besides these examples, there are three other places where "hellen" has been translated "gentiles" where it should have been translated "Greeks." These are found in Romans 2:9‑10; 3:9; and 1 Corinthians 12:13.

While on this subject a few words should be said about the way the word "gentiles" has been used in the Epistle to the Romans, one of the important books in the New Testament. And on this matter we will borrow some thoughts from the late Dr. Wm. Pascoe Goard.

In Dr. Goard's book, "Epistle to the Romans," he has given some illuminating comments on how the word "ethne" refers to the ten‑tribed Israel. In these chapters the Apostle Paul quotes quite freely from Hosea, Isaiah and Elijah, and as Dr. Goard shows, all these quotations refer to facts in the history of ten‑tribed Israel, and not in the history of Judah nor in the history of any other nation.

Thus when the word "gentiles" (Greek word "ethne") is used in these three chapters it definitely is ten‑tribed Israel. It is not a contrast between Israel and non‑Israel people. It is a contrast between Israel in 975 B.C. and Israel known as the "nations" in A.D. 60.

Do not let the word "gentiles" mislead you. The Greek word is "ethne" and means "nations." The Apostle Paul in this Israel section of his epistle is merely contrasting Israel's former state when she was known as Israel with her state in his day when she was known as the "nations." To use the popularized meaning of the word, they had become "gentilized" in the sense that they were not known as Israel.

Israel was one nation God had called out from among the other nations; now she was just like the other nations. She had lost her identity so much that the Apostle Paul said; blindness was to stay on Israel until the "fulness of the gentiles" (nations) be come in Romans 11:25. This "fullness of the gentiles" should be fullness of "nations." It is a direct reference to Genesis 48:19, where it is stated that Ephraim was to become a "multitude of nations" in the last days.

This is confirmed by the fact that both Dr. Delitzsch's translation of the New Testament into Hebrew ‑‑ sold by the British and Foreign Bible society; and the Ginsburg‑Salkinson's New Testament, published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, for the use of the Jews, have the very same Hebrew words, "me lo hag‑goyim,� in Romans 11:25, that we find in(Genesis 48:19, in the Hebrew Old Testament, and in this verse only.

We use the expression "multitude of nations" because it is given as the correct reading in most Bibles in preference to "fullness of nations." �In others words, Israel was to be blind to her identity until the tribe of Ephraim became a multitude of nations. That time has arrived now and that is the reason our identity as Israel is becoming known.

As Isaiah 25:7 reads, "He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations."

That veil is being lifted now and our real identity and the identity of other nations is becoming known.

Some scholars, in translating Genesis 48:19, where the Hebrew is "me lo hag‑goyim" render it a "company of gentile nations." We are of the opinion that "a company or multitude of nations" is the better translation.

However, there is nothing wrong with the translation if the right meaning is attached to the word "gentile." That is, they would become so much like the other nations that they would not be recognized as Israel. That, of course, is a different meaning given to the word than is meant in the original text.

To Summarize: the word "gentile" is derived from the Latin word "gentilis" and is only one of several words that are used to translate the Hebrew word "goi" and the Greek word "ethnos" into English. The best word to us is "nations." It would have been better if the word "gentile" had never appeared in the English text. Neither "goi" nor "ethnos" necessarily mean non‑Israel, as we have shown here.

The Greek words used for "know and knowledge" seem to carry somewhat of a different context or concept than todays English words do. In both the Hebrew and Greek tongue these words carried the connotation - "to know fully." "Knowledge strictly is the apprehension by the mind of some fact or truth in accordance with its real nature...Knowledge is distinguished from 'opinion' by its greater certainty.

The mind is constituted with the capacity for knowledge, and the desire to possess and increase it. The character of knowledge varies with its object. The senses give knowledge of outward appearances; the intellect connects and reasons about these appearances, and arrives at general laws or truths; moral truth is apprehended through the power inherently possessed by men of distinguishing right and wrong in the light of moral principles; spiritual sympathy...The highest knowledge possible to man is the knowledge of God, and while there is that in God's infinity which transcends man's power of comprehension, God is knowable in the measure in which He has revealed Himself in creation, and supremely in Jesus Christ who alone perfectly knows the Father, and reveals Him to man..." ^[43]

The problem with knowledge is that it can "enlarge" a man's ego. St. Paul, who is said to have authored the book of 1st Corinthians, penned these words in the 8th Chapter verses 1 and 2: "...we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know."

In these passages, Paul was addressing, primarily, the pagan ritual of things offered to idols and their influence upon Christian fellowship with the heathen community, but the concepts of knowledge are for general application. Paul shows that a conceited knowledge is not a good thing.

But the man who understands that love is for more important than knowledge has a handle on "knowing" and the limits contained therein. True love for you neighbor (fellow Israelite) has a real concern that consults the interest of others. There can be found a common evidence of ignorance in a person and that evidence is a conceit of knowledge. That is why Paul said, "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing as yet he ought to know."

Many believe that Paul used these words here, because of the arrogance and forcefulness of the Jews, whose religion was Judaism ^[44] and their attitudes towards the "goyium," i.e., White Israelites. These Jews always want to be in control and more or less run the show. The person who knows most, is the one who best understands his own ignorance and the imperfections of human knowledge. The vain and conceited person, that "thinks" he knows everything, is drunk on his own imagination, a real Jewish trait.

He should examine himself to see if he really knows any thing alright. It surely is one thing to know truth and another thing to know truth as it ought to be known. When truth is known alright it will duly improve our knowledge. For God said: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (why?) Because thou (you) hast (have) rejected knowledge (therefore God will), I will also reject thee..." ^[45]

The man or woman who truly knows the YHWH of True Israel are taught and guided into knowing truth aright, and so must the living of his/her life accordingly. The man or woman who has a vain and conceited opinion of him/herself is impeding the leadership and/or guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This kind of knowledge can not be bought or sold. True wisdom does not come from books or personal experience, but rather from YHWH, His son and His Holy spirit. If the "Jew" word problem and society problem had never been introduced into society things might have been different, but it is there, it is a real live issue of today, for you and I.

We have to obtain truth aright from Scripture, history, both secular and Biblical, and from letting the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth, see John 14, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." ^[46]

Now, let us return to the wicked, commercial and immoral city of Corinth, that according to scholars, "Jews flocked to this trade center." ^[47] In Acts 18 we find that Paul encountered the Jewish problem first hand.

1). There were some Jews (and/or Judeans) there, along with some Greeks.

2). Paul reasoned with them, some opposed him and blasphemed and he said their blood would be on their heads.

3). Some Judeans believed in Christ. Jews lived among Israelites and Greeks in Corinth.

4). Upset Jews rose up in insurrection against Paul in strife.

5). The Jews instilled fear and silence in Corinthians, making them afraid to speak the truth.

6). The deceived Jews (Judeans) had to have a teacher (Paul) to show a more perfect knowledge of YHWH and Christ.

7). Apparently all Jews did not worship God.

8). Paul is accused by Jews before the Roman court.

9). The court cleared Paul of any wrong.

10). The Jews took their contempt out on another person.

There are many people who live in Texas and are called Texans. But all these Texans are not of the same race, region, or religion. There are some True Israelites (Hebrews) in Texas. We are sure that there are some Jewish Texans also. How can one tell one from the other.

There is probably no way one can, unless, they tell you who they are or what they are or we can see their fruits which produce evidence. If a person is asked if he is Jewish or an Israelites, we feel that a true Israelite would tell all he knows about his religion.

But Jews, back then and even today, are almost always afraid of the truth. John 8:44 says that the father of the Jews is the devil and a liar. Apparently the real nature (part of the definition of know, supra) of the Jew is trickery, deception and lies. True Israelites know that it is wrong to lie instinctively. ^[48]

�� Who Are The Pharisees

�� And Are The �Jews� Israel?

The children of the promise are the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whereas the children of the flesh are children from other unions such as the descendants of Ishmael and Esau.

It also dealt with the genealogies of Christ and the Pharisees and it was concluded that the Pharisees at the time of Christ, like Ishmael and Esau, while of the seed of Abraham, were not children of the promise.

If the Pharisees, who were also called Jews, were not children of the promise, who then is a Jew and who is an Israelite? We will save the subject of Israelites for another publication and just deal with Pharisees and Jews. However, this story begins with Abraham, who had eight children: Isaac from Sarah; Ishmael from the handmaiden Hagar; and six others from Keturah; not counting the daughters.

Of all these children only one child became the child of the promise and that was Isaac. Isaac only had two children: twin boys named Esau and Jacob. But again, only one child was the child of the promise and that was Jacob. Later God would change his name to Israel. Jacob/Israel had twelve sons from two wives and two handmaidens and each of these sons, as descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, became children of the promise. ^[49]

At this time we are only interested in one of those sons named Judah. Judah had five sons, two of whom God killed, but only two of the remaining three were children of the promise. Throughout Biblical history there have been numerous conflicts between the children of the flesh born in juxtaposition to children of the promise, and some are listed below:

Abel vs. Cain;

Shem vs. Ham (Canaan);

Isaac vs. Ishmael;

Israel vs. Moabites/Ammonites (Lot's children);

Jacob vs. Esau/Edomites;

Israel vs. Amalakites, and

Pharez and Zerah vs. Shelahites.

These conflicts between the children of the Promise and the children of the Flesh are later described in Scripture as being conflicts between the good seed and the tares. Scripture records a strange story in the events surrounding the births of each of these children.

Without getting into a lengthy discussion, Cain and Abel were born subsequent to the fall and of course Cain slew Abel; Canaanites were cursed because Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, yet Noah cursed Canaan - not Ham; Moabites/ Ammonites due to an incestuous relationship between Lot and his two daughters; Esau is recorded as fighting with his twin brother Jacob in the womb of his mother; Amalakites {of Esau} from the relationship between a concubine and Esau's son born of Esau's Hittite wife; and Shelah born of a Canaanite wife of Judah.

�� The First Jews

First let us make it abundantly clear that there were no Jews prior to the 1700s, for the letter �J� had not been invented prior to that time. �J�; This letter has been added to the English Alphabet in modern days; the letter I being written formerly in words where J is now used.

It seems to have had the sound of y, in many words, as it still has in the German. The English sound of this letter may be expressed by dsh, or edth. A compound sound coinciding exactly with of g, in genius; the French j, with the articulation d preceding it. It is the tenth letter of the English Alphabet. ^[50]

Genesis 5:2‑3: �Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.� Please note that neither Cain nor Able is mentioned in Adam�s line. Therefore, we can conclude from this that neither Cain nor Able were Adam�s children. For if they had God certainly would have instructed that they be noted as such.

Neither is there any mention of Cain and Abel in the Chronology of Adam listed in 1^st Chronicles: �Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.� ^[51] By this we know that none of the offspring of Cain were not the seed of Adam, and were the seed of the Devil, just as Christ told us in John 8:44.

The very first people, that of the descendants of Adam, Seth, Abraham, Isaac (Whom we, the White Race is named after as instructed by Jacob/Israel in the 48^th chapter of Genesis). �The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.� ^[52]

This has been fulfilled, in that the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred people of the earth have been called �Anglo-Saxons� after the name of Isaac. And they have, have also, been called after Jacob/Israel because they have been called Israelites.

These same people have always occupied the center of the earth, for they can be found to have created nations and civilizations just north and south of the equator.

However, we must mention here that Esau as the brother to Jacob; so he was never an Israelite; but his seed would have been of mixed blood, because of his marriage to the Hittite women: �And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.� ^[53]

Then we are told in Genesis 28:8‑9: �And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.�

Thus we can see clearly that neither Esau nor any of his descendants were Israelites. But all of his children from that time on could be classified as Jews. Also, his descendants could be called brothers to the Arabs, because he married one of Ishmael�s daughters.

The first time that a mixed multitude is mentioned in the Bible is in Exodus 12:37‑38: �And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.� Then the mixed multitude is mentioned again in Nehemiah: �Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.� ^[54]

The Jewish Encyclopedia, states: "Edom is in modern Jewry.� ^[55] Which is a true statement, based on the above information that we have seen in the Scriptures. The Jews know this and they know they are not Israelites because they have admitted it, both here and in: Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a �Jew� or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." ^[56]

There was another group of mixed breeds which came back from the Babylonian captivity with some of the True Israelites which returned to build the Temple. During this time the priests found that many of the Israelites had married into the other races, and had strange wives (meaning they were not Israelites) and were told to separate themselves from them: �Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.� ^[57]

The Shelah Connection

To understand that the Pharisees at the time of Christ and those of Jewry in the 20th century are at least partial descendants of the children of the flesh, we must go back and begin with Judah, Jacob's 4th son of Leah and his descendants. The story of Judah's marriage and descendants is recorded in Genesis, Chapter 38.

Genesis, Chapter 37 ends with Joseph being sold into Egypt and the story of Joseph starts again in Chapter 39. It is both interesting and strange that Chapter 38 should be placed at this particular place in the Scriptures about a subject totally unrelated to the former and latter chapters.

We are told in verse 1 that Judah "went down from his brethren." This appears to have been an act of poor judgement such as later Dinah exhibited and was raped due to her poor judgement.

We are not told the reason for Judah's poor judgement but it begins the history of conflict between Judah and his brothers which will continue till the later separation of the nation into the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

Judah, being separated from his family ties, could and did fall prey to the women in the land who were not his kinsmen according to the flesh. We are told that Judah: "...saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her." ^[58]

This connection was contrary to the will of God and Judah should have known better from his upbringing if not the example of his fathers. His indiscretion or poor judgement in forming an alliance with the people in the land was a crime that produced bastard children.

If this bastardization of Israel was to continue the chosen people would soon be assimilated into surrounding heathenism and would no longer be God's chosen people. Thus we see the necessity for God to separate His people from these heathen peoples. In any event Judah took a Canaanite for a wife and had three bastard sons {sons born from mixed seed}: Er, Onan, and Shelah. We say bastard sons because in the Old Testament a bastard was a child born from a mixed marriage with an Israelite and another race. ^[59] When the time came that Er, Judah's eldest son, was to have a wife, Judah obtained for him a woman named Tamar.

We are not told how or why, but Er was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" ^[60] and the Lord slew him. We are not told what this wickedness was but the word used here also means evil and mischief and these definitions lead many to believe this evil had something to do with the law. Being raised by his Canaanite mother, he would have become indoctrinated in the ways of the pagan Canaanites - not the ways of the Lord.

According to the law, Onan, Er's younger brother, had to marry Tamar and raise up seed to his elder brother, Er. However, Onan was wicked also, and refused to do this, spilling his seed on the ground. ^[61] This was probably because of the threat of losing the inheritance {that is, he would be raising up seed for his brother}, again, possibly from the training he received from his Canaanite mother. In any event, God also slew Onan.

Once again, according to the law Tamar should have been given to the third son, Shelah, that he might raise up sons for his elder brother. However, by this time Judah must have been just a little bit concerned. After all, Tamar had already been the wife of two of his sons and both had been killed by the Lord. Thus it is easy to understand his reluctance. Scripture tells us that Judah told Tamar to wait until Shelah was older; however, when he got older Judah failed or refused to give Tamar to Shelah. Tamar waited and waited but Shelah eventually took another for a wife, apparently with his father's blessing.

It is recorded in the 45th chapter of the book of Jasher that Tamar was a daughter from the genealogy of Elam, the son of Shem. That she was a daughter of Shem makes sense in view of what Judah said when he found out she was pregnant with child. Scripture records that it was reported to Judah that: "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also behold, she is with child by whoredom. And judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."� ^[62]

Stoning was the normal mode of capital punishment at that time in history - death by fire was not the normal procedure used to execute someone. Therefore it is significant that Judah pronounced death by burning for that was reserved for priests' daughters who brought disgrace upon the sacred office. The law states: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." ^[63] Since Judah pronounced death by fire we are able to conclude that she must have been the daughter of a priest. However, one would think that if she was, she should be aware of the law prohibiting mixed marriages. But perhaps that was not the case.

Tamar could have been imported from another geographical area as was Rebecca for Isaac. Thus at the time of her arrival and marriage to Er and Onan she could have been unaware of the covenant God had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. Not being aware of the covenant she would not know that the two men she married were half Canaanite and half Israelite and not legitimate heirs to the promise.

By the time Shelah had taken another wife, Tamar was probably educated in the covenant relationship with God and realized that even if she was given to Shelah, any sons from that union would not produce a bloodline heir. This is about the only logical reason for her to play the harlot, entrapping Judah to become the father of her children (Pharez and Zerah) at the risk of being put to fiery death. It would also partially explain Judah's response when he found out that he was the father and stated: "She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son."^[64]

Although Judah may not have totally understood or admitted that his marriage to a Canaanite was in violation of the law, he is, at least, acknowledging that Tamar should have been the mother of children of the birthright. He must have understood this birthright problem sooner or later, as the scepter was not passed to Shelah, Judah's third and only surviving son from Shuah, but to Judah's firstborn son from Tamar who was named Pharez. This is evidenced by the fact that Pharez's name appears in the genealogies of Christ in Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:23.

The union of Judah with Tamar produced the twin births of Pharez and Zerah, and once again Judah had three sons: 1). Shelah, who was a bastard {� Canaanite & � of Judah} by his Canaanite wife; 2). Pharez; and 3). Zerah, the latter two both from Tamar. Pharez and Zerah being the sons of Judah, the son of Jacob/Israel, and Tamar the daughter of the genealogy of Shem, were full-blooded Israelites even though they were born out of wedlock.

The whole story is recorded in Genesis 38. These births produced three descendant lines from Judah which we will call Pharez-Judah, Zerah-Judah, and Shelah-Judah. The question now becomes, what happened to the three descendants of Judah: Pharez, Zerah and Shelah?

It will simply be stated at this point in the study that Pharez and Zerah were children of the promise whereas Shelah was a child of the flesh and destined to become the father of the Pharisees. This study will not be concerned with Pharez and Zerah - only the family of Shelah will be addressed.

�� Shelah-Judah

We need to keep in mind the fact that a strict genealogy was kept on each tribe. Even though Shelah was a bastard son of Judah, his genealogy is given in Scripture and his descendants can be traced to the city of Elath. In Chronicles it is recorded: "The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanite. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. And tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five. The sons of Pharez; Hezron, and Hamul. And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all. And the sons of Carmi; Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed. And the sons of Ethan; Azariah." ^[65]

Verse 3 is unusual, as once a name is dropped from the promised seed line it usually does not appear in later genealogies. For example the descendants of Cain do not appear in the genealogies of Adam in Genesis, Chapter 5, or Matthew 1 or Luke 3. It is difficult to determine exactly when the Book of Chronicles was written, however verse 1 of chapter 9 states: "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression." ^[66]

Since the first 8 chapters deal with the genealogies of Adam to this statement in verse 1 of chapter 9, which refers to the Babylonian captivity, it seems apparent that this portion of Chronicles was not recorded until sometime after the Babylonian captivity (600 B.C.) - perhaps by Ezra or Nehemiah.

Again, all of Judah's sons must be important or they would not be recorded in Scripture, especially since the descendants of Shelah were not children of the promise. It should be noted that verses 5 and 6 list the descendants of Pharez and Zerah, and verse 8 begins with Ethan, a son of Zerah.

What is missing here are the sons of Shelah. But verse 7 seems to be completely out of place as it lists the genealogy of a person named "Carmi."

Carmi is not one of the five sons of Judah, nor is he listed in the Genealogies of Pharez or Zerah. The name also appears in 1 Chronicles 4:1, but it is still unclear whose son he was. However, it is most interesting that his son "Achar" is referred to as "the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed." ^[67] While it appears impossible to prove it, it is suggested that "Carmi" and his son "Achar," the troubler of Israel, were in the genealogy of Shelah.

We mentioned that these names were also listed in Chronicles, chapter 4, as follows: "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were, Er the father of Lecah, and laadah the father of Maresbah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea, And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And these are ancient things. These were the potters, and those that dwelt among plants and hedges; thee they dwell with the king for his work." ^[68]

Again there is no mention of "Carmi" nor his son "Achar," but her we do have a reference to these descendants of Shelah being "men of Chozeba." Chozeba was a town in southwestern Judah and is also the town of Chezib of Genesis 38:5 and Achzib of Joshua 15:44. The words Chezib, Achzib or Chozeba mean "lying," "deceptive," "disappointing," or "failing." It is also interesting that Shelah-Judah was born in Chezib ^[69] and it appears that his descendants centuries later inherited this same city.

In Joshua we find that: "This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; even to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward was the utter most part of the south coast. And Keilab, and Achzib, and Mareshah; nine cities with their villages." ^[70]

Thus we see that the town of "Achzib" was given to some descendants of Judah. Achzib or Chozeba was located in the valley of Elath. Elath was in Old Edom in the valley of Elath and north of Adullum. The word "Adullum" should ring a bell as that was the place where Judah went down from his brothers and took a Canaanite for a wife. This was on the extreme southern border of the Southern Kingdom of Judah at the northern end of the Gulf of Aquabah.

In fact most scholars seem to be in agreement that this area was actually outside the land inherited by Judah. This would make some sense as we know that a bastard could not even enter the congregation, even unto the tenth generation;^[71] therefore it would also make sense that these Shelahites, being bastards, could not inherit land belonging to the children of the promise.

But this does not mean that they could not be given land on the southern border of Judah. The city of Elath was next to Ezion-geber, which would later become Solomon's seaport. Remember now that these Shelahites are � Canaanite, and the word Canaanite is defined in Strong's Concordance as merchants and traders. Doesn't it seem logical that merchants and traders would congregate in the cities, and especially in and around a busy seaport where they could engage in trade, commerce, and industry?

There is another reference to this city named "Achzib" in the Book of Micah where it states: "The house of Achzib shall be a lie to the kings of Israel." ^[72]

Is it just a coincidence that Shelah was born at "Chezib" which is basically the same word as Achzib? Is it coincidence that the word "Achzib� so closely resembles and has the same meaning as "Achar," the troubler of Israel? Remember these words mean "lying," "deceptive," "disappointing," or "falling." Was it not a lie that Shelah was a true child of the promise? Would not their existence next to and/or as a part of Israel make any claim they would make as being a descendant of Abraham, ^[73] entitled to receive the promises, a lie or at the least a clever deception?

Jews From Elath

Elath or Eloth was a part of the land of Edom belonging to the descendants of Esau who were called Edomites an later Idumeans. Apparently Elath and Ezion-geber came under the control of Israel in 1040 B.C. by David's conquest of Edom as recorded in 2 Samuel 8:13-14. This land is also mentioned as being under the rule of Solomon in approximately 1000 B.C.^[74]

The land passed back into Edomite control in 890 B.C. during the days of Jehoarm, king of Judah.^[75] 80 years later in 810 B.C., the city of Elath was rebuilt� under the kingship of Azariah or Uszziah.^[76] This historical background brings us to the time of the "Jews from Elath" as recorded in 2 Kings, Chapter 16, which states: "In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign. Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could over come him. At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath..." ^[77]

Keep in mind that the time frame is approximately 750 B.C., which is around 200 years after the split of Israel into the Houses of Judah and Israel in 975 B.C., and just before the beginning of the Assyrian captivity in 721-745 B.C. By this time Jotham was the king of Judah {the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin}, and Pekah was the king of Israel {the 10 northern tribes}.

It is the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel {not Judah}, who formed an alliance and went to war against the House of Judah. During that war they were unable to take Jerusalem, but Rezin, king of Syria, was able to recover the city of Elath and "drave the Jews from Elath."

As previously stated, Elath was far south of the area inherited by Judah and was given to Shelah as an inheritance. Again this was probably done because as a bastard, he could not enter the congregation of Israel nor inherit with the children of Israel. Remember, these people were part Canaanite, and in Strong's Concordance the word "Canaanite" means merchants and traders. Merchants cannot be merchants except in populated areas and therefore would have a propensity to migrate towards the cities, so it is logical to conclude that they were the ones who resided in Elath and were driven there-from.

It was from this area called Elath, and this area alone, that Rezin "drave the Jews." Ahaz, king of Judah {Southern Kingdom}, was still in Jerusalem and was never defeated nor was he driven anywhere. Pekah, king of Israel {Northern Kingdom}, apparently returned home. Therefore, whatever "Jews" were driven from Elath were only a small portion of people located South of Judah - not all of the House of Judah, and none of the House of Israel. Therefore, the word "Jews," as used in this verse does not include any people from the House of Israel and probably none from the House of Judah. This limits the use of the word "Jew" in the Old Testament to a very small group of people who resided in the town of Elath, who were most likely descendants of Shelah.

Scripture does not tell us where these so-called "Jews from Elath" went after being driven from Elath, but being traders and merchants they would be city dwellers, and it is probably safe to assume that they moved north to the walled city of Jerusalem. After Rezin "drave the Jews" from Elath the area was again populated but this time by Edomites.

The word "Jews" is used for the first time in Scripture in the King James Authorized (KJA) version in this verse. If you own a 1592 copy of the Geneva Bible, or a 1611 King James version and will open it to this verse you will not find the word "Jew."

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Up to the seventeenth century this word was spelled in the Middle English in various ways:...Ieue, Ieu, Iwe, Iewe, Iue... corresponding to the Hebrew...a gentile adjective from the proper name 'Judah' seemingly never a;;lied to member of the tribe {of Judah}, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the South of Palestine. It appears to have been afterward extended to apply to Israelites in the North..." ^[78]

If you will once again look at 2 Kings 16:6 in an original 1611 KJA version, you will find one of these words - You will not find the word "Jews."� And probably more interesting in this quote is the fact that the word "Ieue,� etc., was never applied to the tribe of Judah but to a nationality "inhabiting the South of Palestine." The encyclopedia fails to point out who these people were but it has previously been shown that the land South of Judah was occupied by the Shelah branch of Judah - a bastard son from his Canaanite wife.

