Why Did Jesus Fold the Napkin?
Why did Jesus fold the linen burial cloth after His resurrection? I never
noticed this....
The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over
the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes.
The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly
folded, and was placed separate from the grave clothes.
Early Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the
tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance.
She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus
loved. She said, 'They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I
don't know where they have put him!'
Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb to see.. The other disciple
outran Peter and got there first. He stooped and looked in and saw the linen
cloth lying there, but he didn't go in.
Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen
wrappings lying there, while the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was
folded up and lying to the side.
Was that important? Absolutely!
Is it really significant? Yes!
In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to
understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The folded
napkin had to do with the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this
tradition.
When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it
was exactly the way the master wanted it..
The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out
of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not
dare touch that table, until the master was finished.
Now if the master were done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his
fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin and
toss it onto the table.
The servant would then know to clear the table. For in those days, the
wadded napkin meant, 'I'm done'.
But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it
beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table,
because...........
The folded napkin meant, 'I'm coming back!'
He is Coming Back!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
minister :Scott-Matthew: Burger gets ecclesiastical agreement with Manuel da Costa acting as the director of Maintenance Enforcement Alberta
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Edmonton Ecclesia in the Universal State of Awareness
Local number 45 Glenwood Crescent, Stony Plain, Alberta
Telephone 1-780-717-6828
No code non commercial activity.
Psalms118:8 Ezra 7:23-26
From: :Scott-Matthew: Burger Monday, September 21, 2009 A.D.
c/o 45 Glenwood Crescent
Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada, geographical location
no code, non commercial
To: Manuel da Costa the private man acting as a de facto Executive Director of Maintenance Enforcement Program having jurisdiction over contracted legal fiction corporate entities created by Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program under a commercial Statute applicable upon the corporate registrants of the de facto Province of Alberta.
c/o Maintenance Enforcement
Executive Director
7th Floor North
10365 97 Street
Edmonton, Alberta the geographical location.
No code non commercial
Notice
This is a Private ecclesiastical non commercial Assumptive contract/agreement/covenant and understanding between minister :scott-matthew of the burger family and Manuel da Costa the private man
Provided under protest, duress and intimidation.
Hello Manuel, I am :Scott-Matthew of the Burger family, a flesh blood and bone living man created by God and an officiating minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, an ecclesiastical organism of other flesh blood and bone men and women. Manuel, by my sending you this good faith agreement, I do attempt to ascertain all the facts in honour. If you have any reason or proof to suggest or provide to me, God’s minister officially performing the functions of my calling, that the following statements of the facts are not true, you are being offered the opportunity to refute these offered facts so as to clear yourself of any assumptive contractual awareness of the truth of such facts. Also be aware, this communication of agreement cannot be lawfully inquired of at public or government expense as it is a provable private matter and government funding cannot support private contracts. All legal bills must and shall be paid for out of your private pocket no different than Maurice Duplessis the former Premier and Attorney General of Quebec.
Declaration of private ministry under God and his perpetual law.
I declare that I am that God created, my Christian given name Scott Matthew of the Burger family, to be a private ecclesiastic man under God as my creator and that no man or woman has a moral or a lawful right to impose anything upon me without my informed consent; and that I do hereby renounce any fraudulent corporate assumptive contract and do honour the directive obligation to respect the equal God given freedoms of other men and women under his law. To all those who set eyes on this Ecclesiastical declaration, I do hereby, officially performing the functions of my calling, serve notice to all private men and women that receive this that any offer herein, prior to, or on my part does not imply acceptance of intimidation, violence, or threats of violence against me, and that no such offer implies that I will submit to any intimidation in the future. I, as a bondservant of Christ do henceforth offer the good faith proclamation of my free born will to live in peace and declare that, by right of God, the de facto authority's edicts, codes, obligations, statutes, taxes, licenses and prohibitions of a de facto commercial entity are not binding on me, or applicable upon God’s ministers and his Children.
1. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that I, Minister of Christ Scott- Matthew of the Burger family was on the 16th of August, 2009 A.D., unlawfully intimidated and obstructed, by you Manuel da Costa, in your private capacity, by methods not sanctioned and as such, being a perceived and negative nuisance to my ability to perform an official function of my ministerial calling, are in violation of Sections 176, 423 and 180 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
2. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that I am not a member of a dead legal fiction entity corporation known as Canada or Alberta and that specifically my name, being my ecclesiastical possession under the exclusive authority of God, is not allowed by my faith in God’s commands as defended by the Queen you swore an oath to be truly allegiant to, to be used, recorded, registered, altered or exchanged for a financial purpose without my permission and that it has never been offered or pledged to be for any of those reasons or to be used as a surety or as a commodity with my informed consent.
3. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that any man or woman in office who up holds the law of the land and has taken an oath to the Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant, that if they do not know what that true allegiance is when asked, that they have provided irrefutable evidence that they lied to get their job.
4. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that an oath to a Christian Monarch is an act of religious worship and all who refuse to acknowledge and submit to that fact are imposters who lied to get their job. See Westminister Confession of Faith Act of the British Parliament 1648 chapter 22.
5. It is agreed by you, the private man, with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that an agent of her Majesty when failing to acknowledge they have an oath of allegiance to the defender of the faith and recognition of the supremacy of God relieves themselves from sworn duty and reverts themselves to a private man or woman with no more judicial authority than the sovereign inheritance of birth as they have by lack of recognition of those prime points of law indicated they perjured themselves when swearing their oath to God.
6. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that a minister once notifying whoever obstructs them that he is a minister not bound by commercial law in performing the functions of his calling and that unless proof to the contrary is evident the man or woman once made aware of the ministry being performed has no sanction in law or from the Christian monarch they swore to be truly allegiant to, to obstruct intimidate or act as a nuisance to him while performing the official functions of his calling.
7. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that no man calling himself Executive Director of Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program has any oath bound nor civil authority to obstruct a minister from performing the functions of his calling nor to determine the functions of his calling unless damage has ensued to man, woman or property violating God’s law as complained of by an opposing man or woman.
8. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that no oath bound sanctioned honour lies in the unlawful private action of intimidating obstructing and acting as a nuisance to a legitimate and sincere minister of Christ officially performing the noticed non commercial functions of his calling.
9. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that any man or woman who has sworn an oath to the Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant to the “Defender of the faith”, then obstructs, intimidates or acts as a nuisance to the ability of an officiating minister of God, has acted against the Queens ability to defend the faith and is attempting to overthrow her majesty’s government, being the King James Bible, by force....and that Section 46 of the criminal code applies to all sworn allegiant officers of her majesty.
10. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that the “Rule of law” spoken of in the preamble to the 1982 de facto Constitution, being a rule for debtors,( that clearly only applies to all registered corporate government employee’s via section 32 of that charter), is indisputably God’s law, being the King James Bible, as defended by the Christian monarch that you the private man swore to be truly allegiant to via the Canadian oaths of Allegiance Act and Coronation Act of 1689. Any other act that dares speak contrary or may have altered the authorized form such as removing the word “do” are not withstanding or legitimate.
These are the words are in Alberta from the Oath of office Act, Indicating prima fascia an unlawful, unsanctioned, deficient form by the omission of the word “do” in the Alberta oath of Allegiance thus effectively invalidating the oath by making the oath grammatically incoherent.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
These are the words from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the oath is to be worded in Canada, it is
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
11. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that “Canada’s” geographical limits are delineated in the Canada Land Surveys Act Section 24 and that Canada being the land mass spoken of in that enactment, only includes the North West Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon as provinces as concurred in section 2 of the criminal code and section 30 of the de facto Charter of Rights not Freedoms.
It is very important that I show you why I can not allow any one to assume that they have any power or force over me. To be definitive you need to see the lawful definition of person and the scriptures that guide me and command me to not show respect to persons as they are fictions of law..A player on a stage wearing a mask.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, etc. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137..
It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
TO PERSONATE, crim. law. The act of assuming the character of another without lawful authority, and, in such character, doing something to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of another, without his will or consent.
The bare fact of personating another for the purpose of fraud, is no more than a cheat or misdemeanour at common law, and punishable as such. 2 East, P. C. 1010; 2 Russ. on Cr. 479.
By the act of congress of the 30th April, 1790, s. 15, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 86, it is enacted, that " if any person shall acknowledge, or procure to be acknowledged in any court of the United States, any recognizance, bail or judgement, in the name or names of any other person or persons not privy or consenting to the same, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes, Provided nevertheless. that this act shall not extend to the acknowledgment of any judgement or judgements by any attorney or attorneys, duly admitted, for any person or persons against whom any such judgement or judgements shall be bad or given." Vide, generally, 2 John. Cas. 293; 16 Vin. Ab. 336; Com. Dig. Action on the case for a deceit, A 3.