According to Biblical scholar Alexander Schiffner: "The first reference to any Jews in Scripture is found in 2 Kings 16:6. The name was applied to a remnant of Judah�s descendants of the Shelah Branch. Shelah-Judah was born in Chezib^{^[79]} and his descendants centuries later inherited his territory.^[80] Remember a strict genealogy was kept of each tribe and branch.^[81]

Chezib,^[82]� Achzib ^[83] and Chozeba ^[84] refer to one and the same place. it was a town in the lowlands of western Judah and was given to the Shelah branch of Judah for their inheritance.� ^[85]

This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families.'� The word Chezib, Achzh or Chozeba means 'deceptive' or 'failing' and the place received its name from a winter spring or brook, which failed in the summer heat. {Symbolic of the failing of the Shela branch of Judah under trial}. It was the place where Judah was at the time of the birth of his half-breed son, Shelah. ^[86]

In 1 Chronicles 4:21-22 it is called 'Chozeba.' it is in the valley of Elath and north of Addulum. Note 2 Kings 16:6 - the first reference to this branch of Judah; 'the Jews of Elath.' The Jews are the remnant' of 'Yehudim' of Judah. This branch of Judah rejected Christ. They are the open witness, 'The shew of their countenance doth witness against them - their tongue and their doings are against the Lord - they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not.'� ^[87]. ^[88]

James Fox, the author of several books, wrote of Shelah: "The reason for the divergence of facial appearance between the true Hebrew or Abrahamic White-Race Men, and the Jews, is that the patriarch Judah disobeyed God's will at the outset by marrying a Canaanitish woman called 'Shua' ^{^[89]}, producing descendants all half-castes, later known as 'Jews.' ^[90]

According to these authors, the "Jews of Elath" were the 'remnant' of 'Yehudim' of Judah, and verses 5 and 6 of 2 Kings, chapter 16, are the first reference to the mongrel Canaanite branch of Judah where they are referred to as "Jews" ^[91]. The use of the word "Jews" in 2 Kings 16:6 rather than "Ieues" has added to the misconception that the Jews are all of Israel, when it is obvious that in this verse only a small group of people were implied - those living in Elath - which omits the entire northern ten tribes and the majority of the House of Judah.

The major problem with the Jew in Any-town USA's conversations is that the word carries so many definitions and so few seem very want to know fully what he is really talking about or referring to when he uses the term "Jew."

Most so-called (c)hristians of today, even those who are of Israelite stock, and are not aware of it, don't want to hear the words, concepts and truth contained in this study. Those of Israelite heritage may find some fulfillment in Jeremiah's words, found in Chapter 5:30-31 which sound all too familiar: "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

Some think that the King James Version is the only correct version. This version was written in 1611, but it for sure contains some errors.

Look at John 4:22, where Christ tells the woman of Samari: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews." This is a primary script for the problem we face today, for any discerning true Christian Israelite should see this is not a true statement, but rather a false one based on its own merits.

Any Christian should realize the truth that salvation does not come through any religion or any race of people, but through Jesus the Christ.

The Ferrar Fenton version, which comes from the original Greek text, says: "the salvation comes from among the Judeans." Now which way should we Israelites come to know fully the truth of this verse? If Christ came out of the region of Judea and the Hebrew tribe of Judah, then He is the way, the truth and the life. ^[92]

Paul planted the first Christian Church in Corinth, teaching that Christ is the Salvation for His people. But we hear the resounding common statement, but Pontius Pilate said that He was "King of the Jews." But did he really say that as most, deceived, Judeo-Christians believe?

There are some who say, "Thank God! My Savior Was Not A Jew!," that there is a historical record found in the Achoko Volume in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C., containing an official record of one of Pilate's correspondences.

He states on pages 137-139: "The Archoko record gives an eye-witness account from Pontius Pilate, who testified that Jesus did not look like, or act like a Jew. Here is the account as it appears in this official record: To Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome Noble Sovereign, Greetings: '...Among various rumors that came to my ears there was one in particular that came to my attention. A young man it was said, had appeared in Galilee, preaching with noble unction a new law in the name of the God who 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 a 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 who listened to him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance an almost 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 he and his hearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!...

Never have I heard in the words of the philosopher, anything that can compare with the maxims of Jesus. One of the rebellious Jews, so numerous in Jerusalem, asked Jesus if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, he replied: 'Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which are God's...

I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with him at the praetorium and he came."� (Think now for a moment on your own, without having some Judeo-Christian preacher tell you that this is fantasy. What would be so strange in this? Even though this meeting is not recorded in the Gospels, we know that most of what Christ did during His three years of public ministry was never recorded). ^[93]

Pilate's report to Caesar continues: 'You know that in my veins flows the spanish mixed with Roman blood...When the Nazarene made his appearance, I was walking in my basilic, and my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement, and I trembled in every limb as does a guilty culprit, though the Nazarene was as calm as innocence itself. When he came up to me and stopped, and by a signal sign seemed to say to me, 'I am here!' though he spoke not a word. For some time I contemplated with admiration and awe, this extraordinary type of man, a type unknown to our numerous painter...There was nothing about him that was repelling in its character and I felt awed and tremulous to approach him.

Jesus, I said to him at last, 'Jesus of Nazareth, for the last three years I have granted you ample freedom of speech ^{^[94]}nor do I regret it. Your words are those of a sage. I know not whether you have read Socrates or Plato, but this I know, there is in your discourse a majestic simplicity that elevates you above those philosophers...'your blood shall not be spilled,' I said, with deep emotion, 'you are more precious in my estimation on account of your wisdom than all the turbulent and proud Pharisees who abuse the freedoms granted them by Rome. They conspire against Caesar, and convert his bounty into fear, impressing on the unlearned, that Caesar is a tyrant who seeks their ruin...i will protect you against them. My praetorium shall be an asylum both day and night.' I am our obedient servant, Pontius Pilate."

You can accept this letter, as we do, since it makes sense, or dismiss it as most of your Judeo-Christian preachers and church Bible scholars will do. But, think for yourself!

Doesn't it make sense to you that the Jews would try and suppress this truth? There is one point in the aforementioned passage of Acts 18 that most folks seem to over look. Paul came to Corinth and planted the first Christian Church with the True Israelite inhabitants who apparently were worshipping Judaism out of ignorance. With little success at first, but a s a rational, as well as spiritual preacher, Paul reasoned with all Jews (Both non-Israel and True Israel) not with force or violence but by fair arguing he won some over to his own opinion.

In verses 9 and 10, Paul had a vision. Each of us ought to know fully this vision and effectively grasp its meaning in our lives, today, as White Israelites. We read in the King James Version: "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city."

We should renew our own commission "be not afraid of the Jews."� That means be not afraid of the magistrates of the city, county, state or federal for they have no power against you but what is given them from above. We are pleading, like Paul, the cause of heaven and we need to do it boldly. We should not be afraid of their words, nor dismayed at their quirky looks and fraudulent judgments. At the right times we should speak, and not hold back.

We should let no opportunity slip by without speaking in defense of Christianity and in opposition to the Jews and their hideous Judaism. We should not speak shyly or with caution, but up front, plainly and fully and with courage. We need to speak out in the liberty of the Spirit that becomes an ambassador for Christ.

Paul did speak up and the "Jews" rose up against him, but the Lord went to court with him and threw out his accusers by the hand of a person in high position.

In this city that "Jews flocked to" you must remember that Corinth was a very profane and wicked city, full of impurity of all kinds and idols of all kinds. Yet in this great evil heap, with all its contempt for White Christian Israelites, i.e., the wheat, it sure seemed to human knowledge that the chaff would over come, but in this ore that seems to be all dross, there is gold. Even in Corinth, Christ had much people. So we need to unseat this "fear of the Jews syndrome" and expose their evil, wicked plot to destroy all Christianity. This needs to be done today, before time runs out. Have you come "to know fully" the truth about Judaism and Christianity?

In verses 12-17 of Acts, Chapter 18, we find another of Paul's many trying times with the Jews {worshipers of Judaism - Traditions of the Elders}. Paul is accused by member of this Jewish sect before the Roman Governor, Gallio. Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, that is he was the proconsul for this province of the Roman Empire. In modern words this Jewish sect filed a frivolous complaint in a Roman court against Paul and Gallio was to be the presiding judge.

Paul was rudely apprehended with violence and fury in broad day light. These Jews cared little for public peace and justice, so they made insurrection. To me this means that they used disturbance of the public peace and force, i.e., vi et armis, to apprehend Paul. They had little concern for his welfare or the safety of others. They, as they do today, already had pronounced Paul guilty in the media of their day. Just as they had at the trials of Christ. These enforcers hurried Paul off, probably in chains, to the judgment seat before Gallio. Paul was allowed no time, whatsoever, to prepare for his trial. Sounds like a familiar patriot scenario of arrest today, does it not?

Paul, much like Christ, is falsely accused before Gallio (v. 13). What was the formal charge? "This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law." My what a crime! Paul must have been "anti-Semitic." These Jews could not charge him with persuading men not to worship God at all or to worship other Gods. ^[95] So the only trumped up charge they could accuse him of breaking was "that he was attempting to persuade men to worship God in a way contrary to the law."

Now what in the world would you consider as being "contrary to the law." Does this sound a familiar alarm today? Sure it does! If you act "contrary" to the "law" of Title 26, your state motor vehicle "laws," or your property appraisal and collection "laws," see how fast you will be jerked up before some judgment seat and be made to pay for your "crimes."

The Romans allowed the Jews in all their provinces the observation of their own law. But, remember in verse 2, it is recorded, that Jews had been commanded to leave Rome. I wonder why? Did they have a Jewish problem in the society of that day?

But who would enforce Jewish law in such a city of idols and corruption? Should all persons therefore be prosecuted as criminals, who worship God in any other way than that prescribed by the tenets of Judaism? The big question before Gallio is, "Does Roman toleration include a power of imposition?" Could Roman law force Paul or anyone to stop practicing any activity contrary to what the "Jews" call their law?

You must remember that the Jewish religion hates Christ and all goyium, i.e., White People. This is why the Jews of Corinth were so uptight against Paul for he was preaching Salvation through the Blood of Christ. This tenet of Israelite Christianity is unacceptable then and today for the Jews of this Pharisaism, i.e., Judaism.

How the so-called (c)hristian of today can use the term Judeo-Christian is a gigantic mystery to many. When will the little "c" Christians come "to know fully" that these are two diametrically opposites. Just like black against white, not verses cold and light verses dark?

Paul was charged unjustly. Are White Israelite patriots ever charged unjustly, for violating some phantom law? Do they have ample opportunity to be tried in courts of certified common law venue where justice, fairness and real law prevails? Rarely, if ever, not since about 1861 have justice been had in such courts.

Paul had a different circumstance at this hearing than most patriots are usually afforded today. Gallio had a sweet nature and was sympathetic and apparently a stickler for the letter of the law. For Gallio reasoned that the Jews in their own law, had in it a promise of a Prophet whom God would raise up to them, and they should listen to him and/or hear him.

And Paul only persuaded people to believe in this Prophet, who was to come and to hear Him, which was all according "to the law." For this Prophet came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Paul's teaching contradicted Judaism, partially the idea of Christ being the Messiah.

At the first hearing or, perhaps, a better way to put it, is no hearing at all, for Gallio dismisses the cause and states that he will not take any cognizance of the issue, at all (v. 14-15). Paul was just about to make his defense which he apparently became so eloquently accustomed to doing.^[96] Paul was about to present evidence that would prove that he did not teach men to worship contrary to the law, when Gallio rules that he will not be troubled with this case and will not pass sentence upon it nor even allow himself the trouble of examining it.

He, Gallio, was very capable of doing the part of a judge in any matter properly placed before him to take cognizance of. He said to the Jews, that were the prosecutors, "If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness," if you could charge the prisoner with theft or fraud, with murder or plunder or any act of immorality.

We would be bound to hear you with your complaint or accusations. Just because these Jews were loud and noisy and rude petitioners of this court, there was no valid reason to give them a hearing in any obvious unjust case. If the petitioner's cause had been just then it would have been the duty of Gallio or any magistrate to cause justice to be done. That means redress the injured party to be afforded his right(s).

Then Gallio would pass comment and give the court's sentence upon the party causing the injury. If the complaint had merits even though not made with all the decorum of a judicial case, Gallio would have felt bound to hear the petitioner, no matter how rude and noisy they were in presenting it. But Gallio will not and did not allow these Jews a chance to make a complaint to him for something not within his jurisdiction (v. 15). Oh, if we had a few judges and magistrates today of the caliber to determine rightful venue and jurisdiction. This Jude would not allow the Jews to burden his patience by hearing it nor would he burden his conscience with passing judgment upon this matter. And when the Jews hollered and screamed more and more, he found them in contempt of "his" court and drove them from the seat of judgment (v. 16). Then he called the next cause. Bravo, Bravo!!!

This passage makes one think that Gallio conducted himself in a dignified and honorable mode. If only we had judges today who possessed this character. He did not want to, nor even pretend to judge spiritual things that he did not really understand. This judgment would be left to the Jews in matters regarding their religion of Judaism. Yet he would not allow, the Jews to make him {Gallio} their instrument or tool of malice and pretend to pass judgment against Paul {he was following the example Pilate showed when he washed his hands of the matter concerning Christ, and told the Jews to do what they would, but he would have nothing to do with killing Christ}. Gallio looked upon this matter as not within his venue and jurisdiction and he did not intend to meddle in this affair anymore than a dismissal.

Gallio seems to have understood the law better than he did religious and/or worship. Whether Christ was the Messiah and of God, was not the issue before his court and he felt no need to take "judicial notice" of the law of any God. Whether the Gospel teachings of Christ the Messiah was of divine origin or not as these were not questions of words and names (v. 15) as Gallio scornfully and profanely called them. These are valid concerns for Christianity and Judaism but not for a Roman Court, and he felt because of his ignorance of Judaism and Christianity, he did not want to inquire very far into them.

"In 1923, Trotsky, and Lunatcharsky presided over a meeting in Moscow organized by the propaganda section of the Communist party to judge God. Five thousand men of the Red Army were present. The Accused [Almighty God] was found guilty of various ignominious acts and having had the audacity to fail to appear, He [God] was condemned in default." ^[97]

Then like today, a great contempt was placed upon the court by the Jews and/or Greeks. For they took Sosthenes and beat him in open contempt of Gallio's dismissal of the case against Paul. Look what happened, recently, in California and other places. If the Jews of Judaism can't have it their way against Christians, they will take it out in some other manner. They were enraged against not only Paul, but also against Gallio and his court of justice. They wanted to be their own prosecutors and if Gallio would not rule in their favor, they would become their own judges and executioners. Apparently the contempt showed what the Jews did, and it did not come before Gallio's court. Gallio cared for none of those things (v. 17) is a puzzling concept of a man who somehow tried to help Paul for whatever reason.

If we can presume that this means that this judge is calloused against the things that bad men do to good men, except when brought into his jurisdiction, we find a flaw in the character of this Roman judge.

As a judge he should have protected Sosthenes as much as he did Paul. But the facts point out that he did not. This kind of indifference carries just-us attitudes that compliments tyranny. His do-nothing attitude is evidence of one of Isaiah's writings: "that truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey."� ^[98] Sounds like modern day news reporting, doesn't it?

Our courts today appear to adhere to the concept that justice somehow means just-us and all outsiders (non-Jews) will fall in line under its power to be administered by our controlled and/or deceived judges. So ask yourself, is there a "Jew" word problem; or a society "Jew" problem? Can I come "to know fully" the difference between Jewish Judaism and real true Israelite Christianity:

The mixing of the two religions don't mix anymore than trying to mix oil and water. Those who are truly seeking truth have at one time or another had a man/woman sent from God to witness of the Identity Movement and usually they simply ignored it the first time. Then God in His wisdom would send another.

This time the messenger would be so convincing that the Truth Seeker would set out to prove him {or the material if it were a book or some other written information} wrong. To prove it a false concept. Then they found that the more they studied and learned they found that they have been lied to and deceived by a lot of so-called Christian folks. They came to believe that this was more out of ignorance on their part than deliberate, for they are deceived and content, most of them, to live therein.

But when the Lord reveals much more of His Word to them, they decide to re-educate themselves and find that the process is a never ending one. Because as they learn more, God will reveal more - making the Scriptures "seek and ye shall find" ever more true. They soon found that the Identity teachings were more on line than fundamental Christianity as taught in the churches, on TV and radio today.

It appears to them that the more they study, research and meditate, the more the world pulls at their time just to make ends meet. So they know how the world will pull at you as you attempt to learn the truth. The Jew today still works as they did in the hay-day of Corinth to keep True Israelite Christians so busy that they don't have time to stop and smell the roses and find real truth.

It will only be with the help of YHWH {Almighty God} that the financial prison most of us fined ourselves caged in, will open and free us, swinging open the doors of liberty. Such liberty produces the time and resources needed to wage successful campaigns against the onslaught of deceit, lies and deception in todays (c)hristian parishes or folds. Corinthians were famous for their cleverness, inventiveness and artistic sense. They prided themselves in the embellishment of their city and in the adornment of their heathen temples. But, not a single Corinthian ever distinguished himself in literature. Sound Jewish?

The Adamic Man, White People of Israelite, i.e., Hebrew stock, are the chosen seed of Israel's race. They need to come to know fully who they are, and what they are. Their heritage demands fulfillment here in this American land, the New Jerusalem as spoken of in the Scriptures. Jesus the Christ, the Salvation of Israel, did not come to the Jewish people. in fact He came against almost everything they stand for. He came to the White Israelites, Matthew 15:24 states: "I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." ^[99]

Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a �Jew� or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." ^[100]

The World Book omits any reference to the Jews, but under the word Semite it states: "Semite...Semites are those who speak Semitic languages. In this sense the ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Cartaginians were Semites. The Arabs and some Ethiopians are modern Semitic‑speaking people. Modern Jews are often called Semites, but this name properly applies only to those who use the Hebrew Language. The Jews were once a sub‑type of the Mediterranean race, but they have mixed with other peoples until the name �Jew� has lost all racial meaning." Who are the Jews and where is the proof of their existence today? The Jewish Encyclopedia, states: "Edom is in modern Jewry." ^[101] There is only one nation in the world that can prove ancestral ties with Edom, and the Jews themselves claim that dubious distinction. To help answer this question further, we refer you to the excellent book (which should be required reading) entitled "Who is Esau-Edom?" ^[102] This little book cover the life, history, genealogy, prophecy, predestination and modern identity of Biblical Esau.

Another excellent booklet by Pastor Bob Hallstrom is entitled "Who Are the Pharisees, and the �Jew� Are they Israel?" ^[103] If you don't understand the information in these two books, you will be unable to properly understand the central focus of the Scripture. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, while being a scholarly effort, it provides annotations and perspectives which suffer from the authors lack of an informed basis regarding the true identity of the "Jews," Pharisees, Hebrews, and Israel. In the last century Bram Stocker wrote the book Dracula and in his book he was describing the Jews from the very beginning of their drive to "occupy" our bodies and souls from the very beginning of the Luciferin infiltration of our society.

�� Academia Proves

�� Jews Are Not Israel

There are hundreds of books {most of which are Jewish Encyclopedias and history books} available for study, which prove that over 90% of the Jews of the world are not a Semitic people, but few people other than historians ever bother to read them. Following are just a few: "Chazars: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the History of The Jews of Russia...driven on by the nomadic tribes of the steppes and by their own desire for plunder and revenge...In the second half of the sixth century the Chazars moved westward...The kingdom of the Chazars was firmly established in most of south Russia long before the foundation of the Russian monarchy by the Varangians...At this time the kingdom of the Chazars stood at the height of its power and was constantly at war...At the end of the eighth century...the chagan (king) of the Chazars and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish Religion." ^[104]

Russia and The Khazars: Having traced the Knighthood of the Teutonic Order from its origin to its dissolution as a military-religious brotherhood, and having noted the development of successor sovereignties down to the obliteration of Prussia in 1945, we must turn back more than a thousand years, to examine another thread; a scarlet one, in the tangled skein of European history.

In the later years of the dimly recorded first millennium of the Christian era, Slavic people of several kindred tribes occupied the land which became known later as the north central portion of European Russia. South of them between the Don and Volga rivers and north of the lofty Caucasus Mountains lived a people known to history as Khazars. ^[105] These people had been driven westward from Central Asia and entered Europe by the corridor between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea. They found a land occupied by primitive pastoral people of a score or more of tribes, a land which lay beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Trajan (ruled, 98-117 A.D.), and also beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire (395-1453)

By slow stages the Khazars extended their territory eventually to the Sea of Azov and the adjacent littoral of the Black Sea. The Khazars were apparently a people of mixed stock with Mongol and Turkic affinities. Around the year 600, a Belligerent tribe of half-Mongolian people, similar to the modern Turks, conquered the territory of what is now Southern Russia. Before long the kingdom (khanate) of the Khazars, as this tribe was known, stretched from the Caspian to the Black Se. Its capital, Ityl, was at the mouth of the Volga River. ^[106]

In the eighth or ninth century of our era, a khakan (or chagan, roughly equivalent to tribal chief or primitive king) of the Khazars wanted a religion for his pagan people. Partly, perhaps, because of incipient tension between Christians and the adherents of the new Mohammedan faith (Mohammed died in 632), and partly because of fear of becoming subject to the power of the Byzantine Emperor or the Islamic Caliph, ^[107] he adopted a form of the Jewish religion at a date generally placed at c. 741 A.D., but believed by Fernadsky to be as late as 865.

According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, ^[108] �This chieftain, Christianity and Mohammedanism to expound their doctrines before him. This discussion convinced him that the Jewish faith was the most preferable, and he decided to embrace it. Thereupon he and about 4,000 Khazars were circumcised; it was only by degrees that the Jewish teachings gained a foothold among the population.�

In his �History of the Jews,� ^[109] Professor H. Graetz gives further details: a successor of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first to make serious efforts to further the Jewish religion. He invited Jewish sages to settle in his opinions, rewarded them royally, founded synagogues and schools...caused instruction to be given to himself and his people in the Bible and the Talmud, and introduced a divine service modeled on the ancient communities.

After Obadiah came a long series of Jewish chagans, for according to a fundamental law of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the throne. The significance of the term �ancient communities� cannot be here explained. For a suggestion of the �incorrect exposition� and the �tasteless misrepresentations� with which the Bible, i.e., the Old Testament, was presented through the Talmud, see below in this chapter, the extensive quotation from Professor Graetz.

Also in the Middle Ages, Viking warriors, according to Russian tradition by invitation, pushed from the Baltic area into the low hills west of Moscow. Archaeological discoveries show that at one time or another these Northmen penetrated almost all areas south of Lake Ladoga and West of the Kama and Lower Volga Rivers. Their earliest, and permanent, settlements were north and east of the West Dwina River, in the Vale Llmen are, and between the Upper Volga and Oka Rivers, at whose junction they soon held the famous trading post of Nizhni-Novgorod. ^[110]

These immigrants from the North and West were principally �the �Russ,� a Varangians tribe in ancient annals considered as related to the Swedes, Angles and Northmen. ^{^[111]} From the local Slavic tribes, they organized (c. 862) a state, known subsequently from their name as Russia, which embraced the territory of the Upper Volga and Dnieper Rivers and reached down the latter river to the Black Sea, ^[112] and to the Crimea. Russ and Slav were of related stock and their languages, though quite different, had common Indo-Germanic origin. They accepted Christianity as their religion.� Greek Orthodox missionaries, sent to Russ (i.e., �Russia�) in the 860'z baptized so many people that shortly after this a special bishop was sent to care for their needs. ^[113]

The �Rus� (or �Russ�) were absorbed into the Slav population which they organized into statehood. The people of the new state devoted themselves energetically to consolidating their territory and extending its boundaries. From the Khazars, who had extended their power up the Dnieper Valley, they took Kiev, which �was an important trading center even before becoming, in the 10^th century the capital of a large recently Christianized state.� ^[114] Many Varangians (Rus) had settled among the Slavs in this area (the Ukraine), and Christian Kiev became the seat of an enlightened Westward-looking Dynasty, whose members married into several European royal houses, including that of France.

The Slavs, especially those in the area now known as the Ukraine, were engaged in almost constant warfare with the Khazars and finally, by 1016 A.D., destroyed the Khazar government and took a large portion of Khazar territory. For the gradual shrinking of the Khazar territory and the development of Poland, Lithuania, the Grand Duch of Moscow, and the other Slavic states. ^[115] Some of the subjugated Khazars remained in the slav-held lands their khakans had long ruled, and others �migrated to Kiev and other parts of Russia, ^[116] probably to a considerable extent because of the dislocations wrought by the Mongols under Genghis Khan (11162-1227), who founded in and beyond the old Khazar khanate the short-lived khanate of the Golden Horde.

The Judaized Khazars underwent further dispersion both northwest into Lithuania and Polish areas and also within Russia proper and the Ukraine. In 1240 in Kiev �the Jewish community was uprooted, its serving members finding refuge in towns further west. ^{^[117]} Along with the fleeing Russians, when the capital fell to the Mongol soldiers of Batu, the nephew of Genghis Khan.

A short time later many of these expelled Jews returned to Kiev. Migrating thus, as some local power impelled them, the Khazar Jews became widely distributed in Western Russia. Into the Khazar khanate there had been a few Jewish immigrants; rabbis, traders, refugees, but the people of the Klevan Russian state did not facilitate the entry of additional Jews into their territory. The rulers of the Grand Duchy of Moscow also sought to exclude Jews from areas under its control. �From its earliest times the policy of the Russian Government was that of complete exclusion of the Jews from its territories. ^[118] For instance, Ivan IV (reign 1533-1584) refused to allow Jewish merchants to travel in Russia.� ^[119]

Relations between Slavs and the Judaized Khazars in their midst were never happy. The reasons were not racial; for the Slavs had absorbed many minorities, but were ideological. The rabbis sent for by Khakan Obadiah were educated in and were zealots for the Babylonian Talmud, which after long labors by many hands had been completed on December 2, 1499.

In the thousands of synagogues which were built in the Khazar khanate, the imported rabbis and their successors were in complete control of the political, social and religious thought of their people. So significant was the Babylonian Talmud as the principal cause of Khazar resistance to Russian efforts to end their political and religious separatism, and so significant also are the modern sequels, including those in the United States, that an extensive quotation on the subject from the �History of the Jews,� by Professor H. Graetz, ^[120] is here presented: The Talmud must not be regarded as an ordinary work, composed of twelve volumes; it possesses absolutely no similarity to any other literary production, but forms, without any figure of speech, a works of its own, which must be judged by its peculiar laws.

The Talmud contains much that is frivolous of which it treats with great gravity and seriousness; it further reflects the various superstitious practices and views of its Persian birthplace which presume the efficacy of demoniacal medicines, of magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpretations of dreams...It also contains isolated instances of uncharitable judgments and decrees against members of other nations and religions, and finally it favors an incorrect exposition of the scriptures, accepting, as it does, tasteless misrepresentations.

More than six centuries lie petrified in the Talmud...Small wonder then, that...the sublime and the common, the great and the small, the grave and the ridiculous, the altar and the ashes, the Jewish and the heathenish, be discovered side by side.

The Babylonian Talmud is especially distinguished form the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud by the flights of thought, the penetration of mind, the flashes of genius, which rise and vanish again...It was for this reason that the Babylonian rather than the Jerusalem Talmud became the fundamental possession of the Jewish race (people, for the Jews are not a race but a people), its life breath, its very soul...nature and mankind, powers and events, were for the Jewish nation insignificant, non-essential, a mere phantom; the only true really was the Talmud.

Not merely educated by the Talmud but actually living the life of its Babylonian background, which they may have regarded with increased devotion because most of the Jews of Mesopotamia had embraced Islam, the rabbi-governed Khazars had no intention whatever of losing their identity by becoming Russianized or Christian. The intransigent attitude of the rabbis was increased by their realization that their power would be lost if their people accepted controls other than the Talmudic. These controls by rabbis were responsible not only for basic mores, but for such externals as the peculiarities of dress and hair. It has been frequently stated by writers on the subject that the �ghetto� was the work, not of Russians or other Slavs, but rabbis.

As time passed, it came about that these Khazar people of mixed non-Russian stock, who hated the Russians and lived under Babylonian Talmudic law, became known in the western world, from their place of residence and their legal-religious code, as Russian Jews.

Ain Russian lands after the fall of Kiev in 1240, there was a period of dissension and disunity. The struggle with the Mongols and other Asiatic khanates continued and from the Russians learned much about effective military organization. Also, as the Mongols had not overrun Northern and Western Russia, ^[121] there was a background for the resistance and counter-offense which gradually eliminated the invaders. The capital of reorganized Russia was no longer Kiev, but Moscow (hence the terms Moscovy and Muscovite). In 1613 the Russian nobles (boyars), desired a more stable government than they had had, and elected as their Czar a boy named Michael Romanov, whose veins carried the blood of the Grand Dukes of Kiev and the Grand Dukes of Moscow. Under the Romanovs of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there was no change in attitude toward the Judaized Khazars, who scorned Russian civilization and stubbornly refused to enter the fold of Christianity. �Peter the Great (reign 1682-1725) spoke of the Jews as �rogues and cheats.�� ^[122] �Elizabeth (reign 1741-1762) expressed her attitude in the sentence: �From the enemies of Christ, I desire neither gain nor profit.� ^[123]

Under the Romanov dynasty (1613-1917) many members of the Russian upper classes were educated in Germany, and the Russian nobility, already partly Scandinavian by blood, frequently married Germans or other Western Europeans. Likewise many of the Romanovs, themselves; in fact all of them who ruled in the later years of dynasty, married into Western families.

Prior to the nineteenth century the two occupants of the Russian throne best known in world history were Peter I, the Great, and Catherine II, the Great. The former; who in 1703 gave Russia its �West window,� St. Petersburg, later known as Petrograd and recently as Leningrad, chose as his consort and successor on the throne as Catherine I (reign 1725-1727), a captured Marienburg (Germany) servant girl whose mother and father were respectively a Lithuanian peasant woman and a Swedish Dragoon. Catherine II, the Great, was a German princess who was proclaimed reigning Empress of Russia after her husband, the ineffective Czar Peter III, �subnormal in mind and physique,� ^[124] left St. Petersburg. During her thirty-four years as Empress, Catherine, by studying such works as Blackstone�s Commentaries, and by correspondence with such illustrious persons as Voltaire, F.M. Grimm Frederick the Great, Dederot, and Maria-Theresa of Austria, kept herself in contact with the West. ^[125] She chose for her son, weak like his father and later the �madman� Czar Paul I (reign 1796-1801), a German wife.

The nineteenth century Czars were Catherine the Great�s grandson, Alexander I (reign 1801-1825; German wife); his brother, Nicholas I (reign 1825-1855; German wife); his son, Nicholas II (reign 1894-1917; German wife) who was murdered with his family (1918) after the Jewish Communists seized power (1917) in Russia.

Thus many of the Romanovs, including Peter I and Catherine II, had far from admirable characters; a fact well advertised in American books on the subject, and though some of them including Nicholas II were not able rulers, a general purpose of the dynasty was to give there land certain of the advantages of Western Europe. In the West they characteristically sought alliances with one country or another, rather than ideological penetration.

Like, their Slavic overlords, the Judaized Khazars of Russia had various relationships with Germany. Their numbers form time to time, as during the Crusaders received accretions from the Jewish communities in Germany; principally into Poland and other areas not yet Russian; many of the ancestors of these people, however, had previously entered Germany form Slavic lands.

More interesting than these migrations was the importation from Germany of an idea conceived by a prominent Jew of solving century-old tension between native majority population and the Jews in their midst. In Germany, while Catherine the Great was Empress of Russia, a Jewish scholar and philosopher named Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) attracted wide and favorable attention among non-Jews and a certain following among Jews.

His conception of the barrier between Jew and non-Jew, as analyzed by Grayszel, ^[126] was that the �Jews had erected about themselves a mental ghetto to balance the physical ghetto around them.� Mendelssohn�s objective was to lead the Jews �out of this mental ghetto into the wide world of general culture; without, however, doing harm to their specifically Jewish culture,� The movement received the name Haskalah, which may be rendered as �enlightenment.� Among other things, Mendelssohn wished Jews in Germany to learn the German language.

The Jews of Eastern Europe had from early days used corrupted versions of local vernaculars, written in the Hebrew alphabet ^[127] just as the various vernaculars of Western Europe were written in the Latin alphabet, and to further his purpose Mindelssohn translated the Pentateuch; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, into standard German, using however, the accepted Hebrew alphabet. ^[128] Thus in one stroke he led his readers a step toward Westernisation by the use of the German Language and by offering them, instead of the Babylonian Talmud, a portion of Scripture recognized by both Jew and Christian.

The Mendelssohn views were developed in Russia in the nineteenth century, notably by Isaac Baer Levinsohn (1788-1860), the �Russian Mendelssohn.� Levinsohn was a scholar who, with Abraham Harkavy, deceived into a field of Jewish history little known in the West, namely the settlement of Jewish history little known in the West, namely the settlement of Jews in Russia and their vicissitudes furring the dark ages... Levinsohn was the first to express the opinion that the Russian Jews hailed not from Germany, as is commonly supposed, but from the banks of the Volga. This hypothesis, corroborated by tradition, Harkavy established as a fact. ^[129]

The reigns of the nineteenth century Czars showed a fluxation of attitudes toward the Jewish �state within a state.� ^[130] In general, Nicholas I had been less lenient than Alexander I toward his intractable non-Christian minority, but he took an immediate interest in the movement endorsed by opportunity for possibly breaking down the separatism of the Judaized Khazars. He put in charge of the project of opening hundreds of Jewish schools a brilliant young Jew, Er. Max Lilenthal.

From its beginning however, the Haskalah movement had had bitter opposition among Jews in Germany; many of whom, including the famous Moses Hess, ^[131] became ardent Jewish nationalists, and in Russia the opposition was fanatical. �The great mass of Russian Jewry was devoid of all secular learning, steeped in fanaticism, and given to superstitious practices ^[132] and their leaders, for the most part, had no opinion of tolerating a project which would lessen or destroy their control.�

These leaders believed correctly that the needed education was designed to lessen the authority of the Talmud which was the cause, as the Russians say it, �of the fanaticism and corrupt morals of the Jews.� The leaders of the Jews also saw that the new schools were a way �to bring the Jews closer to the Russian people and the Greek Church.� ^[133] According to Raisi, �the millions of Russian Jews were averse to having the government interfere with their inner and spiritual life� by �fosting upon them its educational measures. The soul of Russian Jewry sensed the danger lurking in the imperial scheme.� ^[134] Lilienthal was in their eyes �a traitor and informer,� and in 1845, to recover a modicum of prestige with his people, he �shook the dust of bloody Russia from his feet.� ^[135] Thus the Haskalah movement failed in Russia to break down the separatism of the Judaized Khazars.

When Nicholas I died, his son Alexander Ii (reign 1855-1881) decided to try a new way of winning the Khazar minority to willing citizenship in Russia. He granted his people, including the Khazars, so many liberties that he was called the �Czar Liberator.�

By irony, or nemesis, his �liberal regime� contributed substantially to the downfall of Christian Russia. Despite the ill-success of his Uncle Alexander�s �measures to effect the �betterment� of the �obnoxious� Jewish element, ^[136] he ordered a wholesale relaxation of oppressive and restraining regulations ^[137] and the Jews were free to attend all schools and universities and to travel without restrictions�. The new freedom led, however, to results the �Liberator� had not anticipated.

Educated, and free at last to organize nationally, the Judaized Khazars in Russia became not merely an indigestible mass in the body polite, the characteristic �state within a state,� but a formidable anti-government force. With non-Jews of nihilistic or other radical tendencies; the so-called Russian �intelligentsia� they sought in the first instance to further their aims by assassinations. ^[138] Alexander tried to abate the hostility of the �terrorists� by granting more and more concessions, but on the day the last concessions were announced �a bomb was thrown at his carriage. The carriage was wrecked, and many of his escorts were injured. Alexander escaped as by a miracle, but a second bomb exploded near him as he was going to aid the injured. He was horribly mangled, and died within an hour.� Thus perished the Czar Liberator. ^[139]

Some of those involved in earlier attempts to assassinate Alexander II were of Jewish Khazar background. ^[140] According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, the �assassination of Alexander II in which a Jewess had played a part� revived a latent �anti-Semitism.� Resentful of precautions taken by the murdered Czar�s son and successor, Alexander III, and also possessing a new world plan, hordes of Jews, some of them highly educated in Russian universities, migrated to other European countries and to America. The emigration continued under Nicholas II. Many Jews remained in Russia, however, for �in 1913 the Jewish population of Russia amounted to 6,946,000.� ^[141]

Various elements of this restless aggressive minority nurtured the amazing quadruple aims of international Communism, the seizure of power in Russia, Zionism, and continued migration to America, with a fixed purpose to retain their nationalistic separatism. In many instances, the same individuals were participants i two or more phases of the four-fold objective.

Among the Jews who remained in Russia, which then included Lithuania, the Ukraine, ^[142] and much of Poland, were the founders of the Russian Bolshevik party. In 1897 was founded the bond, the union of Jewish workers in Poland and Lithuania...They engaged in revolutionary activity upon a large scale, and their energy made them the spearhead of the Party. ^[143]

The name Bolsheviki means majority (from Russian Bolshe, the larger) and commemorates the fact that at the Brussels-London conference of the party in late 1902 and early 1903, the violent Marxist program of Lenin was adopted by a 25 to 23 vote, the less violent minority or �Mensheviki� Marxists fading finally from the picture after Stalin�s triumph in October, 1917. It has been also stated that the term Bolshevik refers to the �larger� or more violent program of the majority faction. After (1918) the Bolsheviki called their organization the Communist Party.

The Zionist Jews were another group that laid its plan in Russia as a part of the new re-orientation of Russian Jewry after the collapse of Haskalah and the assassination (1881) of Alexander II. �On November 6, 1884, for the first time in history, a Jewish international assembly was held at Kattowitz, near the Russian frontier, where representatives from all classes and different countries met and decided to colonize Palestine...� ^[144]

For a suggestion of the solidarity of purpose between the Jewish Bund, which was the core of the Communist Party, and early Zionism. ^[145] Henceforth a heightened sense of race-consciousness takes the place formerly held by religion and is soon to develop into a concrete nationalism with Zion as its goal. ^[146]

In Russia and abroad in the late nineteenth century, not only Bundists but other Khazar Jews had been attracted to the writings of Karl Marx (1818-1883), party, it seems, because he was Jewish in origin. �On both paternal and material sides Karl Marx was descended from rabbinical families.� ^[147]

The Marxian program of drastic controls, so repugnant to the free western mind, was no obstacle to the acceptance of Marxism by many Khazar Jews, for the Babylonian Talmud under which they lived had taught them to accept authoritarian dictation on everything from their immorality to their trade practices. Since the Talmud contained more than 12,000 controls, the regimentation of Marxism was acceptable; provided the Khazar population, like the Talmudic rabbi, exercised the power of the dictatorship.

Under Nicholas II, there was no abatement of the regulations designed, after the murder of Alexander II. To curb the anti-government activities of Jews; consequently, the �reaction to those excesses was Jewish support of the Bolsheviks...� ^[148] The way to such support was easy since the predecessor organization of Russian Communism was the Jewish �Bund.�

Thus Marxian Communism, modified for expediency, became an instrument for the violent seizure of power. The Communist Jews, together with revolutionaries of Russian stock, were sufficiently numerous to give the venture a promise of success, if attempted at the right time. After the rout of the less violent fraction in 1917, when Russia was staggering under defeat by Germany/ a year before Germany in turn staggered to defeat under the triple blows of Britain, France, and the Untied States. �The great hour of freedom struck on the 15^th of March, 1917,� when �Czar Nicholas�s train was stopped� and he was told �that his rule was at an end...Israel, in Russia, suddenly found itself lifted out of its oppression and degradation.� ^[149]

At this moment Lenin appeared on the scene, after an absence of nine years. ^[150]� The Germans, not realizing that he would be anything more than a trouble maker for their World War I enemy, Russia, passed him and his party (exact number disputed; about 200?)

In a sealed train from Switzerland to the Russian border. In Lenin�s sealed train, �Out of a list of 165 names published, 23 are Russian, 3 Georgian, 4 Armenian, 1 German, and 128 Jewish.� ^[151] �At about the same time, Trotsky arrived from the United States, followed by over 300 Jews from the East End of New York and joined up with the Bolshevik Party.� ^[152]

Thus under Lenin, whose birth-range was Ulianov and whose racial antecedents are certainly Jewish, and under Leon Trotsky, a Jew, whose birth name was Bronstein, a small number of highly trained Jews from abroad, along with Russian Judaized Khazan and non-Jewish captives to the Marxian ideology, were able to make themselves masters of Russia. �Individual revolutionary leaders and Sverdlov; played a conspicuous part in the revolution of November, 1917, which enabled� the Bolshevists (the Jews)� to take� possession� of� the state apparatus.� ^[153]

Here and there in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia other Jews w are named as co-founders of Russian Communism, but not Lenin and Stalin. Both of these, however, are said by some writers to be half-Jewish. Whatever the racial antecedents of their top man, the first Soviet commissariats were largely staffed with Jews. The Jewish position in the Communist movement was well understood in Russia. �The White Armies which opposed the Bolsishvik government linked Jews and Bolsheviks as common enemies.� ^[154]

Those interested in the ratio of Jews to others in the government in the early days of Communist rule in Russia should, if possible, see Les derniers jours des Romanof, ^[155] long the Russian correspondent of the London Times. A summary of its vital passages is included in the �foreword to Third Edition� of �The Mystical Body o f Christ in the Modern World�, by Rev. Denis Fahey, a well-known Irish professor of philosophy and Church history. Professor Fahey gives names and nationality of the members of the Council of Peoples Commissars, the Central Executive Committee, and the Extraordinary Commission, and in summary quotes from Wilton as follows: According to the data furnished by the Soviet Press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State...there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russian, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.

As the decades passed by; after the fateful year 1917, Judaized Khazars kept a firm hand on the helm of the government in the occupied land of Russia. In due time they built a bureaucracy to their hearts� desire. The government; controlled Communist press �issued numerous and violent denunciations of anti-Semitic episodes, either violence or discriminations.�

Also, �in 1935 a court ruled that anti-Semitism in Russia was a penal offense.� ^[156] Among top-flight leaders prominent in the middle of the twentieth century. Stalin, Kaganovich, Berra, Molotov, and Litvinoff all have Jewish blood, or are married to Jewesses. The latter circumstance should not be overlooked, because from Nero�s Poppaea ^[157] to the Montreal chemist�s women friend in the Canadian atomic espionage trials� ^[158] The influence of a certain type of wife; or other closely associated woman, has been of utmost significance.

Nero and Poppaea may be allowed to sleep; if their crimes permit, but Section III, 11, entitled �Raymond Boyer, Montreal,� in the Report of the Acadian Royal Commission should be read in full by all who want facts on the subject of the corruption of scientists, and others working on government projects.

In the Soviet embassy records, turned over to Canadian authorities by Ivor Gouzinko, was Col. Zabotin�s notebook which contained the following entries; ^[159] Professor Frenchman, a noted chemist, about 40 years of age. Works in McGill Univerity, Montreal. Was the best of the specialists on VV on the American Continent. Gives full information on explosives and chemical plants. Very rich. He is afraid to work. ^[160]

Contact; I. Freda: Jewess; works as a co-worker in the International Bureau of Labor. A lady friend of the Professor. In view of the facts furnished above as to the racial composition of the early Communist bureaucracy, it is perhaps not surprising that a large proton of the important foreign efforts of the present government of Russia are entrusted to Jews.

This is especially notable in the list of current or recent exercises of Soviet power in the satellite lands of Eastern Europe. Anna Rabinsohn Pauker, Dictator of Rumania; Matyas Rakosi, Director of Hungary; Jacob Berman, Dictator of Poland; D.M. Manuilsky, Director of the Ukraine; and many other persons highly placed in the governments of the several Eastern European countries are all said to be members of this new Royal Race of Russia.

Of Eastern European origin are the leaders of late nineteenth century and twentieth century political Zionism which flowered from the already recorded beginning at Kattowitz in 1884. Born at Budapest, Hungary, was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), author (1896) of Der Judenstatt (The Jews� State), who presided over the �Zionist Congress,� which �took place at Basel, Switzerland, on August 29-31, 1897.� ^[161]

Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the had of political Zionism at that time of its recourse to violence, was born in Plonsk, Poland. Since these top leaders are Eastern Europeans, it is not surprising that most of the recent immigrants into Palestine are of Soviet and satellite origin and that their weapons have been largely from the soviet Union and from Soviet-controlled Czechoslovakia.

As a number of writers have pointed out, political Zionism entered its violent phase after the discovery of the incredibly vast mineral wealth of Palestine. According to �Zionists Misleading World With Untruths for Palestine Conquest,� a full-page article inserted as an advertisement in the New York Herald Tribune (January 14, 1947), �an independent Jewish state in Palestine was the only certain method by which Zionists could acquire complete control and outright ownership of the proven Five Trillion Dollar ($5,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo) chemical and mineral wealth of the Dead Sea.�

The long documented article is signed by R.M. Schoendorf, �Representative of Cooperating Americans of the Christian Faith;� by Habib I. Katibah, �Representative of Cooperating Americans of Arab Ancestry;� and by Benjamin H. Freedman, �Representative of Cooperating Americans of the Jewish Faith,� and is convincing. Irrespective, however, of the value of the Dead Sea minerals, the oil flow of the dominance of the motive of self-aggrandizement in political Zionism has been affirmed and denied; but it is difficult for an observer to see any possible objective apart from mineral wealth or long range grand strategy, including aggression, in a proposal to make a nation out of an agriculturally poor, already overpopulated territory the size of Vermont.

The intention of aggression at the expense of Moslem peoples, particularly in the direction of Iraq and Iran, is suggested also by the fact that the Eastern European Jews, adherents to the Babylonian Talmud, had long turned their thoughts to the lands where their sages lived and where most of the native-Jewish population had embraced the Moslem faith. Any possible Zionist religious motive such as the hope of heaven, which fired the zeal of the Crusaders, is apparently ruled out by the nature of Judaism, as it is generally understood. �The Jewish religion is a way of life and has no journulated creed, or articles of faith, the acceptance of which brings redemption or salvation to the believer...� ^[162]

The secret or underground overseas efforts of Khazar-dominated Russia apparently been intrusted principally to Jews. This is especially true of atomic espionage.

The Report of the Royal Commission of Canada, already referred to, shows that Sam Carr (Cohen), organizer for all Canada; Fred Rose (Rosenberg), organizer for French Canada, and member of the Canadian Parliament from a Montreal constituency; and Germina (or Hermina) Rabinowich, in charge of liaison with U.S. Communists, were all born in Russia or satellite lands.

In this connection, it is important to stress the fact that the possession of a Western name does not necessarily imply Western European stock. In fact, the maneuver of name-changing frequently disguises an individual�s stock or origin.

Thus the birth-name of John Gates; editor of the Communist Daily Worker was Israel Regenstreif. Other name changers among the eleven Communists found guilty by a New York jury in October, 1949, included Gil Green, born Greenberg; Gus Hall, born Halberg; and Carl Winter, born Weissberg. ^[163]

Other examples of name-changing can be cited among political writers, army officers, and prominent officials in the executive agencies and departments in Washington. Parenthetically, the maneuver of acquiring a name easily acceptable to the majority was very widely practiced by the aliens prominent in the seizure of Russia for Communism, among the name-changers being Lenin (Ulianov), Trotsky (Bronstein), and Stalin(Dzygasgvuku), the principle founders of State Communism.

The United States Government refused Canada�s invitation in 1946 to cooperate in Canada�s investigation of atomic spies, but in 1950 when (despite �red herring� talk of the Chief Executive) our atomic spy suspects began to be apprehended, the first was Harry Gold, then Abraham Brothmn, and Miriam Moskowitz. Others were M. Sobell, David Greenglass, Julius Fosenberg, and Mr. Ethel Rosenberg (not to be confused with Mrs. Anna Rosenberg). Various sentences were given. The Rosenbergs received the death penalty. ^[164]

As of early May, 1952, however, the sentence had not been carried out and a significant portion of the Jewish press was campaigning to save the Rosenbergs.

Referring to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Samuel B. Gach, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the California Jewish Voice (�Largest Jewish Circulation in the West�) wrote as follows in his issue of April 25, 1952: �We deplore the sentence against that two Jews and despise the cowardly Jewish judge who passed same...�

In March, 1951, Dr. William Perl of the Columbia University physics Department was arrested �on four counts of perjury in connection with the crumbling Soviet atomic spy ring ...Perl whose father was born in Russia...had his name changed from Utterperl (Mutterperl?) To perl� in 1945. ^[165]

For further details on these persons and others, see �Atomic Traitors,� by Congressmen Fred Busbey of Illinois in the June, 1951, Number of National Republic.

Finally, the true head of Communism in America was found not to be the publicly announced head, but the Jew, Gerhardt Eisler, who, upon detection �escaped� from America on the Polish S.S. �Batory,� to a high position in the Soviet Government of East Germany.� ^[166]

Very pertinent to the subject under consideration is a statement entitled �Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fiction,� made in the Senate of the United States on January 6, 1950, by Senator Pat McCarran, Democrat of Nevada, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Senator McCarran said in part: �Let it be remembered that the Attorney General of the United States recently testified that an analysis of 4,984 of the more militant members of the Communist Party in the United States showed that 91.4 percent of the total were of foreign stock or were married to persons of foreign stock.�

With more than nine-tenths of our �more militant� Communists thus recruited from or allied to �foreign stock� and with that �stock totaling perhaps not more than 10,000,000 or one-fifteenth of our nation�s population, a little recourse to mathematics will suggest that the employment of an Eastern European or other person of recent alien extraction or connection is one hundred and fifty times more likely to yield a traitor than is the employment of a person of native stock!�

An �authoritative� Jewish point of view toward Soviet Russia is explained in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in the concluding paragraphs on Karl Marx. According to this source, Jews �recognize the experience of the Soviet Union, borne of 6,000,000 Jews, as testimony of the Marxist position on the question of national and racial equality.� The Encyclopedia comments further on the �striking fact that the one country which professes official allegiance to Marxian teachings is the one where anti-Semitism has been outlawed and its resurgence rendered impossible by the removal of social and economic inequalities.� ^[167]

In �The Jewish People Face the Post-War World,� by Alexander Bittelman ^[168] the affection of a considerable body of American Jews for the Soviet Union is considerable body of American Jews for the Soviet Union is expressed dramatically: If not for the Red Army, there would be no Jews in Europe today, nor in Palestine, nor in Africa; and in the United States, the length of our existence would be counted in days...The Soviet Union Has Saved The Jewish People.

Therefore, let the American Jewish masses never forge our historic debt to the Savior of the Jewish people; the Soviet Union. Be it noted, however, that Mr. Bittelman admits indirectly that he is not speaking for all American Jews, particularly when he assails as �reactionary� the �non-democratice forced in Jewish life...such as the Sulzbergers, Rosenwalds, and Lazsrons.� ^[169] In addition to ideology, another factor in the devotion to their old homelands of so many of the newer American Jews of Eastern European source is kinship. According to The American Zionist Handbook, 68 to 70% of United States Jews have relations in Poland and the Soviet Union.