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Here is a list of more in depth definitions so no one gets lost.
I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human Manuel, but before you think I am crazy examine the facts.
I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.
Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?
To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."
Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."
Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4.. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word).
Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons", which in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.
Person, noun. person. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?
Well then….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".
Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.
I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...
Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."
Hmmm, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? (buzzer sound), not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.
Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.
Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'coloured man'!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not coloured either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.
Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
Great news!!, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.
Now let us see what the word Human really means......I am going into detail so you can see we have been deceived by the misuse of our own language.
Definition of Human Being
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).
In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."
12. "Men [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
13. The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
14. "The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
And the Word confirms: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A.. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y . 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34].. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
I could provide you more, Manuel, and I do sincerely thank you for your focused attention to this, my honest effort at officially performing the function of my calling in establishing this agreement with you as per Matthew 5:25 and 18:15-20, but I think you are already overwhelmed as I have, upon presentation of facts, destroyed your belief system and now you are aware you are working for a massive criminal organization founded upon a false oath. Can you now see why I must not allow my name to be altered? Remember, every one of the officers of Alberta has a false oath....What kind of authority swears an oath that is bogus??? A false authority!
15. It is agreed with no dispute to the fact by you forthcoming that you are aware that I reserve my right under God’s law not to be compelled to perform under any fraudulently obtained contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, with informed consent, voluntarily and intentionally.
16. It is agreed by you with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that you are aware that I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed de facto contract or unlawful commercial agreement, which is my ministerial duty pursuant to God’s law to divide myself from.
CONVERSION.Torts.The unlawful turning or applying the personal goods of another to the use of the taker, or of some other person than the owner; or the unlawful destroying or altering their nature.
When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion but when the original taking was lawful, as when the party found the goods, and the detention only is illegal, it is absolutely necessary to make a demand of the goods, and there must be a refusal to deliver them before the conversion will be complete. The refusal by a servant to deliver the goods entrusted to him by his master is not evidence of a conversion by his master. Leviticus 6:2-5
The tortious taking of property is, of itself, a conversion and any intermeddling with it, or any exercise of dominion over it, subversive of the dominion of the owner or the nature of the bailment if it be bailed, is evidence of a conversion.
In Equity.
The considering of one thing as changed into another; for example, land will be considered as converted into money and treated as such by a court of equity, when the owner has contracted to sell his estate, in which case, if he die before the conveyance, his executors and not his heirs will be entitled to the money. On the other hand, money is converted into land in a variety of ways as for example, when a man agrees to buy land and dies before he has received the conveyance, the money he was to pay for it will be considered as converted into lands, and descend to the heir.
17. It is agreed upon by you, having no dispute to the following fact forthcoming from you; that you the private man are aware that I am a flesh bone blood living man, being God’s minister, and that I cannot possibly on the 16th day of August, 2009, have been in a dead legal corporate fiction called the Province of Alberta as the Province of Alberta is not a place but a dead corporate fiction of law on paper created for the purpose of extracting money from me in fraud as it is totally against my will, a violation of my faith to submit to and is being done without my informed consent or cognisant permission for a financial purpose.
18. It is agreed by you with full understanding that failure to refute or disprove the facts provided above as agreed upon by you will be witnessed in 20 days time. Mathew 18;15-20
Ecclesiastically Autographed non commercial as :Scott-Matthew of the Burger family, a minister of Christ, officially performing a function of my calling.
Autograph
Date
Edmonton Ecclesia in the Universal State of Awareness
Local number 45 Glenwood Crescent, Stony Plain, Alberta
Telephone 1-780-717-6828
No code non commercial activity.
Psalms118:8 Ezra 7:23-26
From: :Scott-Matthew: Burger Monday, September 21, 2009 A.D.
c/o 45 Glenwood Crescent
Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada, geographical location
no code, non commercial
To: Manuel da Costa the private man acting as a de facto Executive Director of Maintenance Enforcement Program having jurisdiction over contracted legal fiction corporate entities created by Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program under a commercial Statute applicable upon the corporate registrants of the de facto Province of Alberta.
c/o Maintenance Enforcement
Executive Director
7th Floor North
10365 97 Street
Edmonton, Alberta the geographical location.
No code non commercial
Notice
This is a Private ecclesiastical non commercial Assumptive contract/agreement/covenant and understanding between minister :scott-matthew of the burger family and Manuel da Costa the private man
Provided under protest, duress and intimidation.
Hello Manuel, I am :Scott-Matthew of the Burger family, a flesh blood and bone living man created by God and an officiating minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, an ecclesiastical organism of other flesh blood and bone men and women. Manuel, by my sending you this good faith agreement, I do attempt to ascertain all the facts in honour. If you have any reason or proof to suggest or provide to me, God’s minister officially performing the functions of my calling, that the following statements of the facts are not true, you are being offered the opportunity to refute these offered facts so as to clear yourself of any assumptive contractual awareness of the truth of such facts. Also be aware, this communication of agreement cannot be lawfully inquired of at public or government expense as it is a provable private matter and government funding cannot support private contracts. All legal bills must and shall be paid for out of your private pocket no different than Maurice Duplessis the former Premier and Attorney General of Quebec.
Declaration of private ministry under God and his perpetual law.
I declare that I am that God created, my Christian given name Scott Matthew of the Burger family, to be a private ecclesiastic man under God as my creator and that no man or woman has a moral or a lawful right to impose anything upon me without my informed consent; and that I do hereby renounce any fraudulent corporate assumptive contract and do honour the directive obligation to respect the equal God given freedoms of other men and women under his law. To all those who set eyes on this Ecclesiastical declaration, I do hereby, officially performing the functions of my calling, serve notice to all private men and women that receive this that any offer herein, prior to, or on my part does not imply acceptance of intimidation, violence, or threats of violence against me, and that no such offer implies that I will submit to any intimidation in the future. I, as a bondservant of Christ do henceforth offer the good faith proclamation of my free born will to live in peace and declare that, by right of God, the de facto authority's edicts, codes, obligations, statutes, taxes, licenses and prohibitions of a de facto commercial entity are not binding on me, or applicable upon God’s ministers and his Children.
1. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that I, Minister of Christ Scott- Matthew of the Burger family was on the 16th of August, 2009 A.D., unlawfully intimidated and obstructed, by you Manuel da Costa, in your private capacity, by methods not sanctioned and as such, being a perceived and negative nuisance to my ability to perform an official function of my ministerial calling, are in violation of Sections 176, 423 and 180 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
2. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that I am not a member of a dead legal fiction entity corporation known as Canada or Alberta and that specifically my name, being my ecclesiastical possession under the exclusive authority of God, is not allowed by my faith in God’s commands as defended by the Queen you swore an oath to be truly allegiant to, to be used, recorded, registered, altered or exchanged for a financial purpose without my permission and that it has never been offered or pledged to be for any of those reasons or to be used as a surety or as a commodity with my informed consent.
3. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that any man or woman in office who up holds the law of the land and has taken an oath to the Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant, that if they do not know what that true allegiance is when asked, that they have provided irrefutable evidence that they lied to get their job.
4. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that an oath to a Christian Monarch is an act of religious worship and all who refuse to acknowledge and submit to that fact are imposters who lied to get their job. See Westminister Confession of Faith Act of the British Parliament 1648 chapter 22.
5. It is agreed by you, the private man, with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that an agent of her Majesty when failing to acknowledge they have an oath of allegiance to the defender of the faith and recognition of the supremacy of God relieves themselves from sworn duty and reverts themselves to a private man or woman with no more judicial authority than the sovereign inheritance of birth as they have by lack of recognition of those prime points of law indicated they perjured themselves when swearing their oath to God.
6. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that a minister once notifying whoever obstructs them that he is a minister not bound by commercial law in performing the functions of his calling and that unless proof to the contrary is evident the man or woman once made aware of the ministry being performed has no sanction in law or from the Christian monarch they swore to be truly allegiant to, to obstruct intimidate or act as a nuisance to him while performing the official functions of his calling.
7. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that no man calling himself Executive Director of Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program has any oath bound nor civil authority to obstruct a minister from performing the functions of his calling nor to determine the functions of his calling unless damage has ensued to man, woman or property violating God’s law as complained of by an opposing man or woman.
8. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that no oath bound sanctioned honour lies in the unlawful private action of intimidating obstructing and acting as a nuisance to a legitimate and sincere minister of Christ officially performing the noticed non commercial functions of his calling.
9. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that any man or woman who has sworn an oath to the Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant to the “Defender of the faith”, then obstructs, intimidates or acts as a nuisance to the ability of an officiating minister of God, has acted against the Queens ability to defend the faith and is attempting to overthrow her majesty’s government, being the King James Bible, by force....and that Section 46 of the criminal code applies to all sworn allegiant officers of her majesty.
10. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that the “Rule of law” spoken of in the preamble to the 1982 de facto Constitution, being a rule for debtors,( that clearly only applies to all registered corporate government employee’s via section 32 of that charter), is indisputably God’s law, being the King James Bible, as defended by the Christian monarch that you the private man swore to be truly allegiant to via the Canadian oaths of Allegiance Act and Coronation Act of 1689. Any other act that dares speak contrary or may have altered the authorized form such as removing the word “do” are not withstanding or legitimate.
These are the words are in Alberta from the Oath of office Act, Indicating prima fascia an unlawful, unsanctioned, deficient form by the omission of the word “do” in the Alberta oath of Allegiance thus effectively invalidating the oath by making the oath grammatically incoherent.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
These are the words from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the oath is to be worded in Canada, it is
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
11. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that “Canada’s” geographical limits are delineated in the Canada Land Surveys Act Section 24 and that Canada being the land mass spoken of in that enactment, only includes the North West Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon as provinces as concurred in section 2 of the criminal code and section 30 of the de facto Charter of Rights not Freedoms.
It is very important that I show you why I can not allow any one to assume that they have any power or force over me. To be definitive you need to see the lawful definition of person and the scriptures that guide me and command me to not show respect to persons as they are fictions of law..A player on a stage wearing a mask.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, etc. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137..
It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
TO PERSONATE, crim. law. The act of assuming the character of another without lawful authority, and, in such character, doing something to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of another, without his will or consent.
The bare fact of personating another for the purpose of fraud, is no more than a cheat or misdemeanour at common law, and punishable as such. 2 East, P. C. 1010; 2 Russ. on Cr. 479.
By the act of congress of the 30th April, 1790, s. 15, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 86, it is enacted, that " if any person shall acknowledge, or procure to be acknowledged in any court of the United States, any recognizance, bail or judgement, in the name or names of any other person or persons not privy or consenting to the same, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes, Provided nevertheless. that this act shall not extend to the acknowledgment of any judgement or judgements by any attorney or attorneys, duly admitted, for any person or persons against whom any such judgement or judgements shall be bad or given." Vide, generally, 2 John. Cas. 293; 16 Vin. Ab. 336; Com. Dig. Action on the case for a deceit, A 3.
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Here is a list of more in depth definitions so no one gets lost.
I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human Manuel, but before you think I am crazy examine the facts.
I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.
Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?
To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."
Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."
Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4.. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word).
Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons", which in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.
Person, noun. person. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?
Well then….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".
Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.
I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...
Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."
Hmmm, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? (buzzer sound), not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.
Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.
Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'coloured man'!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not coloured either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.
Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
Great news!!, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.
Now let us see what the word Human really means......I am going into detail so you can see we have been deceived by the misuse of our own language.
Definition of Human Being
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).
In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."
12. "Men [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
13. The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
14. "The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
And the Word confirms: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A.. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y . 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34].. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
I could provide you more, Manuel, and I do sincerely thank you for your focused attention to this, my honest effort at officially performing the function of my calling in establishing this agreement with you as per Matthew 5:25 and 18:15-20, but I think you are already overwhelmed as I have, upon presentation of facts, destroyed your belief system and now you are aware you are working for a massive criminal organization founded upon a false oath. Can you now see why I must not allow my name to be altered? Remember, every one of the officers of Alberta has a false oath....What kind of authority swears an oath that is bogus??? A false authority!
15. It is agreed with no dispute to the fact by you forthcoming that you are aware that I reserve my right under God’s law not to be compelled to perform under any fraudulently obtained contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, with informed consent, voluntarily and intentionally.
16. It is agreed by you with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that you are aware that I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed de facto contract or unlawful commercial agreement, which is my ministerial duty pursuant to God’s law to divide myself from.
CONVERSION.Torts.The unlawful turning or applying the personal goods of another to the use of the taker, or of some other person than the owner; or the unlawful destroying or altering their nature.
When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion but when the original taking was lawful, as when the party found the goods, and the detention only is illegal, it is absolutely necessary to make a demand of the goods, and there must be a refusal to deliver them before the conversion will be complete. The refusal by a servant to deliver the goods entrusted to him by his master is not evidence of a conversion by his master. Leviticus 6:2-5
The tortious taking of property is, of itself, a conversion and any intermeddling with it, or any exercise of dominion over it, subversive of the dominion of the owner or the nature of the bailment if it be bailed, is evidence of a conversion.
In Equity.
The considering of one thing as changed into another; for example, land will be considered as converted into money and treated as such by a court of equity, when the owner has contracted to sell his estate, in which case, if he die before the conveyance, his executors and not his heirs will be entitled to the money. On the other hand, money is converted into land in a variety of ways as for example, when a man agrees to buy land and dies before he has received the conveyance, the money he was to pay for it will be considered as converted into lands, and descend to the heir.
17. It is agreed upon by you, having no dispute to the following fact forthcoming from you; that you the private man are aware that I am a flesh bone blood living man, being God’s minister, and that I cannot possibly on the 16th day of August, 2009, have been in a dead legal corporate fiction called the Province of Alberta as the Province of Alberta is not a place but a dead corporate fiction of law on paper created for the purpose of extracting money from me in fraud as it is totally against my will, a violation of my faith to submit to and is being done without my informed consent or cognisant permission for a financial purpose.
18. It is agreed by you with full understanding that failure to refute or disprove the facts provided above as agreed upon by you will be witnessed in 20 days time. Mathew 18;15-20
Ecclesiastically Autographed non commercial as :Scott-Matthew of the Burger family, a minister of Christ, officially performing a function of my calling.
Autograph
Date
you do not need a postal code if you mail with a stamp
On 8/1/06, PALIWAL, Sanjay wrote:
Dear Minister Belanger:
I am writing further to the e-mail message you sent to Ms. Moya Greene, President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding the use of the postal code. I regret any confusion that resulted from the e-mail message to Minister Mieczslaw.
As per the Canada Post Corporation Letter Mail Regulations, items paid by postage meter or postal indicia must include the applicable postal code to qualify for standard mail prices, otherwise higher postal rates will apply. For the most part, postage meters and/or postal indicia are used by businesses and other "commercial" organizations.
The postal code is not required on standard mail if it is mailed using postage stamps.
Should you wish to mail an item using our Registered Mail service, it should be brought to the post office, addressed but not bearing any meter impression or postal indicia. Postal staff can then process the item for you. The postal code would not be necessary in such a case.
I appreciated the opportunity to clarify our position on this matter. Please be assured we are committed to providing the best possible postal service, and the postal code will always help in ensuring efficient and timely mail delivery.
Yours sincerely,
Sanjay Paliwal
General Manager, Addressing and Delivery
Dear Minister Belanger:
I am writing further to the e-mail message you sent to Ms. Moya Greene, President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding the use of the postal code. I regret any confusion that resulted from the e-mail message to Minister Mieczslaw.
As per the Canada Post Corporation Letter Mail Regulations, items paid by postage meter or postal indicia must include the applicable postal code to qualify for standard mail prices, otherwise higher postal rates will apply. For the most part, postage meters and/or postal indicia are used by businesses and other "commercial" organizations.
The postal code is not required on standard mail if it is mailed using postage stamps.
Should you wish to mail an item using our Registered Mail service, it should be brought to the post office, addressed but not bearing any meter impression or postal indicia. Postal staff can then process the item for you. The postal code would not be necessary in such a case.
I appreciated the opportunity to clarify our position on this matter. Please be assured we are committed to providing the best possible postal service, and the postal code will always help in ensuring efficient and timely mail delivery.
Yours sincerely,
Sanjay Paliwal
General Manager, Addressing and Delivery
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The false Jew and the real Judahite compared
Between the Testaments
By Ernest Martin and Harry Eisenberg
The Good News of Tomorrow's World September, 1971
Introduction by Pastor Eli James
Children of Israel , one of the most important revelations of my ministry has been the documentation of the fact that the Jewish people are totally UNRELATED to the Judahites of the Old Testament. At the same time, I have also documented the fact that JUDAISM IS NOT THE RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Both of these facts are irrefutable, despite prevailing beliefs to the contrary.
The whole world has been deceived by this dual set of lies, both of which come from the Synagogue of Satan, Judaism. Under no circumstances can Judaism be considered to be either identical to the teachings of Moses, nor can Judaism be considered to be based on the teachings of Moses. Since Judaism is based on the TALMUD, Judaism is, in fact, TOTAL HERESY AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES.