Quite in harmony with the Bittleman attitude toward the Soviet was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission that Soviet Russia exploits fully the predilection of Jews toward Communism: �It is significant that a number of documents from the Russian Embassy specifically note �Jew� or �Jewess� in entries on their relevant Canadian agents or prospective agents, showing that the Russian Fifth Column leaders attached particular significance to this matter.� ^[170]

In view of the above-quoted statement of a writer for the great New York publication, the Universal Jewish encyclopedia, which is described on its title page as �authorative,� and in view of the findings of the Canadian Royal Commission, not to mention other facts and testimonies, it would seem that no one should be surprised that certain United States Jews of Eastern European origin or influence have transmitted atomic or other secrets to the Soviet Union.

Those who are caught, of course, must suffer the fate of spies, as would happen to American espionage agents abroad; but, in the opinion of the author, the really guilty parties in the Untied States are those Americans of native stock who, for their own evil purposes, placed the pro-Soviet individuals in positions where thy could steal or connive at the stealing of American secrets of atomic warfare. This guilt, which in view of the terrible likely results of atomic espionage is really blood-guilt, cannot be sidestepped and should not be overlooked by the American people.

The presence of so many high-placed spies in the United States prompts a brief reference to our national habit (a more accurate term than policy) in regard to immigration. In December, 2, 1832, President Monroe proclaimed, in the famous Doctrine which bears his name, that the American government would not allow continental European powers to �extend their system� in the Untied States.

At that time and until the last two decades of the nineteenth century, immigration brought us almost exclusively European people whose ideals were those of Western Christian civilization; these people became helpers in subduing and settling our vast frontier area; they wished to conform to rather than modify or supplant the body of traditions and ideals summed up in the word �America.�

After 1880, however, our immigration shifted sharply to include millions of persons from Southern and Eastern Europe. Almost all of these people were less sympathetic than predecessor immigrants to the government and the ideals of the Untied States and a very large portion of them were non-Christians who had no intention whatever of accepting the ideals of Western Christian civilization, but had purposes of their own. These purposes were accomplished not by direct military invasion, as President Monroe feared, but covertly by infiltration, propaganda, and electoral and financial pressure. The average American remained unaware and unperturbed.

Among those who early foresaw the problems to be created by our new immigrants was General Eisenhower�s immediate predecessor as President of Columbia University. In a small but extremely valuable book, �The American As He Is,� President Nicholas Murray Butler in 1908 called attention to �the fact that Christianity in some one of its many forms is a dominant part of the American nature.� Butler, then at the zenith of his intellectual power, expressed fear that our �capacity to subdue and assimilate the alien elements brought...by immigration may soon be exhausted.� He concluded accordingly that �The dangers which confront America will come, if at all, from within.�

Statistics afford ample reasons for President Butler�s fears. �The new immigration was comprised preponderantly of three elements: the Italians, the Slavs, and the Jews.� ^[171] The Italians and the Slavs were less assimilable than immigrants from Northern and Western Europe, and tended to congregate instead of distributing themselves over the hole country as the earlier Northern European immigrants had usually done.

The assimilation of Italians and Slavs was helped, however, by their belonging to the same parent Indo-Germanic racial stock as the English-German-Irish majority, and above all by their being Christians; mostly Roman Catholics, and therefore finding numerous co-religionists not only among fully Americanized second and third generation Irish Catholics but among old stock Anglo-American Catholics descending from Colonial days. Quite a few persons of Italian and Slavic stock were or became Protestants, chiefly Baptist; among them being ex-Governor Charles Poletti of New York and ex-Governor Harold Stassen of Minnesota. The new Italian and Slavic immigrants and their children soon began to marry among the old stock. In a protracted reading of an Italian language American newspaper, the author noted that approximately half of all recorded marriages of Italians were to person with non-Italian names.

Thus in one way or another the new Italian and Slavic immigrants began to merge into the general American pattern. This happened to some extent everywhere and was notable in areas where the newcomers were not congregated; as in certain urban and mining areas, but were dispersed among people of native stock. With eventual compete assimilation by no means impossible, there was no need of a national conference of Americans and Italians or of Americans and Slavs to further the interests of those minorities.

With the new Jewish immigrants, however, the developments were strikingly different; and quite in line with the fears of resident Butler. The handful of Jews, mostly Sephardic ^[172] and German, already in this country (about 280,000 in 1877), were not numerous enough to contribute cultural guidance to the newcomers. ^[173] These newcomers arrived in vast hordes; especially from territory under the sovereignty of Russia, the total number of legally recorded immigrants from that country between 1881 and 1920 being 3,237,079, ^[174] most of them Jews. Many of those Jews are now referred to as Polish Jews because they came from that portion of Russia which had been the kingdom of Poland prior to the �partitions� of 1772-1795 ^[175] and was the Republic of Poland between World War I and World War II. Accordingly New York City�s 2,500,00 or more Jews.

Thus by sheer weight of numbers, as well as by aggressiveness the newcomer Jews from Eastern Europe pushed into the background the more or less Westernized Jews, who had migrated or whose ancestorshad migrated to America prior to 1880 and had become for the most part popular and successful merchants with no inordinate interest in politics. In striking contrast, the Eastern European Jew made himself �a power to be reckoned with in the professions, the industries, and the political parties. ^{^[176]}

The overwhelming of the older Americanized Jews is well portrayed in �The Jewish Dilemma,� by Elmer Berger. ^[177] Of the early American Jews, Berger writes: �Most of thee first 200,000 came from Germany. �

They integrated themselves completely. ^[178] This integration was not difficult; for many persons of the Jewish religion Western Europe in the nineteenth century not only had no racial or ethnic conneciton with the Khazars, but were not separatists or Jewish nationalists. The old contentions of their ancestors with their Christian neighbors in Western Europe nad been largely overlooked on both sides by the beginning of the nineteenth century,a nd nothing stood in the way of their full integration into national life. The American kinsmen of these Westernised Jews were similar in outlook.

Since the predominant new Jews consider themselves a superior people, ^[179] and a separate nationality, assimilation appears now to be out of the question. America now has virtually a nation within the nation, and an aggressive culture-conscious nation at that.

The stream of Eastern Europeans was diminshed in volume during World War I, but was at flood level again in 1920. ^[180] At last the Congress became sufficiently alarmed to initiate action. The House Committeed on immigration, in its report on the bill that later became the quota law of 1921, reported: There is a limit to our power of assimilation...the processes of assimilation and amalgamation are slow and difficult.

With the population of the broken parts of Europe headed this way in every-increasing numbers, why not pre-emptorily check the stream with this temporary measure, and in the meantime try the unique and novel experiment of enforcing all of the immigration laws on our statutes? Accordingly, the 67^th Congress �passed the first quota law, which was approved on May 19, 1921, limiting the number of any nationality entering the United States to 3 percent of the foreign-born of that nationality who lived here in 1910. Under the law, approximately 350,000 aliens were permitted to enter each year, mostly from Northern and Western Europe.� ^[181]

The worry of the Congress over unassimilated aliens continued and the House Congress over unassimilable aliens continued and the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalizat ion of the 68^th Congress reported that it was �necessary to the sucessful future of our nation to preseve the basic strain of our population� and continued ^[182] as follows: Since it is the axiom of political science that a government not imposed by external force is the visible expression of the ideals, standards, and social viewpoint of the people over which it rules, it is obvious that a change in the character or composition of the population must inevitably result in the evolution of a form of government consonant with the base upon which it rests. If, therefore, the principle of individual liberty, guarded by a constitutional government created on this continent nearly a century and a half ago, is to endure, the basic strain of our population must be maintained and our economic standards preserved.

The American people do not concede the right of any foreign group in the United States, or government abroad, to demand a participation in our possessing, tangible or intangible, or to dicate the character of our legislation.

The new law �changed the quota basis form 1910 to 1890, reduced the quotas from 3 to 2 percent, provided for the establishment of permanent quotas on the basis of national origin, and placed the burden of proof on the alien with regard to his admissibility and the legality of his residence inthe Uniited Stated.�

It was passed by the Congress on May 15,and signed by President Calvin Coolidge on May 26, 1924. The new quota system was still more favorable relatively to the British Isles and Germany and other countries of Northern and Western Europe and ecluded �persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States.� Unfortunately, within ten years, this salutary law was to be largely nullified misinterpretation of its intent and by continued scandalous maladministration, a principle worry of the Congress (as shown above) in 1921 and continuously since. ^[183]

By birth and by immigration either clandestine or in violation of the intent of the �national origins� law of 1924, the Jewish population of the U.S. increased rapidly.

The following official Census Bureau statement is of interest: �In 1887 there were at least 277 congregations in the country and 230,000 Jews; in 1890, 533 congregations and probably 475,000 Jews; in 1906, 1700 congregations and about 1,775,000 Jews; in 1916, 1900 congregations and about 3,300,000 Jews; in 1936, 3,118 permanent congregations and 4,641,184 Jews residing in the cities, towns and villages in which the congregations were located.� ^[184]

On other religions, the latest government statistics are mostly for the year 1947, but for Jews the 1936 figure remains. ^[185] As to the total number of Jews in the Untied States the government has no exact figures, any precise figures beyond a vague �over five million� being impossible because of incomplete records and illegal immigration. The Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, ^[186] however, accepts the World Almanac figure of 15,713,638 Jews of religious affiliation in the world and summarizes thus: �statistics indicate that over 50 of 15,713,638 Jews of religious affiliation in the world and summarizes thus: statistics indicate that over 50 percent of the World Jewish population is now residing in the Western Hemisphere, ^{^[187]} i.e., at least 8,000,000.

Since some three-fourths of a million Jews live in other North and South American countries besides the United States may be placed at a minimum of about 7,250,000.

Jews unaffiliated with organizations whose members are counted, illegal entrants, etc., may place the total number in the neighborhood of 10,000,000. This likely figure would justify the frequently heard statement that more than half the Jews of the world are in the United States. Perentage-wise this is the government summary ^[188] of Jewish population in the United States.

In 1937, Jews constituted less than 4 percent of the American people, but during the 7-year period following (1937-43), net Jewish immigration to the United States ranged between 25 and 77 percent of total net immigration to this country. For the 36-year period, 1908-43, net Jewish immigration constituted 14 percent of the total. The population of the Jewish population has increased twenty-one-fold during the same period.

The above governenment figures require elucidation. The figures include only those Jews connected with an organized Jewish congregation and, as a corollary, exclude the vast number of Jeww, illegal entrants and others, who are not so connected, and hence not officially listed as Jews.

The stated increase of Jews by 2100 percent since 1877 is thus far too small because non-Congregational Jews are not counted. Moreover, since the increase of 300 percent in the total population incljudes known Jews, who increased at the rate of 2100 percent,t he increase in population of non-Jews is far less than the 300 percent increase of the total population.

This powerful and rapidly growing minority; closely knit and obsessed with its own objectives which are not those of Western Christian civilization, will be discussed along with other principal occupants of the stage of ublic affairs in America during the early 1950s. Details will come as a surprise to many, who are the unwitting victims of censorship. Valuable for its light on the global projects of politial Zionism, with especial reference to Africa, is Douglas Reed�s �Somewhere South of Suez.� ^[189]

After mentioning that the �secret ban� against publishing the truth on �Zionist Nationalism,� which he holds �to be allied in its roots to Soviet Communism,� has grown in his adult lifetime �from nothing into something approaching a law of lese majesty at some absolute court of the dark past,� Mr. Reed states fuirther that �the Zionist Nationalists are powerful enough to govern governments in the great countries of the remaining West!� He concludes further that �Amerian Presidents and British Prime Miisters, and all their colleagues,� bow to Zionism as if venerating a shrine.

The History of The Jewish Khazars: "...Our first question here is, When did the Khazars and the Khazar name appear? There has been considerable discussion as to the relation of the Khazars to the Huns on the one hand and to the West Turks on the other. The prevalent opinion has for some time been that the Khazars emerged from the West Turkish empire.

Early references to the Khazars appear about the time when the West Turks cease to be mentioned. Thus they are reported to have joined forces with the Greek Emperor Heraclius against the Persians in A.D. 627 and to have materially assisted him in the siege of Tiflis. it is a question whether the Khazars were at this time under West Turk supremacy. The chronicler Theophanes {died circa A.D. 818} who tells the story introduces them as 'the Turks from the east whom they call Khazars.'...

A similar discussion on the merits of the different races is reported from the days before Muhammad, in which the speakers are the Arab Nu'man ibn-al-Mudhir of al-Hirah and Khusraw Anushirwan. The Persian gives his opinion that the Greeks, Indians, and Chinese are superior to the Arabs and so also, in spite of their low material standards of life, the Turks and the Khazars, who at least possess an organization under their kings. Here again the Khazars are juxtaposed with the great nations of the east. It is consonant with this that tales were told of how ambassadors from the Chinese, the Turks, and the Khazars were constantly at Khusraw's gate, ^{^[190]} and even that he kept three thrones of gold in his palace, which were never removed and on which none sat, reserved for the kings of Byzantium, China and the Khazars.

In general, the material in the Arabic and Persian writers with regard to the Khazars in early times falls roughly into three groups, centering respectively round the names of (a) one or other of the Hebrew patriarchs, (b) Alexander the Great, and (c) certain of the Sassanid kings, especially, Anushirwan and his immediate successors.

A typical story of the first group is given by Ya'qubi in his History. After the confusion of tongues at Babel ^{^[191]}; the descendants of Noah came to Peleg ^{^[192]}, son of Eber ^{^[193]}, and asked him to divide ^{^[194]} the earth among them. He apportioned to the descendants of Japheth ^{^[195]} - China, Hind, Sind, the country of the Turks and that of the Khazars, as well as Tibet, the country of the (Volga) Bulgars, Daylam, and the country neighboring on Khurasan. In another passage Ya'qubi gives a kind of sequel to this. Peleg ^{^[196]} having divided the earth in this fashion ^{^[197]}, the descendants of 'Amur ibn-Tubal ^{^[198]}, a son of Japheth, went out to the northeast. One group, the descendants of Togarmah ^{^[199]}, proceeding farther north, were scattered in different countries and became a number of kingdoms, among them the Burjan (Bulgars), Alans, Khazars ^{^[200]}, and Armenians. Similarly, according to Tabari, there were born to Japheth Jim-r the Biblical Gomer ^{^[201]}, Maw'-' (read Mawgh-gh), Magog ^{^[202]}, Mawday Madai ^{^[203]}, Yawan (Javan) ^{^[204]}, Thubal (Tubal), Mash-j (read Mash-kh), Meshech ^{^[205]} and Tir-sh (Tiras). ^{^[206]} Of the descendants of the last were the Turks and the Khazars (Ashkenaz). There is possibly an association here with the Turgesh, survivors of the West Turks, who were defeated by the Arabs in 119/737, ^{^[207]} and disappeared as a ruling group in the same century. Tabari says curiously that of the descendants of Mawgh-gh (Magog) were Yajuj and Majuj, adding that these are to the east of the Turks and Khazars. This information would invalidate Zeki Validi's attempt to identify Gog and Magog in the Arabic writers with the Norwegians. The name Mash-kh (Meshech) is regarded by him as probably a singular to the classical Massagetai (Massag-et). A Bashmakov emphasizes the connection of 'Meshech' with the Khazars, to establish his theory of the Khazars, not as Turks from inner Asia, but what he calls a Jephetic or Alarodian group from south of the Caucasus.

Evidently there is no stereotyped form of this legendary relationship of the Khazars to Japheth. The Taj-al-Artis says that according to some they are the descendants of Kash-h (? Mash-h or Mash-kh, for Meshech), son of Japheth, and according to others both the Khazars and the Saqalibah are sprung from Thubal (Tubal). Further, we read of Balanjar ibn-Japheth in ibn-al-Faqih and abu-al-Fida' as the founder of the town of Balanjar. Usage leads one to suppose that this is equivalent to giving Balanjar a separate racial identity. In historical times Balanjar was a well-known Khazar center, which is even mentioned by Masudi as their capital.

It is hardly necessary to cite more of these Japheth stories. Their Jewish origin is priori obvious, and Poliak has drawn attention to one version of the division of the earth, where the Hebrew words for 'north' and 'south' actually appear in the Arabic text. The Iranian cycle of legend had a similar tradition, according to which the hero Afridun divided the earth among his sons, Tuj (sometimes Tur, the eponym of Turan), Salm, and Iraj. Here the Khazars appear with the Turks and the Chinese in the portion assigned to Tuj, the eldest son. Some of the stories connect the Khazars with Abraham. The tale of a meeting in Khurasan between the sons of Keturah ^{^[208]} and the Khazars (Ashkenaz) ^{^[209]} where the Khaqan is Khaqan is mentioned is quoted from the Sa'd and al-Tabari by Poliak. The tradition also appears in the Meshed manuscript of ibn-al-Faqih, apparently as part of the account of Tamim ibn-Babr's journey to the Uigurs, but it goes back to Hishim al-Kalbi. Zeki Validi is inclined to lay some stress on it as a real indication of the presence of the Khazars in this region at an early date. Al-Jahiz similarly refers to the legend of the sons of Abraham and Keturah settling in Khurasan but does not mention the Khazars. Al-Di-mashqi says that according to one tradition the Turks were the children of Abraham by Keturah, whose father belonged to the original Arab stock. Descendants of other sons of Abraham, namely the Soghdians and the Kirgiz, were also said to live beyond the Oxus..." ^[210]

Encyclopedia Americana (1985): "Khazar, an ancient Turkic‑speaking people who ruled a large and powerful state in the steppes North of the Caucasus Mountains from the 7th century to their demise in the mid‑11th century A.D...In the 8th Century it's political and religious head...as well as the greater part of the Khazar nobility, abandoned paganism and converted to Judaism...(The Khazars are believed to be the ancestors of most Russian and Eastern European Jews)."

Encyclopedia Britannica� (15th edition): "Khazars, confederation of Turkic and Iranian tribes that established a major commercial empire in the second half of the 6th century, covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia...In the middle of the 8th century the ruling classes adopted Judaism as their religion."

Academic American Encyclopedia (1985): "Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are one of the two major divisions of the Jews, the other being the Shephardim."

Encyclopedia Americana (1985): "Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are the Jews whose ancestors lived in German lands...it was among Ashkenazi Jews that the idea of political Zionism emerged, leading ultimately to the establishment of the state of Israel...In the late 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews numbered some 11 million, about 84 percent of the world Jewish population."

The Jewish Encyclopedia: "Khazars, a non-Semitic, Asiatic, Mongolian tribal nation who emigrated into Eastern Europe about the first century, who were converted as an entire nation to Judaism in the seventh century by the expanding Russian nation which absorbed the entire Khazar population, and who account for the presence in Eastern Europe of the great numbers of Yiddish‑speaking Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Galatia, Besserabia and Rumania."

The Encyclopedia Judaica (1972): "Khazars, a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries C.E. During part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism...In spite of the negligible information of an archaeological nature, the presence of Jewish groups and the impact of Jewish ideas in Eastern Europe are considerable during the Middle Ages. Groups have been mentioned as migrating to Central Europe from the East often have been referred to as Khazars, thus making it impossible to overlook the possibility that they originated from within the former Khazar Empire."

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia: "The primary meaning of Ashkenaz and Ashkenazim in Hebrew is Germany and Germans. This may be due to the fact that the home of the ancient ancestors of the Germans is Media, which is the Biblical Ashkenaz...Krauss is of the opinion that in the early medieval ages the Khazars were sometimes referred to as Ashkenazim...About 92 percent of all Jews or approximately 14,500,000 are Ashkenazim."

The Bible: Relates that the Khazar (Ashkenaz) Jews were/are the sons of Japheth not Shem: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth;...the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz..." ^[211] Therefore, the Bible proves that the Ashkenaz Jews [Khazars] are not the descendants of Shem and cannot be Semite.

Kimyarite King Adopts Judaism and Converts His Army and People: "Kimyarite (Himyarite) see Sabeans ^{^[212]} Sabeans: The inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Sheba in southeastern Arabia, known from the Bible, classical writers, and native inscriptions. The genealogies of Genesis give three pedigrees for Sheba, the eponymous ancestor of the Sabeans, who is variously termed (1) the son of Raamah and the grandson of Cush, ^{^[213]} (2) the son of Joktan and a great‑great‑grandson of Shem, ^{^[214]} and (3) the son of Jokshan and a grandson of Abraham by Keturah ^{^[215]}. There seem, therefore, to have been three stocks of Sabeans: one in Africa, ^{^[216]} and the other two in Arabia.

Of the latter one is connected with the story of Abraham, and the other with that of the kingdom localized by Genesis 10:30, including the Joktanites generally, and extending 'from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east.'

In Job 6:19 the Sabeans are mentioned in close association with the Temeans, an Ishmaelite stock ^{^[217]} that dwelt in Arabia. ^{^[218]} The Psalms and the prophetical books lay special emphasis upon the wealth and commercial activity of the Sabeans. The gifts of the kings of Sheba and of Seba to Solomon are noted in Psalm 62:10, gold being especially mentioned among these presents. ^{^[219]} In both these passages the Septuagint, followed by the Vulgate, identifies Sheba with Arabia Isaiah 60:6 adds incense to the gifts which these countries were to bring. ^{^[220]}

'Despite the collocation with Dedan in Genesis 10:7, 1 Chronicles 1:9 and Ezekiel 38:13, the merchants of Sheba, whom Ezekiel addressed in the words 'occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones, and gold...' ^{^[221]} were doubtless Sabeans; but the reference in the following verse to the 'merchants of Sheba,' together with Haran, Canneh, Eden Asshur, and Chilmad, who by implication would be Asiatics, is probably a mere dittography, and is rightly omitted in the Septuagint. The wealth of Sheba is indicated also by the list of the gifts brought by its queen to Solomon, and which were 'a hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of spices very great store, and precious stones: there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.' ^{^[222]}; see Sheba, Queen Of).

The only mention of the Sabeans in a warlike connection is in Job 1:15, where they are described as attacking and killing the servants of Job to rob them of cattle; but according to Joel 4, ^{^[223]} they dealt in slaves, including Jews.

In the New Testament there is a reference to the kingdom of Sheba in the allusion to 'the queen of the south.' ^{^[224]} Sheba must be carefully distinguished from the Cushite or African Seba, ^{^[225]} as is shown by the discrimination between the 'kings of Sheba and Seba.' in Psalm 72:10, and by the collocation of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba in Isaiah 43:3, 45:13.

Strabo, basing his account for the most part on Eratosthenes, an author of the third century B.C., gives considerable information of value concerning the Sabeans. ^{^[226]} Their territory was situated between those of the Mineans and Cattabanes; and their capital, Mariaba, stood on the summit of a wooded hill.

The country, like those adjoining, was a flourishing monarchy, with beautiful temples and palaces, and with houses which resembled those of the Egyptians. The mode of succession to the throne was peculiar in that the heir apparent was not the son of the king, but the first son born to a noble after the monarch's accession. The king himself was also the judge; but he was not allowed to leave the palace under penalty of being stoned to death by the people.

Inscriptions of the Sabeans are numerous, but the information which these records furnish is comparatively meager. They cover, it is true, a period of about 1,300 years, ceasing only with the extinction of the kingdom in the sixth century C.E. (A.D.); but only of the period just before and just after the beginning of the present era are they sufficiently abundant to allow even an approximation to a coherent history. The earliest inscription known is one containing the name of Yetha‑amara, who has been identified with the 'Ithamara the Sabean' of an inscription of Sargon dated 715 B.C.

Besides the epigraphical remains, there is a large number of coins, dating chiefly from 150 B.C. to 150 C.E. These are of special value for the history of the nation, even during its period of decline, since they bear both the monograms and the names of numerous kings.

The Sabean inscriptions are dated by eponymous magistrates previous to the introduction of an era which has been identified with the Seleucidan (312 B.C.), and which has also been fixed by other scholars as beginning in 115 B.C., although there are traces of other chronological systems as well. These texts frequently allude to commerce, agriculture, and religion...

Among the Sabean gods the most important were Almakah ('the hearing god?'), Athtar (a protective deity and the male for of 'Ashtaroth,' to whom the gazel seems to have been sacred), Haubas (possibly a lunar deity), Dhu Samawi ('lord of heaven'), Hajr, Kainan, Kawim ('the sustaining'), Sin (the principal moon‑god), Shams (the chief solar deity), Yata', Ramman (the Biblical Rimmon), El ('God' in general), Sami' (the hearing'), Shem (corresponding in functions to the general Semitic Ba'al), Hobal (possibly a god of fortune), Homar (perhaps a god of wine), Bashir (bringer of good tidings), Rahman (the merciful), Ta'lab (probably a tree‑god), and Wadd (borrowed from the Mineans).

A number of goddesses are mentioned, among them Dhat Hami (lady of Hami), Dhat Ba'dan (lady of Ba'dan), Dhat Gadran (lady of Gadran), and Tanuf (lofty). It becomes clear, even from this scanty information, that the religion was in the main a nature‑cult, like the other Semitic religions; and this is borne out by a statement in the Koran (sura 27:24) that the Sabeans worshiped the sun.� Few details of the cult are given, although there are frequent mentions of gifts and sacrifices, as well as of 'self‑presentation,' a rite of doubtful meaning, but one which evidently might be performed more than once.

Ritual purity and abstinence of various forms also seem to have formed part of the Sabean religion, and the name of the month Dhu Hijjat or Mahijjat, the only one retained by the Arabs (Dhu'l‑Hijja, the twelfth month), implies a custom of religious pilgrimage to some shrine or shrines. To the account of the government as described by Strabo the Sabean inscriptions add little. The word for 'nation' is 'khums' (fifth), which apparently implies an earlier division of Arabia or of a portion of it into five parts; and the people were divided into tribes (shi'b), which, in their turn, were composed of 'tenths' or 'thirds.'