In far more instances than not, the Talmud CONTRADICTS THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES, thereby violating Deut. 4:2, in which Moses himself condemns any attempt to change the WRITTEN DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY BIBLE. Hence, the supposed “oral law,” by which the rabbis of Judaism claim authority over the Old Testament is nothing but a Satanic device to fool Christians into believing that they have some sort of “hidden wisdom” that we should accept as authentic. Nothing could be further from the truth; and the authors, one a Christian and the other apparently a Jew, of the following article agree with me.
Jesus Christ, Himself, confirms the fallaciousness of Judaism, when He accuses the Pharisees with this charge: “You have made the Law OF NONE EFFECT BY YOUR TRADITIONS.” (Matt. 15:5.) In Matt., Chapter 23 and in numerous other places, the Messiah condemns the Jews and their religion. The entire Gospel of John is one long excoriation of the Jews and their religion.
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms that Judaism is based on the teachings of the Pharisees and not upon the Law of Moses:
“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature.” - Vol. VIII, p. 474 (1942).
The Origins of the Great Deception
So, how is it possible that the Jews have been able to deceive the world with their fables? Two elements: Jewish deception and popular ignorance.
As I was in the process of writing my book, The Great Impersonation: How the Anti-Christ Has Deceived the Whole World, a careful, historical reading of the Holy Scriptures revealed to me that the Jews are not the Judahites of Scripture. Nor are the Jews derived from any of the other 11 tribes. Nor was Jesus a Jew. He was a Judahite of the House of Judah, which is categorically the OPPOSITE of a Jew. The rabbinate has capitalized on the similarity between the words ‘Jew’ and ‘ Judah ,’ falsely claiming that, therefore, the Jewish people are descended from True Judah. But this is not the case.
I have written extensively on the Edomite origin of the Sephardic Jews, who were the only Jews in existence at the time of Christ. Under King Herod, an Edomite who had usurped the throne of Judah, the Pharisaic priesthood had become a haven for Herod’s Edomite friends. These Pharisees perverted the Law of Moses while claiming to preserve it in their tradition. This is the origin of the Sephardic Jews. Later on in history, the Japhetic/Mongoloid/Hittite nation of the Khazars CONVERTED to this sham religion; and these non-Shemitic Jews make up at least 90% of the Jewish people today. The Khazars are also referred to as the Ashkenazi.
Thus, 90% of modern Jews have zero Shemitic blood in them. The other 10%, the Sephardic Jews, are, since the days of Esau (the race-traitor brother of Jacob/Israel), Edomites with very little Israelite blood in them either. This genetic situation makes the charge of “anti-Semitism” against the Jews’ enemies a sham as well. Since the Jews are not Shemites, but Edomites and Khazars, one who opposes Edomites and Khazars cannot be a accused of “anti-Semitism.” This is just a clever part of the Jewish charade. It must be understood that, therefore, the Jews have been staging a religious and cultural impersonation for the last two
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 2 of 16
28 January 2009
thousand years. The rabbis are fully aware of this charade; and their priesthood is devoted, 100% of the time, to making sure that the religious world remains befuddled by their deceptions. This is what all Jewish rabbinical students learn how to do in their Yeshivas.
This spiritual and cultural cancer has sunk its roots deeply within Christendom and Western civilization. This religious, spiritual and moral cancer is not easily cured.
The Historical Truth
There were two kinds of Judeans in the days of John Hyrcanus and Herod: the original, native Judahites and the recently naturalized Idumeans, who were allowed to become citizens of Judea via a treaty signed by King John Hyrcanus with the nation of Idumea. I can assure you that this treaty did not make these Idumeans into Judahites. But this is precisely what the rabbis do not want you to know. They want you to believe that Judaism somehow emerged out of changes in the doctrine of True Judah. This is nonsense. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, the Minor Prophets, the Apocrypha (especially I and II Maccabees) and Josephus, all describe how True Judah fought with all their might to remain a racially and religiously exclusive nation. They fought wars to maintain their Identity. Now, we are supposed to believe, according to Jewish perversion of history, that these same Judahites simply gave it all up and changed from a segregationist culture into an integrationist culture? Without resistance? I don’t think so!!! The fact is that the Talmudic changes in doctrine arose with the Pharisees, a mixed-race priesthood who were empowered by Herod, the Idumean usurper, who murdered John Hyrcanus, True Judahite, and took his place.
These Idumean Edomites, having taken over the throne of Judah , began the process of dismantling the Judahite power structure, by replacing pure-bred Judahites with race-mixed Edomites. These facts are contained in the historical works of Josephus, who was NOT A JEW. He was a Judahite, as his own writings attest. If you pay close attention to what Josephus wrote, you will discover that he makes a clear distinction between the Judahite people of Judea and the Edomites of Idumea. Whenever someone cites “Josephus, the JEWISH HISTORIAN,” rest assured that this slogan was invented to cement into your mind the false idea that Josephus was a Jew rather than a Judahite. There is a big difference. Every time an author references Josephus, he or she never fails to add the words “the Jewish historian” to the name of Josephus. This is nothing but indoctrination by repetition - repetition of a preposterous lie!!!! Therefore, the works of Josephus should be entitled Antiquities of Judah and Wars of Judah . The Jewish charade as Israel and Judah requires that historical documents be retitled and renamed so that the impersonation can go on undetected and unquestioned.
(If you are paying attention to current history, you will notice that the Jews have been doing exactly the same thing to America, having infiltrated our government with their Zionist agents, beginning in the days of Woodrow Wilson and even more so in the days of Federal Dictator Rosenfeldt, who was nothing but a Zionist puppet during the entirety of his career as a pro-communist, pro-Zionist dismantler of the United States Constitution. During the ought years (’01 - ’09) of our new millennium, the Neo-Kahns (the Neo-Conservatives, the phony “Republicans” who came out of Leo Strauss’s communist school of tactical deception at the University of Chicago), the Jewish takeover of our government has been completed, just as the Herodians displaced the Judahites. It was these Neo-Kahns (internationalist Jews of the New World Order) who elected George Bush, staged 9/11 and used it as an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, thus exploiting the American military, causing our people to lose life and limb to make the world safe for Jewry.)
Even Jewish scholars admit that Herod was an Idumean. Yet, this fact is glossed over, minimized, ignored, buried, hidden and otherwise pigeonholed, so that you, Dear Christian, will not be able to understand that what REALLY HAPPENED in those days was a PUTSCH, a COUP, an OVERTHROW of Judah by the Edomites of Idumea, just as America has been overthrown by the International Jew in modern times.
I have documented these historical deceptions in several works. These can be found online. Here is a list of the studies that can be found on my website, www.anglo-saxonisreal.com :
The Parasite’s Dilemma:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2004_11_02.php
The Origin of Talmudism:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2005_09_01.php
“Tell Me Please, British-Israel Identity Foundation Truths”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2005_09_01.php
“An Informed Consensus: An Essay on the Proper Use of the Word, ‘Jew’”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2006_9_17.php
“Webster and the Term, ‘Jew’”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2006_10_13.php
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 3 of 16
28 January 2009
“Misconceptions About Josephus, the Judean”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2007_1_22.php
95 Theses Against the Anti-Christ (my free ebook, which explains how Judaism violates every law of Moses)
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/95-theses.php
Arsenal of Words (another fee ebook, documenting how the Talmudic rabbis have invented false definitions of words in order to deceive the masses):
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2007_12_16.php
(Arsenal of Words contains much information on the rabbinical technique of INTERPOLATION, which is the technique of redefining words to suit their deceptive purposes, so this is MUST READING for anyone who wishes to understand how the Talmudic rabbis have butchered the Holy Scriptures.)
For a quick summary of the works of Josephus, please see An Informed Consensus Revisited:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2008_9_25.php .
I have also documented the whole story of the separate histories, religions and cultures of the Israelites versus the Jews, from Genesis 3:15 to the present, in my book, The Great Impersonation: How the Anti-Christ Has Deceived the Whole World. This book is available by mail for $37. A $37 check to ANP POB 411373 Chicago IL 60641 will secure a copy of this book. In The Great Impersonation, I exhaustively document the Idumean usurpation of the throne of Judah and Jesus Christ’s thorough denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, the founders of the Jewish religion.
From all of these writings, I think I can fairly claim to be the world’s reigning expert on the so-called “Intertestamental Period,” which is the historical period that is, in fact, well covered by both the Apocrypha and the works of Josephus. You will note that there exists, in both the secular academic world and the Judeo-Christian theological world, a stark paucity of written materials about this historical period. There is a good reason for this. The rabbis of Judaism do not want you to know about Judaism’s illegitimate origins; and the Judeo-Christian ministry does not dare to challenge rabbinical authority and claims to the “right” to interpret the Law of Moses or the historicity of Jewish claims. The chosen of Satan do not wish to be contradicted. Their empire of deceit may come crashing down!
As a servant of Yahshua Messiah and my people, Anglo-Saxon Israel, I am most happy to throw a monkey wrench into the mechanism of their grand design. For me, there is no greater joy in life than the pleasure I experience in exposing hypocrisy – especially rabbinical hypocrisy - wherever it may lie. When I hear Lucifer cackling, I dare him to lie some more. The liar always gets caught in his lies; and the rabbinate will not be an exception much longer.
As long as the true facts of this historical period remain unknown, the Jews can perpetuate their IMPERSONATION OF TRUE ISRAEL. I have dedicated my life to EXPOSING THIS HISTORICAL LIE. And I need your help in disseminating this information, so that Christians everywhere will become aware of the true nature of Judaism and its phony claims to origination in the Old Testament, with either Moses or with the prophets or with the Judahites of the Temple.
All of these notions are pure fabrication by the synagogue of Satan, and I will not rest until everyone on this planet is aware of these deceptions. Jesus Himself prophesied that all such deceptions will one day be revealed (Matt. 10:26, Luke 12:2), and this is the revelation. Praise Yahweh!
How Did the Jews Claim the Name of Israel and Judah ?
The word ‘Jew’ derives from the New Testament word, ‘Judean,’ which does NOT have the same meaning as the word ‘Judahite.’ A Judahite is a direct descendant of the Tribe of Judah, which tribe practiced a racially segregated religion and culture. Yahshua’s genealogy is given in Matthew, Chapter 1 and Luke, Chapter 3, thus proving that He is a genealogical descendant of David. In contrast, a Judean is merely a resident of the country called Judea . Since the City of Jerusalem was an international metropolis throughout most of its history, many non-Judahites resided there; and any resident was called a “Judean.” But only native-born Judahites could refer to themselves as “ Judah .”
It is patently obvious, therefore, that the racially exclusive Judahites cannot be equated with any of the racially mongrelized Judeans. Mongrelization is strictly forbidden by Deut. 23:2 and many other verses. Jesus Christ Himself confirms His own racial exclusivity in numerous passages of the New Testament, especially at Matt. 15:24, where He tells the woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but unto the lost [Greek appolumi, meaning “exiled”]sheep of the House of Israel .” He goes on to tell this Canaanite woman that His Gospel is intended exclusively for the Children of the Covenant and not for any other people: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” At Matt. 10:5-6, where Yahshua states the Apostolic Commission, He tells the
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 4 of 16
28 January 2009
Apostles: “Go not into the way of the nations, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, BUT GO RATHER TO THE EXILED SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”
Luke 1:68 confirms the fact that Jesus came to redeem His People, Israel . Since no other people had been party to the Covenant of the Law of Moses, no other people had fallen from grace by disobeying the Law. Note this language closely: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel : for He hath visited and redeemed His People.” The Bible does not say, “all people.” It says “ Israel .” The Bible is very clear in stating, hundreds of times, that ONLY ISRAEL CAN BE GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE.”
Jesus clearly distinguishes between His Israelite Kinsmen and the Jews, for He always condemns the Jewish Pharisees for their hypocrisy. “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Luke 12:1) At John 7:1, we are told that,“Jesus would not walk in Jewry, BECAUSE THE JEWS SOUGHT TO KILL HIM.” Knowing the difference between the Judean impostors (the Jews) and His Judean kinsmen (the Judahites) clears up the apparent discrepancy in the language of the Gospels, concerning the word ‘Jew.’ Many Bible scholars have been mystified by this duality of “good Jews” and “evil Jews” in the Bible.
Because they do not understand that the Jews are impostors impersonating True Israel, they assume that the “evil Jews” in Scripture were rebellious Judahites, who turned against Christ, thus becoming “evil Jews.” Yes, there were such Judahites. But there is far more to this story. The fact is that the rejection, railroad trial and crucifixion of Jesus was led by the Pharisees, who were the Edomite agents, the preferred priesthood of the Edomite coup against Judah, by a bunch of Satanic conspirators, led by Herod and his father, Antipater. Without knowing the history of the various conflicts between these two peoples, the Israelites versus the Edomite Jews, Bible commentators have simply assumed that the “evil Jews” were Judahites gone bad. On the contrary, the “evil Jews” were, first and foremost, the Sephardic Edomites of Idumea.
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits that today’s Jews have Edomite blood in them. “Edomis in Jewry.” How did this Edomite blood get into Jewry? Of all Bible scholars, only Pastor Eli James has revealed the precise, significant history behind this fact.
The Jewish Impersonation of Judah and Israel is based on their false claims regarding their origins in Judah . The reality is that the Jewish people originated in Idumea, as the racial descendants of the Edomites and Canaanites of old Canaanland, which HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE RANKEST ENEMIES OF TRUE ISRAEL. The master strategy of Talmudic Judaism has been to deceive the world by impersonating Israel and Judah
Unfortunately, after the Davidic throne was permanently established, the Israelites of the House of Judah had been in the habit of hiring Edomite scribes to help out in their recordkeeping procedures. Even King David did this. Since these Edomite scribes were intimately aware of the true racial differences between themselves and the Judahites, they developed the idea of impersonating Judah . (Ezek. 36:5.) But it was impossible to implement this idea as long as the Judahites prevented the Edomites access to the Holy Temple and the priesthood. Only True Israelites were allowed into the Temple or allowed to be priests. Non-Israelites were never allowed to become priests and, with regard to the Temple , they were never permitted to get any closer than the outer court. This is documented, historical fact.
In his Antiquities of the Judahites, Josephus records (Book 14, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3) the day that Herod’s Edomite kinsmen were finally allowed into the Temple : "And now Herod having overcome his enemies, his care was to govern those FOREIGNERS WHO HAD BEEN HIS ASSISTANTS, FOR THE CROWD OF STRANGERS RUSHED TO SEE THE TEMPLE , AND THE SACRED THINGS IN THE TEMPLE …" These "foreigners," being Herod’s assistants and ambitious priests from Idumea, were to become the new government and priesthood of Judea . These Idumeans had for many centuries wanted to enter the Holy of Holies, which had always been forbidden to them because they were not Israelites. Thus, under Herod, the Pharisaic priesthood, comprised mainly of his Idumean friends, became the official priesthood of Judea . Secular history, numerous Biblical passages and numerous Apocryphal passages confirm the fact that the Judahites of Judea strove, with all of their might, to preserve their racial integrity and exclusive religion. In my various essays on this subject, I have dissected the false claims of the Jews. I have proven, without any shadow of a doubt, that Judaism’s claim to a Biblical origin is history’s greatest deception. I have also proven, without any shadow of a doubt, that the Jewish people, contrary to the racially exclusive Judahites of Judea, are descended from the mongrelized people then known as Canaanites and Edomites and are today known, simply, as Jews.
Since the Talmudic rabbis are in the business of falsifying history and falsifying Scripture, their claims must be scrutinized. But no one in either academia or in Judeo-Christian theology has ever had the notion – let alone the courage – to question Jewish assertions regarding the origins of their religion and people. All of their claims to Israelite, Hebrew, Shemitic or Israelite heritage are demonstrably false.
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 5 of 16
28 January 2009
Anyone who does not understand what I am saying must reflect upon these two questions: 1.) If the Jewish people are Israel, at what point did Yahweh permit His Chosen People, Israel, to allow non-Israelites into His congregation? The whole of Scripture, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, confirms the exclusivity, separateness, and racial segregation of True Israel. This is another taboo subject for modern scholarship. All sorts of false doctrines have been promoted by the un-Scriptural notion that the Covenants made exclusively with True Israel have somehow been amended or changed and given to some other entity, or to other races of people. This doctrine IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND HAS NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE. It is simply part of the BIG LIE that the Old Testament is Jewish in origin and that the New Testament applies to Christians by mere belief in Christianity. I can assure you that THE WHOLE BIBLE was written to, for, by and about Israel exclusively, and no one else.
2.) If Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament, at what point did Yahweh permit Talmudic interpretations of Scripture to supersede or overrule the Law of Moses? I can assure you, without any fear of contradiction from God’s written Word, the Bible, that Yahweh never authorized Talmudic changes to the Holy Scriptures. The Talmud is Satan’s doctrine, pure and simple. Thus, Jewish and Judeo-Christian doctrine have combined to form THE GREAT APOSTASY of the end times. (II Thess. 2:3.) Talmudism and Judeo-Christianity are the GREAT DELUSION (II Thess. 2:11) by which all Judeo-Christians have been fooled into accepting the Jews as the people of the Old Testament and mere “believers” as the “saved Christians” of the New Testament. These doctrines are simply loaded with rabbinical deception.