The kings at first styled themselves 'malik' (king) and, possibly later, 'mukarrib,' a term of uncertain meaning, while they afterward were called 'kings of Saba and Dhu Raidan,' and finally monarchs of Hadramaut and Yamanet as well. There were likewise kings of a number of minor cities. From a late text which mentions a king of Himyar and Raidan and of Saba and Silhin, it has been inferred that the capital of Sheba was later removed to Raidan while the actual palace remained at Himyar, and that from this circumstance the dynasty and all that it ruled were formerly called Himyaritic (the 'Homeritae' of Ptolemy and of Christian ecclesiastical authors), a designation now generally discarded.

The state of society in Sheba seems to have been somewhat feudal to character. The great families, which evidently possessed large landed estates, had castles and towers that are frequently mentioned in the inscriptions; and remains of some of these buildings are still extant. The status of woman was remarkably high. The mistress of a castle is mentioned in one inscription, and the epigraphical remains represent women as enjoying practical equality with men, although a few passages imply the existence of concubi�nage.

The Sabean language belonged to the Semitic stock. While some of the inscriptions differ little from classical Arabic, most of them show a close affinity with Ethiopic. The weak letters occasionally possessed their consonant value as in Ethiopic, although they have become vowels in Arabic. On the other hand, the article is affixed as in Aramaic, instead of being prefixed as in Arabic, and certain syntactic phenomena recall Hebrew rather than the South‑Sem�itic dialects. The alphabet, which, like all the Semitic systems except Ethiopic, represents the consonants only, is plausibly regarded by man as the earliest form of Semitic script." ^[227]

The Encyclopedia Americana calls Hyrcanus a Jewish high priest [135‑105 B.C.] who forced the Idumeans to become "Jews." Idumea is the Greek for Edomites. The works of Josephes relates how the Idumeans were forced to accept Judaism. In the Bible Esau, Edo, Mt. Seir and Idumea are interchangeable for the offspring of ESAU, Jacob's twin brother.

Between the time of Nehemiah and the birth of Christ, the problem of intermarriage increased. The climax of the problem came about a century and a half before the birth of Christ, when the Judean, John Hyrcanus, conquered the heathen cities in Palestine and forced the Canaanites to become Judeans ["Jews"].

Josephus, the Judean historian, writing in about 95 A.D. wrote of this: "Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea [Greek form of Edom], and subdued all the Idumaeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would be circumcised, and make use of the laws of the Judeans; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Judean ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, they were hereafter no other than Judeans." ^[228]

A footnote in Josephus quotes Ammonius, an ancient grammarian, who says further: "The Judeans are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumaeans were not Judeans from the beginning, but Phoenicians and Syrians; but being afterward subdued by the Judeans and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Judeans." This same footnote also quotes Dio, the ancient historian: "That country is also called Judea, and the people Judeans; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion, though of other nations."

Josephus continues his history of how the Judahites incorporated the Edomites and Canaanites and a history of the son of Hyrcanus named Aristobulus: "He was called a lover of the Grecians; and had conferred many benefits on his own country, and made war against Iturea, and added a great part of it to Judea, and compelled its inhabitants if they would continue in that country, to be circumcised, and to live according to the Judean laws. ^{^[229]} "Now at this time the Judeans were in possession of the following cities that had belonged to the Syrians, and Idumeans, and Phoenicians: [Here he lists 23 non‑ Israelite cities]; which last [city] they utterly destroyed, because its inhabitants would not bear to change their religious rites for those peculiar to the Judeans. The Judeans also possessed others of the principle cities of Syria, which had been destroyed." ^[230]

This all took place at least a century before Christ. It is obvious, then, that by the time Christ was born a great host of the people living in Judea were Canaanites and Edomites by race, although they were Jews by religion and Judeans by citizenship. Even the ruling dynasty of the Herods were Edomites. Josephus speaks of: "Herod, who was no more than a private man, and an Idumean, i.e., a half‑Judean" ^[231]

A footnote here says: "Accordingly, Josephus always esteems him an Idumean, though he says his father Antipater was of the same people with the Judeans, and a Judean by birth, as indeed all such proselytes of justice as the Idumeans, were in time esteemed the very same people with the Judeans."

The Esau‑Edomite nation ["Idumea"] ceased to exist as a separate nation at this point in history. And yet the Bible is clear that Edom would be the enemy of Israel in the latter days.

How could these prophecies be fulfilled, if there are no Edomites left in the world? There is only one nation in the world that can prove ancestral ties with Edom, and the Jews themselves claim that dubious distinction. The Jews have thus adopted the materialistic and anti‑Christ attitude that characterized the father of the Edomites, Esau.

As judgment for their sins, including that of the Crucifixion of Christ, God cast them out of Palestine in 70 A.D. whereupon they fled to North Africa and Spain. We find what happened to them in The American People's Encyclopedia for 1954, page 15‑492, under "The Jews." "Following their dispersal many spread across North Africa to Spain and during this movement converted many of the Berber tribes to Judaism. This had little effect on physical type, since most of the Berbers were likewise of that Mediterranean Race. That portion which moved into Spain and later northward achieved considerable wealth and prestige and became known as Sephardim Jews."

The Outline of History: H. G. Wells, "It is highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine 'at all,' which witnesses the power of historical assertion over fact."��

Following is the story of the conversion of a tribe of people in Russia to Judaism and is the origin of more than 95% of the Jews of Eastern Europe.

Facts Are Facts, By Benjamin Freedman. "Without a complete and accurate knowledge of the origin and history of the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe...it is quite impossible for [Christians] to intelligently understand the harmful influence the Jews have exerted for ten centuries...�You will probably be astonished as many Christians were years ago when I electrified the nation with the first publication by me of the facts disclosed by my many years of research into the origin and the history of the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe. My many years of intensive research established beyond the question of any doubt, contrary to the generally accepted belief held by Christians, that the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe at any time in their history in Eastern Europe were never the legendary 'lost ten tribes' of Bible lore. That historic fact is incontrovertible.

Rlentless research established as equally true that the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe at no time in their history could be correctly regarded as the direct lineal descendants of the legendary �Lost Ten Tribes� of Bible lore. The �Jews' in Eastern Europe in modern history cannot legitimately point to a single ancient ancestor who ever set even a foot on the soil of Palestine in the era of Bible History.

Research also revealed that the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe were never �Semites,� are not �Semites� now, nor can they ever be regarded as �Semites� at any future time by any stretch of the imagination. Exhaustive research also irrevocably rejects as a fantastic fabrication the generally accepted belief by Christians that the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe are the legendary 'Chosen People' so very vocally publicized by the Christian clergy from their pulpits..."

The American People�s Encyclopedia for 1954 at 15‑292 records the following in reference to the Khazars:� "In the year 740 A.D. the Khazars were officially converted to Judaism. A century later they were crushed by the incoming Slavic‑speaking people and were scattered over central Europe where they were known as Jews.

It is from this grouping that most German, Polish and Hungarian Jews are descended, and they likewise make up a considerable part of that population now found in America. The term Askenazim is applied to this round‑headed, dark‑complexioned division."

Nathan M. Pollock has a beef with the Israeli government. His elaborate plans to celebrate this September the 1000th anniversary of the Jewish ‑ Khazar alliance were summarily rejected. An elderly, meek‑looking man who migrated to Israel from Russia 43 years ago.

He has devoted 40 of his 64 years trying to prove that six out of ten Israelis and none out of ten Jews in the Western Hemisphere are real Jews' Jews, but descendants of fierce Khazar tribes which roamed the steppes of Southern Russia many centuries ago.

For obvious reasons the Israeli authorities are not at all eager to give the official stamp of approval to Pollock's theories. "For all we know, he may be 100 percent right,' said a senior government official. 'In fact, he is not the first one to discover the connection between Jews and Khazars. Many famous scholars Jews and non‑Jews, stressed these links in their historical research works. But who can tell today what percentage of Khazar blood flows in our veins..." ^[232]

From the above, we can clearly see that the Jews fully understand their Khazarian heritage as the third edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925 records: "CHAZARS [Khazars]: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia. The kingdom of the Chazars was firmly established in most of South Russia long before the foundation of the Russian monarchy by the Varangians (855). Jews have lived on the shores of the Black and Caspian seas since the first centuries of the common era [after the death of Christ]. Historical evidence points to the region of the Ural as the home of the Chazars. Among the classical writers of the Middle Ages they were known as the 'Chozars,' 'Khazirs,' 'Akatzirs,' and 'Akatirs,' and in the Russian chronicles as 'Khwalisses' and 'Ugry Byelyye.'..."

The Encyclopedia Judaica:, Vol. 10, (1971) relates the following about the Khazars (Chazars): "Khazars, a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D. During part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism." ^[233]

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia: "Khazars, a medieval people, probably related to the Volga Bulgars, whose ruling class adopted Judaism during the 8th cent. The Khazars seem to have emerged during the 6th cent., from the vast nomadic Hun (Turki) empire which stretched from the steppes of Eastern Europe and the Volga basin to the Chinese frontier. Although it is often claimed that allusions to the Khazars are found as early as 200 C.E., actually they are not mentioned until 627...Most Jewish Historians date the conversion of the Khazar King to Judaism during the first half of this century {A.D.}..."

The primary meaning of Ashkenaz and Ashkenazim in Hebrew is Germany and Germans. This may be due to the fact that the home of the ancient ancestors of the Germans is Media, which is the Biblical Ashkenaz...Krauss is of the opinion that in the early medieval ages the Khazars were sometimes referred to as Ashkenazim...About 92 percent of all Jews or approximately 14,500,000 are Ashkenazim.

Academic American Encyclopedia:, Deluxe Library Edition, Volume 12, page 66 states: "The Khazars, a turkic people, created a commercial and political empire that dominated substantial parts of South Russia during much of the 7th through 10th centures. During the 8th century the Khazar aristocracy and the Kagan (King) were converted to Judaism."

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6, page 836 relates: "Khazar, member of a confederation of Turkic-speaking tribes that in the late 6th century A.D. established a major commerical empire covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia...But the most striking characteristic of the Khazars was the apparent adoption of Judaism by the Khagan and the greater part of the ruling class in about 740...The fact itself, however, is undisputed and unparalleled in the history of central Eurasia. A few scholars have asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote ancestors of many of the Jews of Eastern Europe and Russia."

Collier�s Encyclopedia: Volume 14, page 65 states: "Khazars [kaza'rz], a semi-nomadic tribe of Turkish or Tatar origin who first appeared north of the Caucasus in the early part of the third century...In the eighth century Khaghan Bulan decided in favor of the Jews and accepted Judaism for himself and for his people..."

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, page 173 relates: "The Khazars were an ethnic group, belonging to the Turkish peoples, who, toward the end of the 2d century of the Christian Era, had settled in the region between the Caucasus and the lower Volga and Don Rivers...At the beginning of the 8th century, dynastic ties bound the Khazars more closely to Constantinople, which led to a limited spread of Christianity among them. They also became acquainted with Judaism from the numerous Jews who lived in the Crimea and along the Bosphorus. When the Byzantine Emperor, Leo the Isaurian, persecuted the Jews in A.D. 723, many Jews found refuge in the Khazar kingdom, and their influence was so great that, around the middle of the 8th century, the King of the Khazars and many of the Khazar nobility accepted the Jewish faith�.

The Cadillac Modern Encyclopedia, page 822, states: "Khazars (khah'-zahrz), a S Russian people of Turkic origin, who at the height of their power (during the 8th-10th cent., A.D.) controlled an empire which included Crimea, and extended along the lower Volga, as far E as the Caspian Sea. The Khazar royal family and aristocracy converted to Judaism during the reign of King Bulan (768-809 A.D.) And Judaism was thereafter regarded as the state religion..."

The Jewish author, Arthur Koestler, relates the following concerning Jewish history: In his 1976 best seller The Thirteenth Tribe, the Author of Darkness at Noon, Promise and Fulfillment, and The Roots of Coincidence dropped another bombshell by proving that today�s Jews were, for the most part, descendants of Khazars, who converted to Judaism seven centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. "This, of course, is inspired by the story of the Covenant in Genesis; and it implies that the Khazars too claimed the status of a Chosen Race, who made their own Covenant with the Lord, even though they [Khazars] were not descended from Abraham�s seed...He cannot, and does not, claim for them [the Khazars] Semitic descent, he traces their [Khazars] ancestry not to Shem, but to Noah�s third son, Japheth, or more precisely to Japheth�s grandson, Togarma, the anceestor of all turkish tribes. 'We have found in the family registers of our fathers,' Joseph asserts boldly, 'that Togarma had ten sons, and the names of their off-spring are as follows: Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars, Sabir. We [Khazars] are the sons of Khazar, the seventh...'" ^[234]

The Jewish author Alfred M. Lilienthal relates the following concerning Jewish history: "...'The existence of [The State of] Israel is not founded on logic. It has no ordinary legitimacy. There is neither in its establishment nor present scope any evident justice ‑ though there may be an utter need and wondrous fulfillment.'...

�� Arthur Koestler answers this question with an emphatic 'NO!' In his 1976 best seller� The Thirteenth Tribe, the Author of Darkness at Noon, Promise and Fulfillment, and The Roots of Coincidence dropped another bombshell by proving that today�s Jews were, for the most part, descendants of Khazars, who converted to Judaism seven centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D...Therefore, the great majority of Eastern European Jews are not Semitic Jews at all, and as most Western European Jews came from East Europe, most of them also are not Semitic Jews.

Thus, maintains Koestler, the veins of 45 percent of Israelis (save only the Arab and the Sephardic Jews), plus a big majority of Jews around the world, are utterly vacant of corpuscular links to the tribe of Moses and Solomon...The Koestler thesis, however startling, is in no wise a new one. The genetic Khazar derivation of most Jews, only the Sephardic may be accounted Hebrews by blood, has been long if not widely known...The home to which Weismann, Silver, Ben‑Gurion and so many other Ashkenazim Zionists have long yearned to return has most likely never been theirs...[it is an] anthropological fact, many Christians may have much more Hebrew- Israelite blood in their veins than most of their Jewish neighbors!

Ironically enough, too, Volume IV of the Jewish Encyclopedia (as of the time of research, 1952), because this publication spelled Khazars with a 'C' instead of a 'K,' is titled 'Chazars to Dreyfus.'.

And it was the famed trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, as interpreted by Theodore Herzl, that made the modern Jewish Khazars of Russia...forget their descent from converts to Judaism...to establish the State of Israel...

And with out the hue and cry, �Anti-Semitism,� pray what happens to the Zionist movement? Khazar conversion was not unique...Who can say for sure that many Christian readers of this book might not in fact have a better claim, which they do not choose to exercise, to go back �Home� to Palestine than Hannah Semer, Menachem Begin, or Golda Meir? Queen Victoria herself belonged to an Israelite society that traced the ancestry of its membership back to the Lost Tribes of Israel. When the word 'Judaism' was born, there was no longer a Hebrew-Israelite state. The people who embraced the creed of Judaism were already a mixture of many nations, races, and strains, and this diversification was rapidly growing..." ^[235]

In Genesis 3:15 we are told: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed ..." The important thing to note is that there are two lines of descent here - the seed or descendants of the serpent (Satan), and the other, the descendants of Eve (the woman).

The word "woman" is used later in Scripture to describe those who comprise God's Kingdom. Satan, also, has a kingdom, for it says in Luke 11:18: "If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?" The subjects of his kingdom are obviously the seed of the serpent or Satan. Christ recognized the existence of this evil line when he blamed them for all the blood shed beginning with the slaying of Abel. ^[236]

There are two kingdoms in the world today - the kingdom of good and the kingdom of evil; the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan. We know that believers in Christ, or Christians, comprise God's Kingdom, but who are Satan's subjects? Let us see if we can identify them from the Scriptures.

There are a people or race which the Bible speaks of in various places as "enemies" of God, "filthy dreamers," "devils," "serpents," "enemies of all righteousness," "princes of this world," "those that are lost," "vipers," and "contrary to all men." The blood of the true Judahite, who originally numbered little more than 40,000 had become thoroughly obliterated by the amalgamation of the people of Ashdod, Moabites, Ammonites, Perizzites, Jebuzites, Canaanites, Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Amalekites and finally Idumeans. It was the Idumeans who took control of the country of Judea and furnished the Herodian line of rulers.

Following is how the Pharisees came to be in "Moses' Seat" when Christ was born. They had many enemies at the beginning and the Sadducees were the first of these enemies. To see a "small" portion of the distortions of the Pharisees on the Bible, in eliminating the Chief Engineer, the God of Intelligence, planning, approachability is seen under the caption "History of the Pharisees," pages 665‑666, of the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Her brother, Simon ben Shetah, had been waiting for such an opportunity. The continued civil war resulted in the sons of Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, in 63 B.C., going hat in hand to Pompey, Caesar's Roman General in Syria, asking him to invade Palestine and slaughter their respective opponents. This is how Rome happened to be in power when Christ was born. The full story can be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia under "Pharisees." "It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose, Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus. ^{^[237]}

Under John Hyracanus (135‑105 B.C.) they appear as a powerful party opposing the Sadducean proclivities of the king, who had formerly been a disciple of theirs, though the story as told by Josephus is unhistorical. ^{^[238]} The Hasmonean dynasty, with its worldly ambitions and aspirations, met with little support from the Pharisees, whose aim was the maintenance of a religious spirit in accordance with their interpretation of the Law.

Under Alexander Jannaeus (104‑78 B.C.) the conflict between the people, siding with the Pharisees, and the king became bitter and ended in carnage. ^{^[239]} Under his window Salome Alexander (78‑69 B.C.), the Pharisees, led by Simeon ben Shetah, came to power; they obtained seats in the Sanhedrin, and that time was afterward regarded as the golden age, full of the blessing of heaven. But the bloody vengeance they took upon the Sadducees led to a terrible reaction, and under Aristobulus (69‑63 B.C.) The Sadducees regained their power. ^{^[240]}

Amidst the bitter struggle which ensued, the Pharisees appeared before Pompey asking him to interfere and restore the old priesthood while abolishing the royalty of the Hasmoneans altogether. ^{^[241]}

The defilement of the Temple by Pompey was regarded by the Pharisees as a divine punishment of Sadducean misrule. After the national independence had been lost, the Pharisees gained in influence while the star of the Sadducees waned.

Herod found his chief opponents among the latter, and so he put the leaders of the Sanhedrin to death while endeavoring by a milder treatment to win the favor of the leaders of the Pharisees, who, through they refused to take the oath of allegiance, were otherwise friendly to him. ^{^[242]} Only when he provoked their indignation by his heathen proclivities did the Pharisees become his enemies and fall victims (4 B.C.) to his bloodthirstiness. ^{^[243]} But the family of Boethus, whom Herod had raised to the high‑priesthood, revived the spirit of the Sadducees, and thenceforth the Pharisees again had them as antagonists; still, they no longer possessed their former power, as the people always sided with the Pharisees. ^{^[244]}

In King Agrippa (41‑44 A.D.) the Pharisees had a supporter and friend, and with the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.

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. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition. Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thoughts of the Jews for all the future."

Any Human characteristic such as Intelligence or Love is "obnoxious verbiage" when attributed to God, and was eliminated, explained away, and the shell kept for the Jews "shell game" of cheating the gullible Christian. Attributing Intelligence to God, is to the Jew an "anthropomor�phism," a big word for a pagan idea, the idea that humans alone are intelligent.

Judaism would best be described as a rite or compendium of rites, for, if one lends belief to the presentations of the Jewish lawgivers, one must bear in mind that they studied among the initiates of Babylon, and become the pupils of Chaldean magic who were the fathers of Voodooism, a name given to the magic practices and rites taught to the Babylonians by Saragon [Cain].

The closer one studies the history of the Jews, the clearer it appears that they are neither a religious entity nor a nation. The absolute failure of Zionism which has been a desperate effort on the part of certain international Jewish leaders to bind all the Jews of the world into a national entity, whose territory would have been Palestine, proves the futility of such an effort. Judaism is not a religion and the Jews are not a nation, but they are a sect with Judaism as a rite. The obligations and rules of the rite for the Jewish masses are contained in the Talmud and Schulchan Aruk, but the esoteric teachings for the higher initiates are to be found in the Cabala. Therein are contained the mysterious rites for evocations, the indications and keys to practices for conjuration of supernatural forces, the science of numbers, astrology, etc. Thus, all the vestiges of the ancient religion of Israel had been destroyed except certain ceremonial rites which were still allowed by the Idumeans. At this point the Jews and Idumeans merged and became as one. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1925 - edition) under "Edom" states, "from this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate people..."

Since Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, the Jews have continued to absorb proselytes from all races. The ancient monuments presenting a physiognomy characteristic of the Hittites reveals the total eradication of Israelitish features. History proves that neither literally or spiritually can the modern Jew claim to be Abraham's descendants, and their claim to the Holy Land is therefore without foundation. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were Jews as we know. John recognized them for what they were when he said in Matthew 3:7: "Oh generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Our Lord enlarges on this when He excoriates the Jews in the 23rd chapter of Matthew and calls them hypocrites; "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" ^[245] Here we find Christ confirming John's description of these people.

In John 8:44 Jesus describes the Jews in these words, "Ye [Jews] are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar and the father of it." This statement rules out any attempt to establish brotherhood or unity between Christians and Jews as there cannot be "brotherhood" where there are different fathers. Christians have God as their father and Jesus Himself says the Jews have Satan as their father.

We are told in 2 John 7, 9, 11: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and antichrist...Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Note this text well. It refers to the Jews who reject Christ. If we so much as wish them good luck, we are as bad as they are in the sight of God.

In Galatians 2:4 we are told, "And because of false brethren brought in unawares, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage..." Jude 1:4, 8 tells us: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodlymen, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ...Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

Someone, at this point, will always ask, "Doesn't the Bible say we are to love our enemies?" Yes, it does. We must be careful, however, not to love God�s enemies, for God will not hold us guiltless if we do. 2 Chronicles 19:2, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord."

The Babylonian Talmud, which is the Jewish holy book, contains the very things which Jude so severely condemns. Benjamin Freedman in his book "Facts are Facts" lists some of the things which Jude calls "speaking evil of dignities." They are as follows: Midrasch Talpioth (225) - Christians created to minister to Jews always. Iore Dea (153,2) - Jews must not associate with Christians. Abhodah Zorah (15b) suggests Christians have sex relations with animals. Iore Dea (198,48) clean female Jews contaminated on meeting Christians. Makkoth (7b) innocent of murder if intent was to kill a Christian. Sepher or Israel (177b) If Jew kills Christian, he commits no sin. Zohar (11,64b) Christian birth rate must be diminished materially. Orach Chaim (57,6a) Christians more to be pitied than sick pigs. Zohar 2 (64b) Christian isolators likened to cows and asses. Kethuboth (3b) The seed of a Christian is valued as seed of beast. Eben Haezer (44,8) marriages between Christians and Jews null. Zohar (1,286) Christian isolators are children of Eve's serpent. Rosch Haschannach (17b) Non-Jew souls go down to hell. Hilkoth Akum (ch.lx) forbidden to celebrate Easter and Christmas. Abhodah Zarah (78c) Christian feast days are despicable, vain and evil. Sanhedrin (58b) To strike a Jew is like slapping the face of God. Iore Dea (148,12h) hide hatred for Christians. Choschen Ham (183,7) keep what Christians overpays in error. Babha Kama (113b) It is permitted to deceive Christians. Babha Kama (113a) Jews may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian. Zohar (1,160a) Jews must always try to deceive Christians.

The above excerpts from the Talmud, as listed by Mr. Freedman, form a clear explanation of why the Bible calls them "filthy dreamers" and "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness" and that we are not to admit them into our home on pain of incurring God's displeasure. By their own writings they are condemned, speaking evil of dignities. Being mindful of the fact that Jesus informs us in John 8:44 that these people are the progeny of Satan, it is amazing how some so-called Christians go out of their way to cultivate their good will.

We are told in Acts 13:6,9, "And when they had gone through the Isle of Pathos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-Jesus...Then Saul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, 'O, full of all subtility and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?'" Here Saul (Paul) identifies the Jew as a child of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness.

We can further identify them as "princes of the world" in John 14:30, "...for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 16: 11, "...the prince of the world is judged." John 12:31, "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out." These texts refer to Satan as the Prince of this world and both Jesus and Paul refer to the Jews as children of the devil, therefore they are princes in Satan's realm.

The Jews, because of their hatred for Christ, made it difficult and dangerous for Him to carry on His work in Judea. John 11:7-8, "Then after that, saith He to His disciples, Let us go into Judea again. His disciples say unto Him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee and goest thou thither again?" In Luke 4:43-44, Jesus said, "I must preach the Kingdom of God to other cities also for therefore am I sent. And He preached in the synagogues of Galilee."

In John 6:70-71; 7:1 we find these words, "Jesus answered them, Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he that should betray Him, being one of the twelve. After these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for He would not walk in Jewry because the Jews sought to kill Him." The only Judean Jew among Christ's disciples was Judas. The rest were Galileans. Judas came from a small town in Judea called Kerioth, and he was known as Ishkerioth or Iscariot meaning "man of Kerioth."

It is plain that His disciples did not consider themselves Jews of the type found in Judea or they would not have remonstrated with Him against going again to Judea because of fear that the Jews would stone Him. Indeed, the Jews themselves knew that Peter was not a Jew but a Galilean because of his accent for they said in Matthew 26:73, "surely thou art also one of them for thy speech betrayeth thee." Also mark 14:70, "surely thou art one of them for thou art a Galilean and thy speech agreeth thereto." It is clear that the Benjamites or Galileans were the ones who accepted Jesus and became Christians while the badly mongrelized people who called themselves Jews who resided for the most part in Judea, refused to accept Him.