My work has exposed the deceptions of the rabbis and put the lie to the rabbinical claim that “Christianity owes its existence to Judaism.” This statement is unadulterated nonsense. There was no such religion before the Pharisees invented it.
The Jews Have Always Been the Greatest Enemy of True Israel
The Jewish people are Jewish by religion (via Talmudic Judaism), but they are NOT Judahites by race, ethnicity, culture, descent, customs, or by religion, because the Judahites of Scripture practiced the Mosaic Law, not the Talmud. There is actually proof of this fact in modern Palestine . There is a remnant of the ancient Samaritans still in existence in Palestine today. They are known as Karaites, and they still practice the Mosaic Law, uncontaminated by the Jewish Talmud. In addition, the so-called Black Hebrews, who are Ethiopian Blacks that have a tradition that goes back over 3,000 years (when Mosaism was practiced there by Adamite Hebrew Israelites), also practice an non-Talmudic version of Old Testament religion. The fact that both of these groups practice a non-rabbinical form of the Mosaic Law, which was borrowed from the True Israelites, shows that true Mosaism is that which is uncontaminated by the Talmud. And since Jesus Christ is the lineal descendant of the House of David, there is no doubt that He is the Messiah and that Christianity is the true fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Judaism fails on all counts. Christianity owes its existence to the prophets of Israel and Yahshua’s redemption. Christianity owes nothing to Judaism, because Judaism in not the same as the religion of the Old Testament.
In tracing the genealogy of Jesus Christ, it was obvious to me that the Jews descend from the ENEMY NATION OF EDOM.
Rarely does anyone outside of Christian Identity broach this subject of the origins of the Talmud and of the Jewish people. Recently, while doing research on a completely different subject, namely, divorce in the Holy Scriptures, I came across an article, which deals with the origins of the Jewish religion. Before this time, I had never come across any serious research by a non-Identist. I can say that everything these two authors say confirms my teaching on the subject of the non-Scriptural origin of the Jewish religion. But the article does not deal with the subject of the non-Israelite origin of the Jewish people. One of the authors appears to be Jewish, so that person would not be inclined to expose the entire fallacy. Consequently, the article still falsely equates the historical Judahites with “Jews.”
For this reason, I have annotated the article with my comments, so that you will thoroughly understand the nature of the deception, the depths of which these two authors do not comprehend. The fact that these two authors assert that Judaism IS NOT to be equated with the Law of Moses is a gigantic leap forward, a major step in the revelation of the Truth that, in the end times, the whole world will have been deceived by the anti-Christ. (Rev. 12:9.)
A major piece of the puzzle has thus been put into place and confirmed by two non-Identists.
Between the Testaments by Ernest Martin and Harry Eisenberg
The Good News of Tomorrow's World September, 1971
[With Annotated Commentary by Pastor Eli James, in italicized brackets.]
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 6 of 16
28 January 2009
Part I
Just who were the Pharisees and where did their religious doctrines originate? In the Old Testament? If so, why did Christ so strenuously oppose their ideas? Is the Bible -- both Old and New Testaments -- a house divided? An examination of the period "between the Testaments" shows that while men may be divided -- the Bible is not! PHOTO CAPTION: During the Ptolemaic period, Hellenistic culture rapidly spread among the Jewish people. [Sic: Here is the gist of the problem. The Judahites of the Hellenistic period were NOT “Jews.” They were Judahites of the House of Judah . This is precisely the false equation (i.e., the deceptive interpolation) that is assumed by all writers except Identists. The Judahites of the Intertestamental Period were the racially and religiously exclusive citizens of the House of Judah .
By referring to this segregationist people as “the Jewish people,” a false identity between the segregationist Judahites and the racially mongrelized Jews is posited. No such identity has ever existed! And, most certainly, no such identity exists between modern Jews and the ancient Israelites or Judahites! Hence, the proper identification of these people is “Judahites.” All pre-Herodian references to “the Jewish people” are quite anachronistic, simplistic, and erroneous, despite the popular usage. There were no “Jewish people” before the first Edomite was circumcised under John Hyrcanus, circa 121 BC. Before this Edomite admixture into the House of Judah , the citizens of Judah were called either “Judeans” or “Judahites” and their nation was called, simply, “ Judah ” or “the land of Judah .”
Thus, to be historically accurate, this sentence should read: “During the Ptolemaic period, Hellenistic culture rapidly spread among the Judahites of Judea .” The false identification of these Judahites as Jews simply perpetuates the impersonation of Judah by the Edomite Jews. For the remainder of this article, I will simply bracket the word ‘Jewish’ with [‘Sic’], without further explanation, wherever this error occurs. The simple fact is that there was no such thing as a “Jewish religion” or a “Jewish people” until the Pharisees invented both, during the days of Hyrcanus and Herod. – Eli] One reason why was the existence of numerous Greek cities in their midst, such as Gerasa (Jerash) pictured below. Another bastion of Hellenism was Ashkelon (see inset photo) on the Mediterranean coast.
MUCH OF the professing Christian world today suffers from the mistaken notion that Christ came to do away with His Father's religion -- the religion of the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth! Jesus Himself said, "Think NOT that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (fill to the brim)" (Matt. 5:17). [Hooray for the Truth, plainly stated! – Eli]
Christ plainly said that He did not come to do away with His Father's religion but to COMPLETE God's revelation. Then why are so many confused on this point? Why do some mistakenly preach that the Law was "done away"?
One of the major assumptions in this connection is that most theologians ASSUME that the Pharisees and the other religionists of Jesus' day were the representatives and the exponents of the revelation given to Moses -- God's Old Testament religion. But the Bible shows that the One who later became Jesus Christ was the Lord of the Old Testament:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .... All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1, 3, see also Eph. 3:9 and Heb. 1:2).
Just where and when did the Pharisees get their practices which Jesus condemned?
The Return From Babylon
Chronologically speaking, the last three authors of the Old Testament are Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi. These three men all worked among the Jewish [Sic., Judahite] community that had returned to Judaea after the Babylonian captivity. They were largely successful in bringing the people an awareness of God's true religion. A body of priests (Aaron's descendants whom God had ordained to be the religious leaders) was set up to guide the people in matters of religion. This company of men was known in history as the "Great Assembly" or "Synagogue" ("Knesset Hagedolah"). Due to the work of this body throughout the period of Persian dominance the Jews were living for the most part in accordance with God's Law (Heinrich Graetz, "History of the Jews", Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1894, Vol. I, pp. 406-407).
[Typically, these commentators fail to mention that Ezra and Nehemiah expelled all of the children of missed marriages and no priests were allowed to engage in racially mixed marriages. (Ezra 9:12, Neh. 10, plus
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 7 of 16
28 January 2009
many more. Read these books for yourself to find out!) Either no one outside of Identity has read these passages or they all decline to cite them for fear of offending the Jews. – Eli]
Because of this, God granted them special protection and privileges by a series of miracles, at the coming of Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. This is described in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", [Sic, Judahites] Book XI, Chapter X, Parts 5-6.
A New Way of Life
At his death, Alexander's empire was divided into four parts (Dan. 8:22). Judaea first passed under rule of Ptolemies of Egypt and, later, the Seleucidae of Syria. Both of these were Macedonian (Greek) dynasties and were great exponents of the pagan, Gentile way of life known as "Hellenism." [The word ‘Gentile’ is also a confusing word. The rabbis of Judaism use it to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews; but the authors of the Holy Scriptures do not use this word at all. The Hebrew word, ‘goyim’ means, simply, “nations” and the Greek word ‘ethnos’ means “race, kinsmen.” So, we can see that the Jews redefine words to suit their deceptive doctrines and practices. In my seminal work on the subject, Arsenal of Words, I have proven conclusively that the word ‘Gentiles’ is a false translation of these two Hebrew and Greek terms. The reality is that the Bible uses these terms, in most cases, to refer to ISRAELITES.
The Hebrew ‘goyim’ is used in Scripture to refer to both Israelites and non-Israelites, depending upon the context. The Greek ‘ethnos,’ in contrast, almost always refers to Israelites of the Dispersed Twelve Tribes. (James 1:1, John 7:35.) By following the false usages of these words by the Jews, Christians have been deceived into thinking that the word ‘Gentiles’ always refers to “non-Jews.” This is gross deception. – Eli]
The basic philosophy behind Hellenism was this: Every man had the right to think for himself on any matter as long as there was not a real departure from the customs that were essentially Greek.
This philosophy -- freedom of thought or individualism, which is SEEMINGLY altruistic in-principle -- resulted in myriads of confusing and contradictory beliefs among the Greeks in every phase of life. Every man was allowed his own ideas about the sciences, the arts, law and about RELIGION. So varied were the opinions among the Greek scholars in the various fields of study that individuals took pride in contending with one another over who could present the greatest "wisdom" and "knowledge" on any particular subject.
With the encouragement of the rulers, Hellenism spread rapidly in the Ptolemaic Empire. Judaea was by no means exempt.
Great Assembly No Longer in Authority
Within a score of years after the coming of the Greeks, the Great Assembly disappears from history as an organized body having religious control over the Jewish people. It is not known how the Greeks dismissed this authoritative religious body from its official capacity as teachers of the Law. But it is obvious that the authority of the Great Assembly was eroded and the Greek leaders forbade them to teach. [The books of I and II Maccabees cover this era very well. It was a period filled with civil war between pro-Greek Judahites and pro-Mosaic Judahites. – Eli] Without the religious guidance of the Great Assembly, many Jews [Sic.] began to imbibe the Greek customs and ideas which were inundating the land.
"With the change from Persian to Greek rule (the Ptolemies were Greeks, remember), Hellenism made its influence felt, and came pouring like a flood into a country which had known nothing of it. There was no escape from its influence. It was present everywhere, in the street and the market, in the everyday life and all the phases of social intercourse" (R. Travers Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", Soncino Press, London, 1933, page 77).
Much of this Hellenistic influence came from the numerous Greek cities which were established under the Ptolemies. Most of these were on the Mediterranean seacoast or on the east side of Jordan .
With the Great Assembly removed from the scene and this new culture substituted for the Law of God, the Jews [Sic. Judahites] began to absorb many elements of Hellenism. The Jews [Sic] had no one to guide them in understanding the Law except a few isolated teachers here and there who lacked the official authority of the Great Assembly. [But the Judahites always had spiritual men military leaders who were leading the opposition against Hellenization. The Greeks never gained a total victory over Judah . – Eli] After a few years of this influence, the people literally came to a state of religious confusion. Some endeavored to keep a form of the Scriptural teachings, but with Hellenism everywhere, it became almost impossible to adhere to the true form of the law of Moses. Almost everything the Greeks brought to the Jews [sic] was antagonistic to the
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 8 of 16
28 January 2009
laws of God, and, without the religious guidance of the Great Assembly, many of them began to tolerate these innovations and even, as time progressed, to take up many of the Greek ideas and customs themselves.
100 Years of Ptolemaic Rule
After a series of battles with the Syrians, Ptolemy I, the Greek king of Egypt , took firm control of Judaea in 301 B.C. His descendants retained that control for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS, until 198 B.C. This one-hundred-year period of Greek-Egyptian domination is very important in the religious history of the Jews [sic]. This is the period in which many great and significant changes first began to take place in Jewish [sic. Judean, or Judahite] religious life. "During the comparatively quiet rule of the Ptolemies, Greek ideas, customs and morality had been making peaceful conquests in Palestine " (Charles Foster Kent, "History of the Jewish People", page 320). [All of the so-called “histories” of the “Jewish people” make the false equation between Judah and Edomite Jews. This is by rabbinical design. – Eli]
There was little resistance to these inroads. We are informed by Dr. Jacob Lauterbach, a learned Jewish scholar, that Jewish tradition knows of no religious teacher who taught any form of religion from the death of Simon the Just (270 B.C.) until about the year 190 B.C. (Jacob Z. Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays", Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, 1951, page 196). "This would have been impossible," Dr. Lauterbach says, "if there had been any official activity of the teachers in those years" (ibid.).
But there was none. In fact, whole generations came and went, offering no great resistance to the new customs which were encouraged by the commercial and educational intercourse taking place between the Jews, Greeks and Hellenistic Egyptians. In fact, thousands of Jews migrated to Egypt during this period. By the end of the Ptolemaic period, there were over a million Jews in Egypt , out of a total population of about seven million. A prime example of Hellenistic influence is the PAGAN concept of the immortality of the soul. This doctrine was widely publicized in the writings of the pagan Greek philosopher Plato. [These last four paragraphs are nonsense. The Hasmonean dynasty endeavored to maintain the Law of Moses and fought against the Greeks and the Romans to maintain it. Josephus goes into the most minute detail of how both the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans fought valiantly to maintain their religion, race and culture. Also, the Bible clearly teaches that Israelites were predestined from the beginning of creation to have eternal life and to bring the everlasting Kingdom of Yahshua Messiah . These statements are simplistic! “Absent from the body, present with the Lord.” - Eli]
The Coming of the Seleucids
In 198 B.C. the Seleucid kingdom of Syria conquered Judaea and drove out the Egyptians. Like the Ptolemies, the Seleucids were also of Greek origin and equally Hellenistic in culture and outlook. At first, conditions in Judaea were pretty much like what they had been under the Ptolemies. The Seleucid ruler, Antiochus III, was favorably inclined toward the Jews [sic].
Conditions rapidly changed, however, with the coming to the throne in 175 B.C. of Antiochus Epiphanes. Shortly after he ascended the throne, there was a contention among several of the priests in Jerusalem for the office of High Priest. Jason, the brother of the reigning High Priest, persuaded Antiochus to transfer the office to him, by offering a large sum of money to the King. Jason was Hellenistically inclined and was followed in this by many of the people. "A passion for Greek costumes, and Greek names (Jason's Hebrew name was Joshua) seized the people. Large numbers were enrolled as citizens of Antioch (the capital of Syria ). Many even endeavored to conceal the fact that they had been circumcised .... To demonstrate that he had left all the traditions of his race behind, Jason sent a rich present for sacrifices in connection with the great festival at Tyre in honor of the god Hercules" (Kent, "History of the Jewish People", pp. 324-325). Of course, not everyone in Judaea went this far, but by and large, most people are inclined to follow their human leaders, at least to a certain extent.
About three years after Jason assumed office, Menelaus (Hebrew name "Onias"), a man most believe to have been of the tribe of Benjamin (not a descendant of Aaron and therefore not truly a priest) offered Antiochus a larger bribe than Jason, and he was named High Priest instead. Because of this, Jason fled beyond Jordan to the Ammonites for refuge. (See McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature", Vol. I, pp. 271-272; and II Maccabees, Chapter 4). Many of the Jews [sic] thought Jason had been unjustly deprived of becoming High Priest. Many of the people began to take sides -- some for Jason, some for Menelaus. Fighting broke out between the two groups, both of whom were led by outright Hellenists. [Sounds like today’s Republicrats and Demopublicans, doesn’t it? – Eli] Jason's forces won out and Menelaus fled to Antioch . There Antiochus became infuriated to learn that many of the Jews [sic] had taken sides against his appointed official or, in effect, against his government itself! At that time Antiochus was planning to conquer Egypt . When that failed, due to the intervention of the Romans, he decided to take
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 9 of 16
28 January 2009
out his anger on the rebellious Jews [sic, Mosaic Judahites] at Jerusalem . He planned not only to subdue the Jews [sic] but to put an end to their religion once and for all.
Antiochus, feigning peace, proceeded to take the city. He polluted the Temple by burning swine's flesh on its altar, and erected a statue of Jupiter Olympus in the Holy Place . This had been prophesied by Daniel (Dan. 11:29-31). He plundered the Temple of all objects of value and then issued a decree forbidding the Jews [sic] to worship God or in any way to exercise their religion. Despite the severity of this decree, there were many Hellenistically inclined Jews [sic] who nonetheless accepted it without protest. Many of these Hellenists were priests and Levites.
On the other hand, for many other Jews [sic], the majority of whom may have been only slightly interested in religion previously, this decree forbidding such basic practices as circumcision and requiring idol worship was simply too much.
The Maccabean Revolt
In the small village of Modi'in, the head of a priestly family, Mattathias, and his five sons, stood up to oppose Antiochus and his decree. "If anyone zealous for the laws of his country and for the worship of God, let him follow me," he proclaimed (Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", Book XII, Chapter VI, Part 2). Thousands flocked to his banner and a full revolt was under way.
Just before his death, Mattathias made his third son, Judah (called Maccabee), general of their army. After a long series of battles with his forces greatly outnumbered, Judah defeated the Syrians and their Samaritan allies. In 165 B.C. he went up to Jerusalem and purified the Temple , restoring the true ritual of God.
Judah was killed in a later battle.