Let us now take up the astounding admission by the Jews themselves that they are not of the chosen seed, or the "children of promise," which line descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. John 8:33, "They {Jews} answered Him, We be Abraham's seed and were never in bondage to any man, how sayest thou that we shall be made free?" Here they plainly state they were never in bondage. Thus they are admitting that they are the descendants of Esau, who did not go into the Egyptian Bondage. God's elect, His Chosen People, were in bondage in Egypt. The House of Israel, or the ten tribes comprising the Northern Kingdom, were in bondage to Assyria and the House of Judah was in Bondage to Babylon, yet these Jews say they were never in bondage to any man!

Jesus replied to their claim that they were of the seed of Abraham in the 37th verse which says, "I know that ye {say ye} are Abraham's seed but ye seek to kill me because my word hath no place in you." This presents us with a dilemma. If these people were of the seed of Abraham as Jesus says, how does it happen that they were not in bondage in Egypt with all of the Israelites? The solution to this apparent contradiction is found in the 39th verse, "If ye {Jews} were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

Here we have a distinction between the children of Abraham and the seed of Abraham. If the Jews had been of the chosen line and the "children of promise," they would have descended from Jacob Israel and would have been in bondage in Egypt, but since they deny they were ever in bondage, their descent must necessarily have been through Jacob's brother, Esau, whose descendants were never in bondage.

Genesis 36:8-9, "thus dwelt Esau in Mount Seir: Esau is Edom and these are the generations of Esau, the father of the Edomites, in Mt. Seir." The name of the Edomites at the time of Christ was Idumeans. About 125 years before the time of Christ, war broke out between the Judahites of Judea and the nation of the Idumeans. The Judahites under Hyracanus triumphed over the Edomites, as a condition of peace, they demanded that the Edomites or Idumeans must be circumcised and accept the religion of Israel, or face annihilation. The Edomites accepted the terms and were absorbed into the nation of Judea. In time they completely dominated their erstwhile conquerors so that by the time of Christ, traces of the descendants of the House of Judah had all but vanished.

In Romans 9:13 it says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:7-8 clarifies the matter a little more, "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh (Esau), these are not the children of God: but the children of promise (Isaac) are counted for the seed." The children of the promise are of the righteous line extending from Adam through Isaac and Jacob, while the children of the flesh are those of the Satanic line who trace their ancestry from Cain.

David asked that the Lord blot the Jews out of the Book of the Living. Psalm 69:21, 24, 27-28: "They gave me also gall for my meat and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Pour out thy indignation upon them and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living and not be written with the righteous." We would do well to follow David's example when he says in Psalm 139:21-22, "Do I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? Am I not grieved with those that rise against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred, I count them my enemies."

There are some who will say that it was not the Jews who killed Jesus, but the Romans. Paul pins the crime squarely on the Jews when but Peter, John, Luke and Paul pins it squarely on their shoulders. ^[246] It is true the Romans soldiers cast lots for His garments, but of those, Jesus said in Luke 23:34, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The Jews well knew what they were doing, for they said to Pilate, "Let His blood be upon us and on our children."

There is no record in all of the Scriptures where Jesus ever forgave the Jews. Because of their very nature, it is difficult to see how they can be included in God's great plan of redemption.

Someone says this is not true, and they will quote John 12:32 in support of their position. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men un to me." Does this mean that Jews will be drawn to Jesus at some future date?

The answer is found in 1 Thessalonians. 2:15, where Paul says, "Who hath killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men (Adamites)." The Jews, then, being contrary to all men (Adamites) are not apparently classed as men (Adamites) but are evil spirits in human form which cannot be drawn to Jesus.

Our Lord spoke in parables solely for the purpose of keeping the truth from them. It was not part of His plan that they should understand and be converted. {Given equal rights with us and be allowed all of the privileges given to the Adamic race, including intermarrying with our race}. We find this record in the following text, Matthew 13:10-11, "And the disciples came and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you (Adamites) to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them (Canaanites) it is not given." Mark 4:11-12, "And He said unto them (Adamites), Unto you (Adamites) it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God but to them (Canaanites) without, all these things are done in parables that seeing they may see and not perceive and hearing they may hear and not understand lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should - In other words, Christ is saying don�t try to convert the Jews let them die in their sins so they will face judgment {Through, Lucifer, in human form mating with Eve he produced Cain who then went out of the Garden of Eden and mixed his half Luciferian and Angelic seed with that of some of the pre-Adamites living outside of the Garden of Eden). Be forgiven them."� ^[247]

Other authors have estimated that the "mixed multitude" Adamites who had lost their first estate by mixing with the Canaanites (Cainites) and were in Palestine at the time of Christ totaled no more than 20,000 out of the entire population. The number of all the Jews, descendants of the mating of Lucifer with Eve and his descendants mating with pre-Adamites and later Adamites, could not have been more than a few hundred thousand at the time of Christ.

According to the Jews in their own Talmudic and Zohar writings these bodiless fallen Angels roam the earth without bodies until those of them who have mated with pre-Adamites or Adamites (mixed seed of fallen Angeles and others) until those of their kind with physical bodies produce offspring into which their evil spirits can enter into and reside within.

To these "vampires" who still had enough of the spirit of God in them so they could still understand what Jesus had to say, this presented a unique opportunity. Christ was preaching to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" or Adamites who had lost their psychic abilities when they were transferred from their first birthplace in "heaven" into the Earth or were "born again" of water (woman) into physical forms here as part of the Adamic race.

The message of Christ was to� these "Lost" Adamites to restore their lost memory of what they had been and what they had been taught before being transferred her onto the earth (terrestrial plane) from "heaven" or the (celestial plane). If the Canaanites who still had some of the genes of Eve (Adamic) in them still functioning could understand even part of the message of Christ which was not meant for them but for the Adamic race, they could feign being the true Adamites and even though they would be rejected by the early Church they could use their ill gotten knowledge to the point where they could use their "conversion" to become familiar with Adamic men and women wherein they could seduce their minds or bodies or both.

Their mating with the unsuspecting Adamites would give them even more receptacles into which their Satanic spirits could be injected into and therefore they would produce new "Jews" (Cainites) to work towards the day when all 133,000,000 of them would inhabit physical bodies which would then be the time when their leader the antichrist (Lucifer) would again appear to lead them and their cohorts (pre-Adamites and Adamites who were mentally seduced and were made into "Jews of the spirit" their bodies were under the control of evil spirits.

In 1955 the late Maj. Gen. George Van Horn Moseley wrote an open letter to the New York Times stating that he believed that there were not 6-million Jews in the United States at that time, but approximately 30-million. He said that he had studied the Talmud and other Jewish writings and was aware of the fact that the World Almanac in reporting the number of "Jews" who participate in Satanic services at those synagogues or are registered contributors and members.

He noted that according to Jewish religious practices Jews who are under 13 and have not received their Bar Mitzvah are not counted, non-religious Jews are not counted and the Jews do not consider women to be equal and "human" and thus female Jewesses are also not counted in the figures.

Of course, those who have "Jewish" genes but mixed with other races or attend churches of other religions are also not counted in the official World Almanac totals. Thus, the number of Jews in any given country can be conservatively figured at four times the official number reported by the World Almanac.

How many half Jews, quarter Jews, eighth Jews, etc., are possessed by Satanic (evil spirits) and are carrying out the Luciferian program whether they realize it or not? How many non-Jews by race have been conditioned by "Christian" televangelists and their local "Christian" ministers and priests to view the Luciferian Jews as "God's Chosen People" and have more love and loyalty in their hearts for the Jews than they do for those of their own Adamic race? How many of those "Christians" have been conditioned to the point where the Satanic spirits of the Jews have been able to enter into their bodies and take control of their lives?

The World Almanac has put the number of Jews in the world at around 17-million for the past 50 years and Jewish publications keep complaining that the numbers of Jews in the world is decreasing not increasing. What these Jewish leaders are talking about is that the number of Jews who attend the synagogues and observe every Jewish ritual are decreasing but in reality Jews who are Jews by race but don't participate in any synagogue but carry on either knowingly or unknowingly the war of Lucifer against Christ.

To help clarify the meaning of some parts of this presentation, we have a comments to help establish a basis for our mutual understanding. We are using Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1989, to define "victim, snare, and infest" as follows:

* Victim: "1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency. 2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his own emotions or ignorance or by some impersonal agency. 3. a person or animal sacrificed, or regarded as sacrificed. 4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites."

* Snare: "2. anything serving to entrap, entangle, or catch unawares; trap. 5. to catch or involve by trickery or wile..."

* Infest: "to haunt or overrun in a troublesome manner, as predatory bands, destructive animals, or vermin do."

* America: The word "America" means "The Kingdom of Heaven." Did our school teachers and our preachers ever explain to us the true meaning of the word "America?"

Wouldn't it be considerate if we were to be informed as to the true meaning of the name of our beloved homeland? Has the Establishment been hiding something from us relating to our true identity? Corporate public schools (government controlled) teach us that this Continent was named after Amerigo Vespucci.

However, these corporate government schools neglect to teach our children the meaning of Amerigo Vespucci's name. Professor Miskovsky (Oberlin College) brought out some interesting facts about the word "America."

The Latin masculine singular for the word "Amerigo" is "Americus" and the feminine singular is "America." The old Gothic form for the word "America" is "Amel Ric." "Amel" means "heaven" and "ric" means "kingdom." "Amel Ric" is found in the German language as "Emmerich" or "Himmelreich." Thus "Amel Ric," "Emmerich," "Himmelreich," "Amelukah," "Amerucah," and "America" became words for "The Kingdom of Heaven!" The word "kingdom" means government or governmental jurisdiction. the government of Heaven (from outer space) is to be fully implemented on earth as we are told in the "Lords Prayer."

Strong's Concordance gives the word "Meluwkah" for "kingdom," "Amelukah" and "Meluwkah" are related. A professor by the name of Odlum indicates that the letter "l" and "r" are sometimes interchangeable. The Hebrew "Meluwkah" became "Merukah" and "Amelukah" became "Ameruch," the later being the Latin form of the word "America." Who is America that she would be blessed above every other nation along with the other Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Celtic and kindred peoples in the world (Isaac's Sons - Saxon's) "Christian" nations, today are prophetically carrying out exactly what Israel is supposed to do in the last days.

We {the White Anglo-Saxon, Germantic, Celtic and kindred people are the descendants of the Ten Tribed Northern Kingdom of Israel which included people of the Southern Two Tribes. We migrated North and west beyond the Caucuses Mountains into Asia and on to the America's. Information about this migration over time is plentiful and well documented. We are the House of Jacob and we are suffering Jacob's troubles.

The Encyclopedia Americana calls Hyrcanus a Jewish high priest [135‑105 B.C.] who forced the Idumeans to become "Jews." Idumea is the Greek for Edomites.

The works of Josephes relates how the Idumeans were forced to accept Judaism. In the Bible Esau, Edo, Mt. Seir and Idumea are interchangeable for the offspring of ESAU, Jacob's twin brother.

So now we are aware that the story of America does not begin with Columbus, but with Abraham who "looked for a City (system) which hath Foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God." ^[248] References for the information about America was from: Ewing Curtis Clair; Kingdom Digest; March, 1968 and Basics of National Identity by M.O. Andrews. The Voice of Liberty, % 692 Sunnybrook Drive, Decatur, Georgia 30033, 2nd printing 1979.

"And to the woman {the true seed remnant of Israel - not the Jews} were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness {North America} into her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." ^[249]

* Serpent: For the identification and definition of our use of the word "Serpent" we will quote Scriptural passages attributed to the sayings of Jesus, the Christ, but first we need to put you on the trail of the "Pharisees" and the "Sadducees" to whom Jesus frequently speaks directly in the flesh. And Christ speaks about their generation (serious study will reveal their mixed racial lineage, hence the attention their "generation").

The mixed mongrel generation (race) of people who today call themselves Jews, from their own publications, clearly lay claim and trace their identity to being the physical flesh and blood descendants of the Scriptural Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Perhaps it can be understood now why The World Book Encyclopedia states: "The Jews were once a sub‑type of the Mediterranean race, but they have mixed with other peoples until the name Jew has lost all racial meaning."

One account published by the Jewish historian Louis Finkelstine in his two volume History of the Jews. In this work, he explains that the Pharisees and Sadducees were {are} Jews. Finkelstine also speaks of Jews making slaves of Christians.

In another work by Louis Finkelstine. The Pharisees, 2nd Ed., Vol. I. The Jewish Publication Society - 1940, pp. xx-xxi., we find the following quote: "The apogee of Pharisaism is the Talmud of Babylonia...Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name...the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives unaltered."

From the Epilogue section chapter 9 subtitle Character Roles & Identity from the book Who is Esau-Edom, quoting the entire chapter: "There is one thing that is unmistakably evident regarding the Bible and that is, it is about a particular race of people-the direct descendants of Adam later called Israel. They are the main characters in God's Script - the Holy Bible. Esau-Edom is� secondary character in this Script.

Only when we know and identify the white European people as the Israel people, and the Jews as the Edomites, do things in the world make complete sense. When the roles of Jacob and Esau are identified, we see that everything is happening exactly as written in the Scriptures.

The problem the world has been plagued with is a case of mistaken identity and unknown identity regarding the roles God has assigned to Esau and Jacob. Esau does not like the role he has been assigned {or shall we say the role that he has earned}. He thus has been trying to rewrite the Scriptures and alter in the minds of Christians their identity and the identity of the Jews in the Scripture. Thus it is believe that Esau {Jews} is Jacob {God's Chosen People}, and Jacob {the White Race} is just a 'gentile.'

No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. No other people fit the characteristics and follow the role of Esau-Edom so completely as do the Jewish people. The Jews follow the role that their ancestors the Edomites had followed. The Jew, however, is not just the descendant of Esau-Edom, but also of the other individuals and tribes that have intermarried with Esau. This would include the Hittites, the Canaanites, the descendants of Japheth through Gomer, Togarmah, Magog, and Ashkenaz, and the descendants of Ham through Canaan, Cush, and Nimrod, as well as the Israelites and Judahites that mixed with them {contrary to God's Law}.

Thus, in a sense, the Jews do not have a heritage in the Bible, and yet they do not. As mongrels or hybrids, the Jews do have some biological roots extending back to Abraham and the patriarchs. But as mongrels, they can never possess the birthright or claim true heritage of the original or pure Adamic race. For it is written: 'A mongrel shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.' ^{^[250]} 'Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.' ^{^[251]}

Mixed Adamites, those possessing both Adamic and non-Adamic blood, can no more be a part of heir of the Adamic race that one who is entirely of another race. The law will not allow the Jews to inherit the birthright or the kingdom regardless of the fact that they have Adamic blood in them. These same mongrels and 'mixed multitude' tried to tell Christ that Abraham was their father, but Christ said: 'I know that you are Abraham's seed; but you seek to kill me because my word has no place in you...I speak that which I have seen with my Father; and you do that which you have seen with your father...If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. You do the deeds of your father.' ^{^[252]}

Christ made the implication that these 'Jews' had another father aside from Abraham, and their response was 'We be not born Of fornication; we have one Father, even God.' But Christ said; 'If God were your Father you would love me.' (v. 42). Can you think of anyone that hates Christ more than these people known as Jews today? The Jews cannot represent the Adamic line, they can only claim to be of those lines from Adam that were either rejected by God or who had violated the law through interracial marriages. Esau-Edom falls under both of these classes. The Edomites were a mongrelized and rejected people throughout the entire Bible.

Conspiracy and Conflict: It should by now be seen why talk of an 'International Jewish Conspiracy' makes no sense to the general public. They don't see or understand anything of the kind because they do not know the identity of the characters in the Scriptures of God-the Bible-or their roles in that Scripture. Why would the Jews, which the entire church world holds up as the apple of God's eye, want to harm or destroy White Christians?

As heirs of Esau, the Jews are destined to act according to an assigned role. The Jews need not be part of a conspiracy to dominate the world, or a plot to kill Christians or to destroy their civilization. The Jews, or some of them, are used by God to execute His plans in the earth. Jews follow this role in God's Scripture and have been doing these things and will continue to do them whether or not they have any plans or knowledge of doing them. A lion kills to eat because God had assigned such attributes to its ancestors {race} when He created them. They cannot help what they are or what they do, they act in such a manner because it is ingrained within their constitution to do so. Likewise {you will note upon study and observation that} the Jew is hostile, abrasive, hateful, ungodly, a destroyer, and a usurer because such attributed and roles {or prophecies} were assigned to the ancestors of the Jews - Esau/Edom. A Divine Plan for Evil: All of Christendom is united in the belief that all of the ills and troubles of this world are the result of an invisible, spirit, a devil or Satan, which is in competition with God for control of this world.

We must always remember to mistrust the obvious and that which is popular, for such things are often the opposite of what they appear. The Bible supplies us with scores of illustrations in support of this hypothesis. Many biblical messages reveal that the popular belief and ways of the people are contrary or opposite to the ways of God. As Jesus Christ stated: 'For that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.' ^[253]

Likewise, that which is exalted by man, God will make low, and that which is of low degree, God will exalt. ^{^[254]} There is perhaps nothing that is more highly esteemed and exalted by the church world than these God-cursed heathen mongrels called 'Jews' today. There could be no greater evidence that these Jews are not God's people than the universal belief that they are. Thus the organized church world, which has been influenced by Jewish indoctrination, had to have a scapegoat for certain evil things that happen. They teach that our adversary is either something spiritual, such as an invisible devil, or is something yet to come, such as the future antichrist. In other words, our foe is something we cannot fight against because it is not physical or not yet physically here.

The result is that the Jew, our real physical enemy, the one we can fight, or expel out of our land, or kill, is free to assail us at will because the Judaized churches say they are God's Chosen People. In a speech, 'Given by Senator Joseph McCarthy, six months before his mouth was closed forever: George Washington's surrender: 'And many of the people of the land became Jews.' ^{^[255]} The confession of General Cornwallis to General Washington at Yorktown has been well hidden by historians. History books and text books have taught for years that when Cornwallis surrendered his army to General Washington that American independence came, and we lived happily ever after until the tribulations of the twentieth century.

Jonathan Williams recorded in his Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington that 'a holy war will now being in America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.' Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self contradiction: 'Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government.

That government they believe to be divine will be the British Empire [under the control of the Jews]. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry [Lucifer - as Albert Pike disclosed in Morals and Dogma].' And indeed George Washington was a Mason, and he gave back through a false religion what he had won with his army.'

Cornwallis well knew that his military defeat was only the beginning of World Catastrophe that would be universal and that unrest would continue until mind control could be accomplished through a false religion. What he predicted has come to pass!!! Of that, there is no longer any doubt. A brief study of American religious history will show that Masonry and Judaism has infused into every church in America their veiled Phallic Religion. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren brought a Jewish Christianity to America. Masons Rutherford and Russell [both Jews] started Jehovah Witnesses' in order to spread Judaism throughout the world under the guise of Christianity. Also we have: 'As Jewish Maurice Samuel in his 'You Gentiles,' (1924) p. 13 stated, 'there are essentially two peoples as spiritual forces in the world - Jews and White Christian people.' It is not a conflict between God and a supernatural devil which Judaized theologians invented. Jewish 'scholars' have promoted both the devil and future antichrist concepts.

They know that as long as the Christians believe that imaginary spooks are the 'evil forces' which are to blame for their problems., conflicts, wars, etc., they will never see that it is the Jew who God has assigned as an evil force here and now. The result is that Christians will never lift a finger against the menacing Jew as their European ancestors had done occasionally. Our adversaries are whoever God assigns to that role or who He has made with an evil, ungodly disposition.

Thus throughout all Biblical history the adversaries of God's people were always 'flesh and blood people, usually those of some other race. Yes, the evil, destructive and hostile Edomite Jews were made that way by God: 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.' ^{^[256]} 'Behold, I have created the smith who blows the coals in the fire... and have created the waster to destroy.' ^{^[257]} 'The Lord has made all things for himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of evil.' ^{^[258]}

Evil, wicked persons are a part of God's plan of this world, persons who would be against His order, His law and His people. No supernatural devil exists in this plan. 'but could we not preach the word of God to these wicked {Esau} Edomite-Canaanite Jews converting them to righteousness? No, for God says they are born that way and will not turn: 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' ^{^[259]}�

These Edomite-Canaanites are born with un-Godly traits. God didn't tell Joshua to convert them. He told Joshua to slay them. God promises their destruction not their conversion. ^{^[260]} Even if raised in a righteous environment the Edomite will still be wicked. ^{^[261]} Thus Esau-Edom and his Canaanite brethren are not an extinct and no longer existing people {as they would have you believe}. They are in the world today, and they are still at their ancient task of defying God today, and attempting to corrupt and destroy God's true Israel people. They are still in God's Script acting out their role in the world. But their final scene draws near and their time of destruction is at hand."

From: Adam and Cain, p. 178, by Wm. N. Murray, former Governor of Oklahoma (1951): "Mr. W. Smith, who was for many years private secretary to Billy (William Ashley) Sunday, the Evangelist, makes a statement on oath before a Notary Public of Wayne, Michigan.

The statement is to the following effect: President Coolidge shortly before his term of office expired, said publicly that he did not choose to compete again for the Presidency of the United States. Shortly afterwards, Billy Sunday interviewed him. Coolidge told him that after taking office, he found himself unable to carry out his election promises or to make the slightest move towards clean government. He was forced and driven by threats, even murder-threats, to carry out the orders of the Jews. Billy Sunday made public this statement of Coolidge. There followed a general attack upon the Evangelist. Then his son was framed and committed suicide, whilst the father's death was hastened in sorrow for the loss." With this background in mind, we can better understand our use of the definition of the word "Serpent" as used by Jesus Christ. From the Scriptures then, Esau-Edomite Jews {Pharisees and Sadducees} are identified as "Serpents" by Jesus The Christ.

�� What The Jews Believe And Teach

This study is about Judaism and what the Jewish Rabbi�s actually teach about non-Jews, especially Christians. It is not exhaustive because such a book would take literally volumes to present all the teachings of Judaism, but is our attempt at putting it into a small compressed booklet form. This is necessary because our people have been taught in the public (fools) school system to read only one or two pages of something and dismiss everything else. Or to read a small pamphlet or booklet and accept that as written proof of a subject instead of a complete study. We will start with the origin of the word anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism: The word anti-Semitism was an invention; H.H. Beamish, in a New York address, October 30 ‑ November 1, 1937: "In 1848 the word �anti‑Semitic� was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word �Jew.� The right word for them is �Jew�"

�� We are told by Jewish authorities the same thing: "It was (is) the instinctive policy with the mass of the Jewish nation, a deliberate policy with most of its leaders, not only to use ridicule against anti-Semitism but to label as 'anti-Semitic' any discussion of the Jewish problem at all, or, for that matter, any information even on the Jewish problem...If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any region, for instance, in India, he was an anti-Semite.

If he interested himself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in matters concerning religion, he was an anti-Semite. If the emigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an anti-Semite.

If he exposed a financial swindler who was a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was called an anti-Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. You cannot long confuse interest with hatred, the statement of plain and important truths with mania, the discussion of fundamental questions with silly enthusiasm, for the same reason that you cannot long confuse truth with falsehood. Sooner or later people are bound to remark that the defendant seems curiously anxious to avoid all investigation of his case...I say it was a fatal policy; but it was deliberately undertaken by the Jews. Christians must face them in this country (America). The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty‑seven years ago; your doors were thrown open to the Jews and they were free. No he has got you absolutely by the throat;� that is your reward." ^[262]

If you have ever had any business dealings with the Jews you probably noticed that they very seldom kept their word, even a written contract, in the business you conducted with them. Well the reason that their word is not worth a plug nickel, so-to-speak, is because of the Kol Nidre Oath they take every year when they celebrate the Day of Atonement.

Kol Nidre: It is the prologue of the Day of Atonement services in the synagogues. It is recited three times by the standing congregation in concert with chanting rabbis at the alter. After the recital of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer the Day of Atonement religious ceremonies follow immediately. The Day of Atonement religious observances are the highest holy days of the "Jews" and are celebrated as such throughout the world. The official translation into English of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer is as follows: "All vows, obligations, oaths, anathemas, whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement unto the next, (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."

The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer are referred to in the Talmud in the Book of Nedarim, 23a‑23b as follows: "And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, every vow which I make in the future shall be null (1). (His vows are then invalid) providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow." (Emphasis in original) A footnote (1) relates: "(1)...The Law of Revocation in advance was not made public." (Emphasis in original text)

The greatest study of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer was made by Theodor Reik, a pupil of the [I]nfamous Jewish Dr. Sigmund Freud. The analysis of the historic, religious and psychological background of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer by Professor Reik presents the Talmud in its true perspective. This study is contained in "The Ritual, Psycho‑Analytical Studies." In the chapter on the Talmud, page 163, he states: "The text was to the effect that all oaths which believers take between one Day of Atonement and the next Day of Atonement are declared invalid."

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms that the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer has no spiritual value as might be believed because it is recited in synagogues on the Day of Atonement as the prologue of the religious ceremonies which follow it.

The secular significance of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer is forcefully indicated by the analysis in Vol. VI, page 441: "The Kol Nidre has nothing whatever to do with the actual idea of the Day of Atonement...it attained to extraordinary solemnity and popularity by reason of the fact that it was The first Prayer recited on this holiest of days."

Being amazed at this revelation on about the Kol Nidre, I happened to notice in the index the "Star of David." So I decided to look it up and see what the Jewish Encyclopedia had to say about it and found the following.

Y The �Sacred� Star of David: Non‑Jews have been drenched with propaganda that the six‑pointed "Star of David" is a sacred symbol of Jewry, dating from David and Solomon, in Biblical times, and signifying the pure "monotheism" of the Jewish religion. In actuality, the six‑pointed star, called "David's Shield," or "Magen David," was only adopted as a Jewish device in 1873, by the American Jewish Publication Society, it is not even mentioned in rabbinical literature.

Y Magen Dawid ("David�s Shield" - The Star of David): �The hexagram formed by the combination of two equilateral trianglesY; used as the symbol of Judaism. It is placed upon synagogues, sacred vessels, and the like, and was adopted as a device by the American Publication Society in 1873, the Zionist Congress of Basel, hence by 'Die Welt (Vienna), the official organ of Zionism, and by other bodies.

The hebra kaddisha of the Jewish community of Johannesburg, South Africa, calls itself 'Hebra Kaddisha zum Rothn Magen David,' following the designation of the 'red cross' societies...It is noteworthy, moreover, that the shield of David is not mentioned in Rabbinical Literature.

�� The 'Magen Dawid,' therefore, probably did not originate within Rabbinism, the official and dominant Judaism for more than 2,000 years. Nevertheless a David's shield has recently been noted on a Jewish tombstone at Tarentum, in southern Italy, which may date as early as the third century of the common era. The earliest Jewish literary source which mentions it, the 'Eshkol ha‑Kofer' of the karaite Judah Hadassi (middle of the 12th cent.) says, inch. 242: 'Seven names of angels precede the mezuzah: Michael, Garield, etc...Tetragrammation protect thee!

And likewise the sign called 'David's shield' is placed besides the name of each angel.' It was therefore, at this time a sign on amulets. In the magic papyri of antiquity, pentagrams, together with stars and other signs, are frequently found on amulets bearing the Jewish names of God, 'Sabaoth,' 'Adonai,' 'Eloai,' and used to guard against fever and other diseases. Curiously enough, only the pentacle appears, not the hexagram. In the great magic papyrus at Paris and London there are twenty‑two signs sided by side, and a circle with twelve signs, but neither a Pentacle nor a Hexagram, ^{^[263]} although there is a triangle, perhaps in place of the latter.

�� In the many illustrations of amulets given by Budge in his 'Egyptian Magic' (London, 1899) not a single Pentacle or Hexagram appears. The Syncretism of Hellenistic, Jewish, and Coptic influences did not therefore, originate the symbol. It is probable that it was the Cabala that derived the symbol from the Templars. The Cabala, in fact, makes use of this sign, arranging the Ten Sefirot, or spheres, in it, and placing in on Amulets. The pentagram, called Solomon's seal, is also used as a talisman, and Henry thinks that the Hindus derived it from the Semites [Here is another case where the Jews admit they are not Semites.

Can you not see it? The Jew Henry thinks it was derived originally from the Semites! Here is a Jew admitting that The Jews are not Semites!], ^{^[264]} although the name by no means proves the Jewish or Semitic origin of the sign. The Hindus likewise employed the hexagram as a means of protection, and as such it is mentioned in the earliest source, quoted above. In the synagogues, perhaps, it took the place of the mezuzah, and the name 'Shield of David� may have been given it in virtue of its protective powers.

The hexagram may have been employed originally also as an architectural ornament on synagogues, as it is, for example, on the cathedrals of Brandenburg and Stendal, and on the Marktkirche at Hanover.

�� A pentacle in this form, (a five pointed star is shown here), is found on the ancient synagogue at Tell Hum. Charles IV, prescribed for the Jews of Prague, in 1354, a Red Flag with both David�s Shield and Solomon�s Seal, while the Red Flag with which the Jews met King Matthias of Hungary in the fifteenth century showed two pentacles with two golden stars. The pentacle, therefore, may also have been used among the Jews. It occurs in a manuscript as early as the year 1073. However, the six‑pointed star has been used for centuries for magic amulets and cabalistic sorcery." ^[265]

The religion practiced by the Pharisees in Jesus' time was based exclusively on the Babylonian Talmud. This, according to Rabbi Morris Kertzer, "The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of the ancient rabbis. It was edited five centuries after the birth of Jesus. It is a compendium of law and lore. It is the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish Religious Law and it is the textbook used in the Training of Rabbis."

The Talmud: In his lifetime Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name of a "Jew" who was one of the world's great authorities on the Talmud, wrote "History of the Talmud." This classic on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise.

History of the Talmud: 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 (Christ, during these thirty years, had sailed to England with His uncle, Joseph of Armatheia, where He built the first church in England. It is known today as Glastonbury and the land it sits on has never been taxed by the British Government. The Jews tried to destroy it many years ago, but failed. Although badly damaged it still stands today)? 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 Christ, was called the Traditions of the Elders and to which he makes frequent allusions."

Arsene Darmester in the book "The Talmud" states: "Judaism finds its expression in the Talmud, it is not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but it...has become incarnate, in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the domain of real things. The study of Judaism is that of the Talmud, as the study of the Talmud is that of Judaism...they are two inseparable things...they are one and the same...the Talmud, is a complete expression of religious movement, and this code of endless presumptions and minute ceremonials represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea...The miracle was accomplished by a book, The Talmud...The Talmud is composed of two distinct parts the Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter a commentary upon the text...term Mishna we designate a collection of decisions and traditional laws embracing all departments of legislation, civil and religious...This code, the work of several generations of rabbis...nothing can equal the importance of the Talmud unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning it...This explains how it happens that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages, or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy...many a Mishna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation...is law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud...The daily study of the Talmud which among Jews begins with the age of ten to end with life itself necessarily was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thinks to which it acquired incomparable subtlety and acumen. To establish for Judaism a 'Corpus Juris Eccleiastict!'"

This is how the articles look in the Talmud itself:

Sanhedrin, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilty (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be beastally abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."

(footnotes)

"(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor; i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.

(2) Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.

(4) Lev XVIII, 22

(5) Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first-a male aged nine years and a day - refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning: because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable."

Sanhedrin, 55b: "A Maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition (Sexual Intercourse), and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)."

(footnotes)

"(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving.

(3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.

(4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse."

Sanhedrin, 69a: "'A man'; from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And 'if a man'? (2)-He replied: such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3)."

(footnotes)

�(2) 'And' (') indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day.

(3) Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow."

Sanhedrin, 69b: "Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.�

(footnotes)

�(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.).

(2) so that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not."

Kethuboth, 5b: "The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18)�.

(footnotes)

"(15) Lit., 'how is it'?

(16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf)

(17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no would having been made.

(18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden."

Kethuboth, 10a-10b: "Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, 'my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin'. He (then) said to them; Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of ) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the beginning (8)."

(footnotes)

"(1) i.e., the smell of wine.

(2) One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).

(3) One could not smell the wine from the mouth.

(4) i.e., the smell of wine.

(5) Rabban Gamaliel

(6) To the husband.

(7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin.

(8) Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids."

Kethuboth, 11a-11b: "Rabba said, It means (5) this: when a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as �a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.'"

(footnotes)

"(5). Lit., 'says.'

(6) Lit., 'here,' that is, less than three years old.

(7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years."

Kethuboth, 11a-11b: "Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."

(footnotes)

"(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."

Hayorath, 4a: "We learnt: (The law concerning the menstruan occurs in the Torah but if a man has intercourse with a woman that a waits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain.

But, surely it is written, (1)- They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8)."

(footnotes)

"(13) Lev. XV, 28.

(14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt?

(15) Lev XX, 18.

(1) Ibid. 13. The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and unnatural intercourse.

(2) Why then was the case of 'a woman who awaits a day corresponding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration.

(3) The first stage of contact.

(4) In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case.

(5) Cf. Lev XX, 18.

(6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.

(7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff).

(8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days."

Abodah Zarah, 36b-37a: R. Naham b. Isaac said: �They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it...From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.�

(footnotes)

(2). Even through he suffered from no issue.

Sotah, 26b: "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is no adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?"

(footnotes)

"(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.

(5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name.

(6) Deut. XXIII, 19.

(7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal a adultery.

(8) If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.

(9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid).

(10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.

(11) In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable.

(12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.

(13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition."

Yebamoth, 55b: "Raba said; for what purpose did the All- Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10) and a sotah (11)? That in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12).

That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty?

The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exonerated).�

(footnotes)

�(9) Lev. XIX,20.

(10) Ibid. XVIII,20.

(11) Num. V, 13.

(12) SUPRA 55a.

(13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur.

(14) Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a.

(15) Even though she dies as a married woman.

(16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife."

Yebamoth, 103a-103b: "When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end."

(footnotes)

"(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition.

(15) i.e., the human species.

(16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation."

Yebamoth, 63a: "R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.�

(footnotes)

"(5) Genesis 2:23. emphasis on This is now."

Yebamoth, 60b: "As R. Joshua b. Levi related: 'There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day (14), and rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest (15)."

(footnotes)

"(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.

(14) And was married to a priest.

(15) i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."

Yebamoth, 59b: "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest (4). Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being (5), though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6), is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).�

(footnotes)

"(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.

(5) A beast.

(6) If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.

(7) In the absence of witnesses and warning."

Yebamoth, 12b: "R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die...and what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day, one who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner."

(footnotes)

"(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v. Tosaf s.v.)

(8) Hackled wool or flax.

(9) To prevent conception.

(10) May use an absorbent.

(11) Lit., 'perhaps.'

(14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.

(15) When no conception is possible.

(16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."

Yebamoth, 59b: "When R. Dimi came (8) he related: It once happened at Haitalu (9) that while a young woman was sweeping the floor (10) a village dog (11) covered her from the rear (12) and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.�

(footnotes)

"(8) From Palestine to Babylon

(9) (Babylonian form for Aitulu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S. Klein, Beitrage, p. 47).

(10) Lit., 'house.'

(11) Or 'big hunting dog' (Rashi), 'ferocious dog' (Jast.), 'small wild dog' (Aruk).

(12) A case of unnatural intercourse.�

Kethuboth, 6b: "Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside (This means a man who has intercourse with a virgin in such a way that he does not destroy her maiden head). (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) 'anxious.? (10) for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden? Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye'

If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet? (13)- He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).�

(footnotes)

"(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding.

(8) Thus no blood need come out, and 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not apply.

(9) If the bridegroom is skilled in 'moving sideways.'

(10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema' on account of such anxiety.

(11) Therefor the principle regarding 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not, as a rule, apply.

(12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.

(13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut.XXII,17.

(14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi)."

For years we have studied and researched as much as possible so as to know about Satan's schemes and the methodologies he employs for each deception. And these studies encompassed the history of mankind's seduction of Satan, from its genesis to our modern times. Without doubt, and with a high degree of certainty we believed there were no more dark mysteries that needed uncovering.

We came across some interesting material. Material, which reeks blasphemy and even till this day has bewildered our ability to comprehend how for the most part, that such blasphemous information had remained hidden from public viewing. And more astounding except for a short period during the medieval times and a few other rare occurrences this material also has for the past two thousand years been kept hidden from the Christian community.

This material which is of Jewish origin is known as the Babylonian Talmud (oral law) and Zohar (hidden mysteries/wisdom). And contrary to that, which is commonly taught throughout Christianity that the Torah (written law, which consist of the five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch) is the primary teaching of Judaism is a Deliberate Deceptive Lie, the two ancient Jewish Teachings ^[266] are the true essence of Judaism. At the time of Christ, the Talmudic teachings, which were taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, was known as the 'Traditions of the Elders'. And the Zoharic teachings were then known as 'Merkabah.'

The rabbis of Judaism teach that Moses received three teachings from God on Mount Sania. Which are, the written law (the Torah), the commandments or oral law (the Talmud, Mishnah) and the hidden mysteries/wisdom (the Zohar). Perspectively, the rabbi reads or recites passages from the Torah.

Talmud, on the other hand is the interpretation of the Torah. And the Zohar is the hidden or deeper meaning of the Torah. In essence, when a rabbi teaches Torah, he expounds from the Talmud. And when a rabbi or an elite (Tzadik) of Judaism, Hassidic (ultra orthodox) want to understand the deeper meaning of Torah, they study or contemplate Zohar.

The scope of these two ancient teachings is voluminous. Where the Hebrew version of the Talmud encompasses 26 volumes and the English translation known as the Soncino edition contains 16 volumes. And the Zohar (which is also known as the 'Book of Splendor') is not as large as the Talmudic work, but also is quite extensive with the English Soncino edition covering 4 volumes.

Note, within the scope of this article it would be impossible to expound on the teachings of the Talmud to great length. Notwithstanding, it is my hope that from this article, the reader would at least ascertain a key that could open the door to understanding the grandest of all the hidden mysteries' of Satan. And more importantly, because a large percentage of the New Testament writings warn us of these blasphemous teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees (Rabbinical Judaism), it is also my hope that the reader attain a greater understanding of the Truth which the Gospel contains.

Prior to our present knowledge of the true teachings of Judaism, I perceived Judaism as a religious body, who had failed to emulate the teachings and writings of the Old Testament.

However, from my own research reviewing large segments from both the Talmud and Zohar writings, we now know that our earlier perception of Judaism was immensely off based.

In other words, we now know that the Jews did not fail in their efforts to live accordingly to the written law, instead what they did, by the Talmudic teachings they rewrote God's commandments in such away and to such a degree that God's commandments became corrupt and non effective.

Also, I now have a better understanding why Jesus was so adamant in declaring judgment and condemnation upon the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees:

NKJV Luke 11:52; "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

KJV Matthew 16:6; Then Jesus said unto them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

In order to grasp the significance and depth of these heretical teachings; let us examine excerpts from the Babylonian Talmud.

Note: Warning, the following material to some may be repulsive and disillusioning. Nevertheless, as incredible and shocking it is, the following are excerpts verbatim taken from my own private collection of Soncino's English edition of the Babylonian Talmud.

The Talmud:

The Bible:

Exodus 20:3; "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; Regarding Devotion to Other gods, There are Ways that are Permissible � "Mishnah. He who gives of his seed (His children) to Molech incurs no punishment unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or the reverse, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both."

"Gemara. The Mishnah teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not." ^[267]

�� *******

Exodus 20:7; "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; If Your Anger is not Directed towards God, it is Permissible to Profane God's name � "For blasphemy is an indictable offence only if it is mentally directed against God. If however, one reviles the Divine Name, whilst mentally employing it to denote some other object, he is not punished. Consequently, since the essence of the offence is mental, the slight action is disregarded." ^[268]

Exodus 20:4; "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; Only when the Last Stroke is made is the Thing Considered an Idol � "When, however, he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed [He must not build]. Said R. Eleazar in the name of R. Johanan: If, however, he did build, the pay he received is permitted. This surely is obvious: it is a case of appurtenances of idols, and appurtenances of idols, whether according to R. Ishmael or according to R. Akiba, are not forbidden till actually worshiped! � Said R. Jeremiah: It is necessary in the case of the idol itself. This would be right according to the one who holds that [to derive any benefit from] the making of an idol for an Israelite is forbidden forthwith, but from the making of one for an idolater, not until it is worshiped. In that case this is very well; but according to the one who holds that even when made for an idolater [any benefit] is forbidden forthwith, what is there to be said?;� But, said Rabbah b. �Ulla, the statement is necessary in regard to the last stroke of work; for what is it that makes the idol fit for worship? It is its completion; and when is the completion brought about? With the last stroke. But the last stroke does not constitute the value of a perutah! Consequently, he holds the opinion that the wage is earned from the beginning to the end [of the work]."^[269]

Exodus 20:8‑10; "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:" Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; Only for the Purpose of Destruction, is work Permissible during Sabbath � "One is not liable for desecrating the Sabbath when his work is destructive; but if he demolishes a house in order to rebuild, it is regarded as constructive. Now, extinguishing a wick, thereby destroying its light, is the equivalent of demolishing a house; if the purpose is to save the wick to be used again later, it is analogous to demolishing a house to build on the same site, since it is the wick which is extinguished and the wick which is to be relit. But if the purpose is to save the oil or the lamp, it is analogous to demolishing a house in order to rebuild elsewhere, for whereas the wick is extinguished, it is the oil or lamp that is saved for subsequent use." ^[270]

�� *******

Exodus 20:12; "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; It is Permissible to Strike Parents As long as� You do not Wound Them � "Mishnah. He who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than smiting, for, he who curses [his parents] after death is liable, whilst he who smites them after death is not." ^[271]

Yet, Rabbi Says; it is Permissible to Curse Parents As long as You do not use God's name � "Mishnah. One who curses his father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by an attribute, R. Meir held him liable, but the sages ruled that he is exempt." ^[272]

Exodus 20:13; "Thou shalt not kill." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; Only if the Assailant directly Caused the Death is he Responsible � "Mishnah. The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a seduced city. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or an iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not ascend thence, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but so that he could ascend, yet he died, he is free [From Death]. If he set on a dog or a snake against him [And they killed him], he is free from death. But if he caused a snake to bite him [By putting his jaws against him] � R. Judah ruled that he is executed; the sages, that he is not."

"Or kept him down under water. The first clause teaches the extreme limit of the law, and so does the last. Thus, the first clause teaches the extreme limit of the law, that though he himself did not push him [into the water], yet since he could not ascend, [through being held down], and so died, he is executed. The last clause likewise teaches the extreme limit, that though he actually pushed him into the water, yet since he could have ascended, but died, he is free from death."^[273]

"Raba said: If one bound his neighbor and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution. Raba also said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not. Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable: before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come." ^[274]

"It has been stated: If one overturned a vat upon a man [who then died of suffocation], or broke open a ceiling above him,� Raba and R. Zera [differ]: One ruled that he is liable, the other that he is not. It can be proved that it was Raba who ruled that he is not liable, for he said: If one bound his neighbor and he dies of starvation, he is not liable." "Raba said: If one thrust his neighbor into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out. Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbor, who was� holding a shield, but another came and snatched it away, or even if he himself [the thrower] hastened to do so, he is not liable, because when he shot the arrow its force was spent." ^[275]

"Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow. R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh [lit., �all life�] of man shall surely be put to death. The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life; but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life."^[276]

"If he set on a dog or a snake against him, etc."

"R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah's opinion the snake's poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim's flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt." ^[277]

�� *******

Exodus 20:14; "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; When a Woman has Sexual Intercourse with a Boy the Degree of Wrong is as Being Injured by a Piece of Wood;� "GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown‑up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood. When I said it before Samuel he said: �Injured by a piece of wood� does not apply to flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself: [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown‑up woman. Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: �Injured by a piece of wood� does not apply to flesh. R." ^[278]

Yet, Rabbi Says; When a man has Intercourse with a Little Girl it is Nothing � "Raba said. It means this: When a grown‑up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown‑up woman he makes her as �a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.� and [with regard to the case of] �a girl injured by a piece of wood.� itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages." ^[279]

Yet, Rabbi Says; A Little Girl must be Three Years Old to have Intercourse; "An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old." ^[280]

Yet, Rabbi Says; �If a Little Girl is Forced to have Intercourse before She is Three, No Problem, on the Third Time it is as Though a Finger Being Dipped in Honey;� Our Rabbis taught: A story is told of a certain woman who came before R. Akiba and said to him, �Master, intercourse has been forced upon me when I was under three years of age; what is my position towards the priesthood?� �You are fit for the priesthood�, he replied. �Master�, she continued, �I will give you a comparison; to what may the incident be compared? To a babe whose finger was submerged in honey. The first time and the second time he cries about it, but the third time he sucks it�." ^[281]

Intercourse with Animals..."This represents the view of R. Meir, while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar. If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot, R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot!

R. Joseph replied: When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of �previous carnal intercourse may be applied but not that of harlot. Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be'ulah she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot she cannot be a be'ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman, [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way wounded by a splinter! No, said R. Zera, in respect of a minor who made a declaration of refusal."

Yet, Rabbi Says; A Women who had Intercourse with an Animal is Eligible to Marry a Priest � "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest. Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being, though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning, is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest." "When R. Dimi came he related: It once happened at Haitalu that while a young woman was sweeping the floor a village dog covered her from the rear, and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi? � Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest."

"Raba of Parzakaia said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? � It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, and yet we learned that the hire of a dog and the price of a harlot are permitted because it is said, Even both these, two only but not four." ^[282]

�� *******

Exodus 20:15; "Thou shalt not steal." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet, Rabbi Says; "Scripturally, Only the Abduction of Human Beings is to be Considered Stealing � "R. Josiah said: From Thou shalt not steal. R. Johanan said: From They shall not be sold as bondsmen. Now, there is no dispute: one Master states the prohibition for stealing [i.e., abduction], the other Master for selling [the kidnaped person]. "

"Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt not steal;� Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings. You say, Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings; but perhaps it is not so, the theft of property [lit., �money�] being meant? � I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted. [one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context: of what does the text speak? of [crimes involving] capital punishment: hence this too refers [to a crime involving] capital punishment."

"Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall not steal: The Writ refers to theft of property. You say thus, but perhaps it is not so, Scripture referring to the theft of human beings? I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted,[one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context. Of what does the text speak? of money matters; therefore this too refuse to a money [theft]." ^[283]

"It was taught: R. Phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: �See that I am relying upon you.� Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm‑tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: �Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me, but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.� The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: �If of a heathen would they be permitted?� � He replied: �A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment."^[284]

Exodus 20:16; "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Thus saith the LORD�!

Yet Rabbi Says; Burn the books of the Minim (pseudonym for Christians) �� "The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim (Christians), we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people] (Christians), for the latter know (of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial. R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them" (alluding to Christians).� ^[285]

�� *******

Exodus 20:17; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Saith the LORD�!

Yet Rabbi Says; It is Permissible to Steal a heathen's (Gentile) Lost Property � "R. Bibi b. Giddal said that R. Simeon the pious stated: The robbery of a heathen is prohibited, though an article lost by him is permissible. His robbery is prohibited, for R. Huna said: Whence do we learn that the robbery of a heathen is prohibited? Because it says: �And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee�; only in the time [of war] when they were delivered in thy hand [as enemies] this is permitted, whereas this is not so in the time [of peace] when they are not delivered in thy hand [as enemies].

His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession." ^[286]

Rabbi Says, Heathens (Gentiles) are not Considered as Man, but Instead are on a Level as Animals � "�Or uses oil of anointing. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man [adam] shall it not be poured; and cattle and vessels are not man. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not man. But why is one exempt in the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam? � No, it is written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]: Ye are called adam but heathens are not called �adam. But is it not written: And the persons [adam] were sixteen thousand? � Because it is used in opposition to cattle. But is it not written: And should I not have pity on Nineveh [that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons [adam]? � This too is used in opposition to cattle. Or, if you wish, I might explain it in the light of what a Tanna recited before R. Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to the prohibition �he shall not pour� is subject to [the law] �it shall not be poured [over him]�; but he who is not subject to �he shall not pour� is not subject to �it shall not be poured [over him]�." ^[287]

Rabbi Says, Heathen's Prefer having Intercourse with Israelite Cattle over Their Own Wives � "Said Mar �Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens (Gentiles/Cutherans) frequent their neighbors� wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! �" ^[288]

Note, the passages which follow are those which the Talmudic Rabbis portray Jesus Christ. The pseudonym Balaam, is used in place of Jesus' name. The reason the Jewish editors used the pseudonym is because of earlier persecutions and censorship from the secular‑Christian communities over the past 2,000 years. Furthermore, it is extremely important to note that even though the Talmud advocates a coming Messiah, the Messiah that is advocated is not Jesus Christ but an entirely different Messiah. We mentioned this because throughout Christendom today, many false Judeo-Christian teachers are teaching that the Talmudic writings allude to the coming Messiah.

Yes, it is true that a Messiah is coming. However, as Christians we are taught that the Messiah has come already, and the next coming we await is His second coming. Therefore, since we are waiting for Messiah's second coming, the Messiah which the Talmud alludes to obviously differs from the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Rabbi Says, Jesus was a has‑been Prophet that was Cursed by God, Thereafter� Lowered to the Status of Soothsayer � "Balaam (Jesus) also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword].40 A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer.41 R. Papa observed: This is what men say, �She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.�42" ^[289]� parenthesis mine

Sanhedrin 106a footnotes:

(38) V. ibid, XXV, 1‑9: since Israel was thus seduced and punished through his advice, as stated above, he demanded payment.

(39) So Balaam, demanding a reward, lost his life.

(40) Joshua XIII, 22.

(41) As a punishment for wishing to curse Israel he was degraded from a prophet to a soothsayer.

(42) �Shipdraggers,� (v. Rashi). Herford, Christianity in the Talmud, p. 48, suggests that Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus (v. also pp. 64‑70). Though no name is mentioned to shew which woman is meant, the mother of Jesus may be alluded to, which theory is strengthened by the statement that she mated with a carpenter. ^[290]

Rabbi Says, regarding Talmud pseudonyms, Balaam alludes to Jesus,� and Considered anti‑Christian � "A certain min3 (Christian) said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? � He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,4 [it follows that] he was thirty‑ three or thirty‑four years old.5 He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, �Balaam (Jesus) the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.�6 Mar, the son of Rabina, said to his sons: In the case of all [those mentioned as having no portion in the future world] you should not take [the Biblical passages dealing with them] to expound them [to their discredit], excepting in the case of the wicked Balaam (Jesus): whatever you find [written] about him, lecture upon it [to his disadvantage].� ^[291]

Sanhedrin 106b footnotes:

(3) Heretic, v. Glos.

(4) Ps. LV, 24.

(5) cf. p.471. n. 1.

(6) [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti‑Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.].

Rabbi converses with Onkelos, who allegedly via magical arts (altered state of consciousness) spoke to Jesus in Hell � "Onkelos son of Kolonikos was the son of Titus's sister. He had a mind to convert himself to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; �Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He said: Their observances are burdensome and you will not be able to carry them out. Go and attack them in that world and you will be at the top as it is written, Her adversaries are become the head etc.; whoever harasses Israel becomes head. He asked him:..." ^[292]

Rabbi Says, Jesus is in Hell, Boiling in Semen �� Continuing from Gittin 56b "...what is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.

1). He then asked: What is your punishment? He (Jesus) replied: With boiling hot semen.

2). He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3 He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple." ^[293]

Mas. Gittin 57a footnotes:

(1) Deut. XXIII, 7.

(2) Because he enticed Israel to go astray after the daughters of Moab. V. Sanh. 106a.

(3) [MS.M. Jesus].

Author's note: The 'he' in item (2) is alluding to Jesus Christ..

�� *******

From having read the above material, if I could tell you that this material was no longer in vogue, you might find relief from the nauseous feeling you may now have. Unfortunately that is not the case, for the Talmud even in our modern times is still the most important learning aid in equipping Jews who want to become rabbis, and the most popular study aid for any Jew who feels the need to become acquainted with their religious roots and heritage (Judaism).

However, do not take my word of the popularity and importance of the Babylonian Talmud in modern day Jewry...! Yet, consider the words of one of the most honored scholars in Israel today, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Who in 1988 received Israel's highest honor, 'The Israel Prize.' Adin Steinsaltz, made the following statement in his book titled, 'The Essential Talmud' page 3:� "If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct."

A spiritual war between forces of darkness (Satan's devilish army) and the forces of Light (God's Angelic army).� The war is to determine whether God's Truth will be proclaimed, or Satan's lies will continue to hold many victims in bondage.

Should God's Angels prevail, eyes will see that could not see, and ears which could not hear will hear. Thus exposing the lies, blasphemous writings and teachings which Satan began incorporating into the religious belief system of God's chosen people, three thousand years ago. Which encompass a total of 1500 years of compiling and formulating. Lies that even from the beginning corrupted God's chosen people.

The following is a summary of references to Jesus in the Talmud:

Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier. Mother a prostitute.

Kallah 1b. (18b): Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation. Mother a Prostitute.

Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.

Toldath Jeschu: The Birth of Christ related in most shameful expressions.

Abhodah Zarah II: Christ referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier, a Prostitute Mother.

Schabbath XIV: Christ again referred to as the son of Padira the Roman soldier.

Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.

Schabbath 104b: Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.

Toldoth Jeschu: Says Judas and Jesus engaged in a quarrel with human excrement.

Sanhedrin 103a: Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.

Zohar III (282): Died like a beast and buried in animal's dung heap.

Hilkoth Melakhim: Attempt to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus.

Abhodah Zarah 21a: Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.

Orach Chaiim 113: Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.

Iore Dea 150, 2: Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.

Abhodah Zarah (6a): False teaching to worship on the first day of Sabbath.

Following are references to Christians:

Kerithuth (6b p. 78): Jews called men, Christians are not called men.

Makkoth (7b): Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.

Zohar (II 64b): Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.

Schabbath (116a) Tos: Gospels called volumes of iniquity, heretical books.

Schabbath (116a): Talmudists agree that the books of Christians are to be burned.

Chullin (91b): Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.

Hilkoth Akum (V. 12): Quote Scriptures forbid mentioning the Christian God.

Choschen Ham (226 1): Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.

Babha Kama (113b): It is permitted to deceive Christians; Jew may lie and perjure to Condemn a Christian; Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.

Kallah (1b p. 18): Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.

Schabbouth Hag. (d): Jews may swear falsely with subterfuge wording.

Zohar (1 160a): Jews must always try to deceive Christians.

Choschen Ham (425 5): Jews are not to prevent the death of a Christian.

Hilkoth Akum (x,1): Do not save Christians in danger of death, instructed to let die.

Abhodah Zarah (25b)T: Even the best of the Goyim [Christians] should be killed.

Sepher Or Israel 177b: If Jew kills a Christian he commits no sin.

Zohar (11 43a): Extermination of Christians necessary.

Hilkoth Akum (x,1): Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians.

Hilkoth Maakhaloth: Christians are idolaters.

Abhodah Zarah (22a): Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.

Abhodah Zarah (22a): Christians have intercourse with animals.

Iore Dea (198, 48): Female Jews contaminated when meeting Christians.

Makkoth (7b): Innocent of murder if intent was to kill a Christian.

Zohar II (64b): Christian likened to cows and asses.

Kethuboth (110b): Psalmist compares Christians to beasts.

Sanhedrin (74b) Tos: Sexual intercourse with Christian same as intercourse with beast.

Kethuboth (3b): The seed [children] of Christians valued same as the seed of a beast.

Iore Dea (337, 1): Replace dead Christians like you would a lost cow or ass.

Schabbath (116a) Tos: Gospels called the volumes of iniquity, and heretical books.

Schabbath (116a): Talmudists agree the books of Christians are to be burned.

Chullin (91b): Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.

Sanhedrin (58b): To strike a Jew is the same as slapping the face of God.

Zohar (1, 25b): Those Jews who do good to Christians never rise when dead.

Iore Dea (148, 12H): Jews are to hide their hatred for Christians.

Babha Bathyra (54b): Christian property belongs to the first Jew claiming it.

Choschen Ham (193, 7): Keep any overpayment Christians make in error.

Babha Kama (113b): It is permitted for a Jew to deceive Christians.

Iore Dea (157, 2) H: Jew may deceive Christians.

Babha Kama (113a): Jew may lie and perjure himself to condemn a Christian.

Babha Kama (113b): The name of God is not profaned when a Jew lies to Christians.

Kallah (1b, p. 18): Jew may perjure himself when lying about Christians.

Schabbouth Hag (6d): Jews may swear falsely by the use of subterfuge wording.

Zohar (1, 160a): Jews must always try to deceive Christians.

Choschen Ham (425, 5): Do not prevent a Christians death.

Iore Dea (158, 1): Christians who are not Jews' enemies must also die.

Hilkoth Akum (X,1): Jews are not to save Christians in danger of death.

Sanhedrin (59a): Christians who study the Jews' "Laws" {Talmud} to be put to death.

Zohar (1, 25a): Christians are to be destroyed when no danger of discovery.

Abhodah Zarah (26b)T: Even the best of the Goyim [non‑Jews] should be killed.

Sepher Or Israel (177b): If a Jew kills a Christian he commits no sin. He has done God a service.

Alkut Simoni (245c): A Jew shedding the blood of a Christian is offering a sacrifice to God.

Zohar (II, 43a): Extermination of Christians is a necessary sacrifice to God.

Zohar (L, 38b, 39a): A Jew to receive a high place in heaven if he kills a Christian.

Hilkoth Akum (X,1): Jews are to show no mercy to a Christian.

Kallah, 1b, (18b): "Jesus was illegitimate and conceived during menstruation."

Schabbath XIV: "Jesus is referred to as the son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish Prostitute."

Sanhedrin, 103a: "This passage suggests that Christ corrupted His morals and dishonored Himself."

Sanhedrin, 107b: "This passage states that Christ seduced and destroyed Israel."

Hilkoth Melakhim: Suggests that Christians sin by worshiping Jesus Christ.

Abhodah Zorah (15b): Suggests that Christians have sexual relations with animals.

Chaggigah, (15b): "A Jew is considered to be good in the eyes of God, in spite of Any sins he may commit."

Babha Kama (113b): "The name of God not profaned, if a Jew lies to a Christian."

Kethuboth (11a‑11b): "When a grown‑up man has had intercourse with a little girl...It means this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [See Footnote] three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye [Again See Footnote] tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl three years old."

Tract Mechilla: "Almighty God studies the Talmud standing, because He has such respect for that book."

Sanhedrin (59a) & Abhodah Zarah 8‑6: "Every goy [non‑Jew] who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die."

Szaaloth-Utszabot The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim [non‑Jew] asks if our books contain anything against them."

Simeon Haddarsen fol. 56‑D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

Midrasch Talpioth 225‑L: "Jehovah created the non‑Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non‑Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

Nadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "A Jew may do to a non‑Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat."

Josiah 60, 6, Rabbi Abarbanel to Daniel 7, 13: "As soon as the King Messiah will declare himself, and He will destroy Rome and make a wilderness of it. Thorns and weeds will grow in the Pope's palace. The He will start a merciless war on non‑Jews and will overpower them. He will slay them in masses, kill their kings and lay waste the whole Roman land. He will say to the Jews: 'I am the King Messiah for whom you have been waiting. Take the silver and gold from the goyim."

Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "A Jew may rob a goy [non‑Jew] that is, he may cheat him in a bill, if unlikely to be perceived by him."

Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples [This is what the Jews use for justification to steal the land of the Palestinians]. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to mortality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general."

Tosefta, Erubin VIII, 1: "On the house of the goy [non‑Jew] one looks as on the fold of cattle."

Tosefta, Abhodah Zarah VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy [non‑Jew] is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is not forbidden to do all this to a goy."

Schulchan Aruch Edit, I, 136: "All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day of reconciliation till the next day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of� before-hand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at all."

Schulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 539: "At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of� business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy [non‑Jew], because cheating of goyi at any time pleases the Lord."

Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciation everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

Livore David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

Abhodah Zarah 26b Tosephoth: "A Jew who kills a Christian commits no sin, but offers an acceptable sacrifice to God."

After reading these verbatim quotations from the countless other similar quotations which you will find in the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud in the English language are you of the opinion, that the Talmud was the "sort of book" from which Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects?" You have read here verbatim quotations and official footnotes on a few of the many other subjects covered by the "63 books" of the Talmud.

And on and on, and on it goes, for 63 volumes of filth and blasphemy. This is what the Jews are taught in their synagogues. Do you after reading these words, believe the Christian religion got its start from this kind of blasphemy and filth?

These are just a few selected from a very complicated arrangement in which many references are obscured by intricate reasonings. Speaking of the "Tradition of the Elders," Jesus said: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?...But he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?...ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." ^[294]

^[1] Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13

^[2] 2 Timothy 4:2-4

^[3] Compton�s Interactive Encyclopedia

^[4] 2 Kings 16:6 applies to the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom

^[5] James Orr, Volume III, page 1675

^[6] Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin H. Freedman, pp. 15-20

^[7] John 8:44

^[8] 2 Timothy 2:15

^[9] Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Volume 1

^[10] Genesis 12:2

^[11] Genesis 17:4‑5

^[12] Genesis 20:4

^[13] Genesis 25:23

^[14] Genesis 35:11

^[15] Genesis 48:19

^[16] Isaiah 1:4

^[17] Isaiah 10:6

^[18] Jeremiah 31:36

^[19] Luke 7:5

^[20] John 11:48

^[21] John 11:50

^[22] Acts 24:2

^[23] Acts 24:17

^[24] Genesis 14:9

^[25] Genesis 21:13

^[26] Genesis 21:18

^[27] Exodus 9:24

^[28] Exodus 34:24

^[29] Isaiah 37:12

^[30] Matthew 10:5

^[31] Matthew 24:7

^[32] Luke 21:24

^[33] Acts 7:7

^[34] Acts 8:9

^[35] Acts 10:45

^[36] Genesis 22:18

^[37] Genesis 25:23

^[38] 1 Chronicles 16:24

^[39] Psalms 9:19‑20

^[40] Matthew 24:9, 14

^[41] Matthew 28:20

^[42] Acts 10:35

^[43] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pages 1815-1816

^[44] Traditions of the Elders - at that time in history

^[45] Hosea 4:6

^[46] Matthew 7:20

^[47] Acts 18:1-18; Romans 16:21; 1 Corinthians 9:20

^[48] This chapter taken, in part, from Facts or Facts by Benjamin Freedman

^[49] Genesis 38.

^[50] Noah Webster�s First Editon of an American Dictionary of the English Language 1828 Edition.

^[51] 1 Chronicles 1:1‑4

^[52] Genesis 48:16

^[53] Genesis 26:34

^[54] Nehemiah 13:3

^[55] Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41

^[56] A brief History of the Terms for Jew, in the 1980 Jewish Almanac.

^[57] Nehemiah 13:3

^[58] Genesis 38:2.

^[59] see Strong's Concordance

^[60] Genesis 38:7

^[61] Genesis 38:9

^[62] Genesis 38:24.

^[63] Leviticus 21:9.

^[64] Genesis 38:26.

^[65] 1 Chronicles.

^[66] 1 Chronicles 9:1.

^[67] You can read the story about the thing accursed in Joshua 6:18.

^[68] 1 Chronicles 4:21-23.

^[69] Genesis 38:5

^[70] Joshua 15: 1, 44.

^[71] Deuteronomy 23:2.

^[72] Micah 1:14.

^[73] John 8.

^[74] 1 Kings 9:26; 2 Chronicles 8:17.

^[75] 2 Kings 8:20-22.

^[76] 2 Kings 14:21-22 and 2 Chr. 26:1-2.

^[77] 2 Kings 16:1, 5-6.

^[78] The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 174.

^[79] Genesis 38:5.

^[80] Joshua 15:1, 13, 44.

^[81] 2 Kings 16:5-7; 1 Chr. 2:1-15; Ezra 2:59, 62, 64; Matthew 1:1-25; Luke 3:23-38.

^[82] Genesis 38:5.

^[83] Joshua 15:44.

^[84] 1 Chronicles 4:21-22.

^[85] Joshua 15:1, 13, 44.

^[86] Genesis 38:5.

^[87] Isiah 3:8-9.

^[88] From the "Five Sons of Judah," written by Alexander Schiffner, editor, Prophetic Herald, Spokane, WA.

^[89] Genesis 38:1-5.

^[90] The Glorious Majesty of His Kingdom, J.S. Fox, 1 st ed., 1958, p. 10.

^[91] Actually "Ieue," etc., in the 1611 KJA Version.

^[92] John 14:6.

^[93] See John 21:25

^[94] It is not recorded anywhere, either in the Gospels, or Roman historical records, that the Romans ever attempted to suppress Christ's ministry.

^[95] See Deut. 13:2.

^[96] See Acts 24-26.

^[97] Ost Express, January 30, 1923. Cf. Berliner Taegeblatt May 1, 1923. See the details of the Bolshevist struggle against religion in The Assault of Heaven by A. Valentinoff (Boswell); The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 144‑145.

^[98] Isaiah 59:14-15.

^[99] See James 1:1; John 10:14 & 27.

^[100] 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3.

^[101] The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41.

^[103] Order from: The Gospel of the Kingdom, % P.O. Box 9411, Boise, Idaho 83707, Phone (208) 375-3425.

^[104] Benjamin Freeman, Facts Are Facts.

^[105] Ancient Russia, by George Vernadsky, Yale University Press, 1943, p. 214

^[106] A History of the Jews, by Solomon Grayzel, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947

^[107] Ancient Russia, by George Vernadsky, Yale University Press, 1943, p. 291

^[108] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 375-377

^[109]� The Jewish Publication Society of America, Vol. III, 1894, pp. 140-141

^[110] Ancient Russia, by George Vernadsky, Yale University Press, p. 267

^[111] �Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XIX, pp. 375-377

^[112] An Introduction to Old Norse, by R.V. Gordon, Oxford University Press, 1927, map between pp. xxiv-xxv

^[113] A History of the Ukraine, by Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941, p. 65

^[114] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 381

^[115] Se the pertinent maps in the Historical Atlas, by William r. Shepherd, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1911

^[116] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 377

^[117] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 382

^[118] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 384

^[119] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 384

^[120] History of the Jews, by Professor H. Graetz, Vol. II, 1893. Pp. 631 ff

^[121] Historical Atlas, by William R. Shepherd (Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1911), Map 77

^[122] Popular History of the Jews, by H. GrETZ, New York, The Jordan Publishing Co., 1919, 12935, Vol. VI, by Max Raisin,p. 89

^[123] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 384

^[124] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. V, p. 37

^[125] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XIX, p. 718 and passim

^[126] A History of the Jews, by Solomon Grayzel, Philadephia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947, p. 543

^[127]� A History of the Jews, by Solomon grayzel, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947, p. 456

^[128] A History of the Jews, by Solomon Grayzel, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947, p 543

^[129] The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, p. 17

^[130] The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, p. 43

^[131] Graetz-Raisin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, Vol. VI. Pp. 371

^[132] Graetz-Raisin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin,Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, p. 112

^[133]� Graetz-Raisin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin,Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, p, 116

^[134] The Haskalah Movement on Russia, Vol. VI, p. 117

^[135] Graetz-Raisim, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, Vol. V, p. 117

^[136] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 384

^[137] Graetz-Raisin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, Vol. VI, p. 124

^[138] Modern Europen History, by Charles Downer Hazen, Holt, New York, p. 565

^[139] Mondern European History, p. 567

^[140] See The Anarchists, by Ernest Alfred Vizetelly, John Lane, London and New York 1911, p. 66

^[141] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, p. 285

^[142] A History of the Ukraine, Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941

^[143] Article on �Communism� by Harold J. Laski, encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. III, pp. 824-827

^[144] The Haskalah Movement in Russia, p. 285

^[145] Traetz-Raisin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, p. 662

^[146] Graez-Raisin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, p. 168

^[147] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 289

^[148] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 286

^[149] Graetz-Rasin, The Haskalah Movement on Russia, p. 209.

^[150] Encyclopedia Brit., Vol. XIII, p. 912

^[151] The Surrender of an Empire, Nesta H. Webster, Boswell Printing and Publishing Company, Ltd., 10 Essex St., London, W.C2, 1931, p. 77

^[152] The Surrender of an Empire, p. 73

^[153] Universale Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. IX, p. 668

^[154] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 336

^[155] The Last Days of the Romanovs, by Robert Wilton

^[156] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 386

^[157] Encyclopedia, Italiana, Vol. XXVII, p. 932; also, The Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, David McKay, Philadelphia, pp. 8, 612, 616.

^[158] Report of the Royal Commission, Government Printing Office, Ottawa, Canada, 1946

^[159] Report of the Royal Commissin, Government Printing Office, Canada, 1946, pp. 375 and 397 respectively.

^[160] Gave the formula of RDX, up to the present there was no evaluation from the boss.

^[161]� Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 102

^[162]� Opening words, p. 763, of the section on �doctrines,� in Religious Bodies: 1936, Vol. II, Part I, Denominations A to J, U.S. Department of Commerce, Jesse H. Jones, Secretary, Bureau of Census, Superintendent of documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

^[163] For details on these men and the others, see the article, �The Trial of the Eleven Communists,� by Sidney Shalett, Reader�s Digest, August, 1950, pp. 59-72

^[164] See Atom Treason, by Frank Britton

^[165] Washington Times-Herald, March 15, 1951

^[166] Communist Activities Amon Aliens and National Groups, part III, Government printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 236

^[167] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 390

^[168] Morning Freiheit Association, 1945, p. 19

^[169]� Morning Freiheit Association, p. 9

^[170] The Report of the Royal Commission, p. 82

^[171] The Reoport of the Royal Commission, p. 82

^[172] Webster�s New International Dictionary, 1934, p. 2281

^[173] See Graetz-Raisin, Vol. VI, Chapter IV, an �American Continent,� A �the Sephardic and German Periods,� �B� �The Russian Period.�

^[174]� The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 817

^[175] Modern History, by Carl I. Becker, Silver Burdett Company, New York, p. 138

^[176] Graetz-Raisin, Vol. VI, p. 344

^[177] The Devin Adair Company, New York, 1945

^[178] The Devin Adair Company, New York, 1945, p. 232

^[179] Race and Nationality as Factors in American Life, by Henry Pratt Fairchild, The Ronald Press Company, New York, 1947, p. 140

^[180] Race and Nationality as Factors in American Live, p. 140

^[181] The Immigration and Naturlization Systems of the United States, p. 56

^[182] The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 60

^[183] The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 60

^[184] Religious Bodies, p. 763

^[185] The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 849

^[186] The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. u8423

^[187] The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 21

^[188] The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 241

^[189] Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1951

^[190] Tabari, i, 899. According to ibn-Khurdadhbih, persons wishing access to the Persian court from the country of the Khazars and the Alans were detained at Bab al-Abwab (B.G.A. vi, 135)

^[191] Genesis 10:18; 11:19

^[192] Genesis 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chronicles 1:19; 1:25

^[193] Genesis 10:21; 10:24-25; 11:14-17; Numbers 24:24; 1 Chronicles 1:18-19; 1:25; 8:12; Nehemiah 12:20

^[194] Genesis 10:5; 10:25; 10:32; Exodus 14:21; Deuteronomy 4:19; 32:8; 1 Chronicles 1:19

^[195] Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18; 9:23; 9:27; 10:1-2; 10:21; 1 Chronicles 1:4-5

^[196] Genesis 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chronicles 1:19; 1:25

^[197] Deuteronomy 32:8

^[198] Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5; Isaiah 66:19; Ezekiel 27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1

^[199] Genesis 10:3; 1 Chronicles 1:6; Ezekiel 27:14; 38:6

^[200] Ashkenaz Genesis 10:3

^[201] Genesis 10:2-3; 1 Chronicles 1:5-6; Ezekiel 38:6; Hosea 1:3

^[202] Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5; Ezekiel 38:2; 39:6; Revelation 20:8

^[203] Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5

^[204] Genesis 10:2; 10:4; 1 Chronicles 1:5; 1:7; Isaiah 66:19; Ezekiel 27:13; 27:19

^[205] Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:15; 1:17; Ezekiel 27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1

^[206] Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5

^[207] H.A.R. Gibb, Arab Conquests in Central Asia, London 1923, 83ff. Cf. Chapter IV, n. 96

^[208] Genesis 25:1; 25:4; 1 Chronicles 1:32-33

^[209] Genesis 10:3

^[210] The History of The Jewish Khazars, by D.M. Dunlop, pp. 4-15. This book is especially important because the Jews make reference to it in all of their Jewish Encyclopedias, and uphold him as an authority on Jewish History.

^[211] Genesis 10:1‑3.

^[212] Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 403.

^[213] Genesis 10:7; 1 Chronicles 1:9; comp. Ezekiel 27:22; 38:13.

^[214] Genesis 10:28; 1 Chronicles 1:22.

^[215] Genesis 25:3; 1 Chronicles 1:32.

^[216] comp. the Ethiopian city of Saga mentioned by Strabo, 'Geography,' p. 77

^[217] Genesis 25:15.

^[218] Isaiah 21:14, comp. Jeremiah 25:23‑24.

^[219] Psalm, 62:15

^[220] comp. Jeremiah 6:20.

^[221] Ezekiel 27:22.

^[222] 1 Kings 10:10; 2 Chronicles 9:1‑9.

^[223] A.V. 3:8.

^[224] Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31.

^[225] Genesis 10:7; 1 Chronicles 1:9.

^[226] Geography, ed. M�ller, pp. 768, 778, 780

^[227] Jewish Encyclopedia, pp. 608‑610.

^[228] Ant. Book 13, ch. 9 par. 1.

^[229] Josephus Ant. Book 13, ch. 11, par. 3.

^[230] Josephus Antiquities Book 13, chapter 15, paragraph 4.

^[231] Josephus Ant. Book 14, ch. 15, p. 2.

^[232] San Diego Union, August 28, 1966, Leo Heiman: Copley News Service.

^[233] Encyclopedia Judicia, Vol. 10, (1971).

^[234] The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler, pages 58‑82).

^[235] The Zionist Connection II, Alfred M. Lilienthal, pp. 759‑768.

^[236] Matthew 23:35.

^[237] Josephas in his Ant. 13, 5:9

^[238] Ant. 13, 10:5; Comp. Jubilees, Book of, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs

^[239] Ant. 13, 13:5; 14, 1:2

^[240] Ant. 13, 16:2; 14, 1:2

^[241] Ant. 14, 3:2

^[242] Ant. 14, 9:4; 15, 1:1; 10:4; 11:5‑6

^[243] Ant. 17, 2:4; 6:2‑4

^[244] Ant. 18, 1:4

^[245] Matthew 23:33

^[246] Luke 24:20; John 19:14-18; Acts 2:36; 4:3-10; 5:30; 10:39; 13:27-29; and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15.

^[247] Note: According to Malachi Martin a former Jesuit priest and former high ranking official in the Vatican and also the author of over 20 best selling books exposing the Vatican in world politics, Pope Alexander III estimated that 133,306,668 Angels had sided with Satan against God and were cast down onto the earth in dis-embodied form. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church, by Malachi Martin.

^[248] Hebrews 11:10.

^[249] Revelation 12:14.

^[250] Deuteronomy 23:2.

^[251] Nehemiah 13:3.

^[252] John 8:37-41.

^[253] Luke 16:15.

^[254] Luke 1:52-53; 10:15; James 1:9-10.

^[255] Esther 9:17.

^[256] Isaiah 45:7.

^[257] Isaiah 54:16.

^[258] Proverbs 16:4.

^[259] Psalm 58:3-4.

^[260] Psalm 58:10.

^[261] Isaiah 26:10.

^[262] Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, pp. 160-161

^[263] Wessely, i.e. pp. 31, 112

^[264] 'Magic dans l'lude Antique,' p. 93, Paris, 1904

^[265] See pages 548, 549 and 550 of the Jewish Encyclopedia

^[266] Babylonian Talmud and Zohar

^[267] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 64a

^[268] Footnote #17, Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 65a

^[269] Talmud ‑ Mas. Avodah Zarah 19b

^[270] footnote: Talmud ‑ Mas. Shabbath 31b

^[271] Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 85b

^[272] Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 66a

^[273] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 76b

^[274] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 77a

^[275] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 77a

^[276] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 78a

^[277] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 78a

^[278] Talmud ‑ Mas. Kethuboth 11b

^[279] Talmud ‑ Mas. Kethuboth 11b

^[280] Talmud ‑ Mas. Nidah 44b

^[281] Talmud ‑ Mas. Nidah 45a

^[282] Talmud ‑ Mas. Yevamoth 59b

^[283] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 86a

^[284] Talmud ‑ Mas. Baba Kama 113b

^[285] Talmud ‑ Mas. Shabbath 116a

^[286] Talmud ‑ Mas. Baba Kama 113b

^[287] Talmud ‑ Mas. K'rithoth 6b

^[288] Talmud ‑ Mas. Avodah Zarah 22b

^[289] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 106a

^[290] The Munich MS. has rcd in the margin instead of hrcd, i.e., singular instead of plural.

^[291] Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 106b

^[292] Talmud ‑ Mas. Gittin 56b

^[293] Talmud ‑ Mas. Gittin 57a

^[294] Matthew 15:3‑6

Watchman Willie Martin Archive