Finally Simon, the last survivor of Mattathias' sons, was able to proclaim an independent nation with himself as High Priest. [The last few paragraphs essentially provide an accurate retelling of the history of those times. Under no circumstances was the entire nation of Judah Hellenized, as the constant rebellions against the Greeks proves. True Judah strove to maintain her identity as Mosaic segregationists. The Hellenizing Judahites were the liberals of the day. – Eli]
The nation was now, at last, free of foreign domination. But the years of religious anarchy and Hellenistic influence had taken their toll. Dr. Lauterbach states: "During the seventy or eighty years of religious anarchy, many new practices had been gradually adopted by the people" (Lauterbach, page 205). The British scholar Travers Herford adds: "In the absence of authoritative guidance, the people had gone their own way; new customs had found a place among old religious usages ... new ideas had been formed under the influence of Hellenism which had permeated the land for more than a century, and there had been no one to point out the danger which thereby threatened the religious life of the people" (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", pp. 64-65). [This is a gross exaggeration. It is part of the Jewish falsification of history that demands this false story of near-universal apostasy. The fact is that the Temple priesthood and the 24 Courses were solidly in Judahite hands, despite the turmoil. These institutions were HEREDITARY in nature, passed on from Judahite father to Judahite son. In this way, Judah maintained their religion and culture in spite of these hardships. It was the High Priesthood and other positions of leadership that were up for grabs. The priests of the Temple duty were always ready to do their jobs, circumstance permitting. The Essenes, a faction of True Judahites, were organized in opposition to these foreign influences. The Essenes were the ones who preserved the holy books of the Israelites, today known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The authors are relying on Jewish sources to misinform them. If they had read Maccabees and Josephus, they could not quote such nonsense without finding counter evidence therein. – Eli]
The Sanhedrin
We are now at the point where the Pharisees first make their appearance in history, some time after the Maccabean wars. But before we note this, we need to examine briefly the rise of the Sanhedrin, the body which they dominated during much of its existence. While some sources would lead us to believe that the Sanhedrin was the direct successor to the Great Assembly, this was not the case. It was not until about 196 B.C. after a hiatus of some eighty years that the Sanhedrin was first established. This is shown by an ancient manuscript found today in a text called "Fragments of a Zadokite Work". This text points to 196 B.C. as the year the Sanhedrin first met. This body is said to consist of "men of understanding from Aaron" (that is, priests), and "from Israel wise teachers" (that is, non-priestly teachers) (Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays", page 203).
This is significant! [Indeed! – Eli] The writer mentions there were both priests and lay teachers in the new Sanhedrin. This was an innovation. Until this time only the priests, with their assistants, the Levites, were
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 10 of 16
28 January 2009
considered to have the authority to teach religion to the people. This would not have been permitted while the Great Assembly, the successor of Ezra, was in authority. This is clearly shown from the writings of Malachi, who was contemporary with Ezra, Nehemiah and the early days of the Great Assembly. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he (the priest) is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. 2:7). The law of Moses, which God had directly commanded him, dearly enjoined that the priests and Levites were to perform the functions of teachers, not just any layman who would presume to do so. (See Deut. 18:1-7, 33:10 and also Ezek. 44:23.)
Lay Teachers Reject Sole Authority of Priests to Teach
Why this radical change? Again we must briefly go back to the period of religious anarchy when the Egyptian Ptolemies ruled Judaea . Both the Ptolemies and the later Seleucid rulers looked upon the High Priest as the head of the Jewish [sic] nation. In turn, it was the High Priest, with his assistants (other priests) who dealt with the Hellenist rulers on behalf of the nation. [Yes, and it was this body of liaison men who were caught in the middle and often changed sides! – Eli] Outstanding among these were Joseph, the son of Tobias, and his son Hyrcanus. In order to be successful diplomats at the Hellenistic court in Alexandria , they felt it necessary to adopt Greek ways. And these they brought back with them to Judaea . Thus, it was the priests, the ones who should have been teaching the people God's Law, who became the chief proponents of Hellenism. [No! Not all of “the priests,” but these particular priests of the newly-formed Sanhedrin. Please do not overgeneralize! – Eli]
From 206 to 196 B.C. a series of battles between the rival Hellenistic kings of Syria and Egypt devastated many parts of Judaea . Some blamed Hellenism for this trouble and began to seek to return to the laws of their fathers. But to whom could they turn?
The priests as a whole had become thoroughly Hellenized. [Again, not true!] In fact, different priests were taking sides in the wars and were even raising up armies to help either the Syrians or the Egyptians. The only ones who had studied God's Word and remained committed to it in any form were a few laymen and some minor priests. These sat in the new Sanhedrin. [It is true that the Levitical priesthood was effectively driven out of existence, but their replacements, most of whom were Judahites, continued to perform the Temple sacrifices according to the ordinances, even during the time of Jesus. The Pharisees had never taken total control of this priesthood, although Herod had given them “authority” to monitor their activities. These priests had not yet adopted the traditions of the Pharisaic rabbis. That was yet to come. – Eli]
What Was God's Way?
Prior to and during the Maccabean revolt, the outwardly Hellenistic priests and their followers supported Antiochus Epiphanes. The lay teachers and the Sanhedrin as a whole supported the Maccabees. [This statement supports my argument and renders theirs contradictory!!! An occupied population may pretend to go along with the occupiers, but most do not! – Eli] Religiously speaking, the major result of the Maccabean victory was the TOTAL DISCREDITING OF HELLENISM in Judaea . The High Priesthood was given to the Hasmonean (Maccabean) family itself, which descended from minor priests. No one was an outright Hellenist any longer. Many were desirous of following God's way. But whatever religious unity there might have been was short-lived.
The question basically was one of determining just what was God's way. There was, of course, the written Bible (the Old Testament). But how were the people to apply its teachings to the various problems and events that arise in daily life? The Jews [sic], remember, had just emerged from a period where the teaching and practice of God's Law had been forbidden. [But it was never totally expunged. The Judahites were always striving to rid themselves of their oppressors. - Eli] And this had been preceded by an era of some eighty years during which Hellenism had made great inroads into the daily lives of the people; and all this while there had been no organized body directing religious life. [They had been driven underground! – Eli]
Hundreds of years before, Ezra and those priests and Levites assisting him had "... read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and (had given) the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh. 8:8.). Through the ages, God's servants have been responsible to show the people (with His guidance) how His Law applied in various situations in their lives. This was never the prerogative of anyone who wanted to choose "the ministry," "the priesthood" or "the rabbinate" for a vocation, but only those whom God specifically chose. And in ancient Israel , under the Old Covenant, God chose the priests, primarily, with the Levites to assist them, for this purpose of teaching. [Let’s be TOTALLY ACCURATE HERE! The Levitical priesthood was HEREDITARY, belonging exclusively to the Levites and their sons!!! DUH!! Yes, Yahweh did choose them; and He also made their priesthood exclusively Israelite and hereditary! - Eli]
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 11 of 16
28 January 2009
The Pharisees Come on the Scene
Following the Maccabean victory there were many priests who were ready and willing to resume their ancient, God-given role as teachers and expounders of the Law. But there were also the lay teachers who had come to sit in the Sanhedrin and had made a notable contribution to the Maccabean cause at a time when many priests were outright Hellenists and supporters of Antiochus Epiphanes. Lauterbach says that the lay teachers "refused to recognize the authority of the priests as a class, and, inasmuch as many of the priests had proven unfaithful guardians of the Law, they would not entrust to them the regulation of the religious life of the people" (Lauterbach, page 209). It was these lay teachers who organized themselves into the party of the Pharisees. [Again, this is an oversimplification. It was the new Sanhedrin that had assumed power during these times; and they began appointing their own people into the positions that were available, just as the Jews today, in America, appoint their own people into positions, which were formerly held exclusively by REAL AMERICANS, not Jews! Note that there is absolutely NO MENTION OF HOW THE EDOMITES OF IDUMEA WERE INVITED IN BY HEROD. The authors are still trying to convey the false notion that this was an INTERNAL AFFAIR –among Judahites – making no mention of the Idumean usurpers who were busy subverting True Judah . It was among this new Sanhedrin that the Pharisees had the greatest influence. – Eli] Although many of the priests had indeed become Hellenized, this did not necessarily give the lay teachers the right to usurp some of the priests' God-given authority. But, sadly they insisted on following the way that seemed right to them (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). However, two wrongs did not make a right in that day any more than they do today. What these two wrongs did result in will be shown in the next installment. Watch for it in an upcoming issue of TOMORROW'S WORLD.
[If nothing else, Part I proves that the transition from the Levitical priesthood to the Pharisaic priesthood was ANTI-MOSAIC! No matter how you try to explain away Judaism’s origins, this fact is irrefutable!!! Do you understand the significance of such an admission? This proves that Judaism and its practitioners have no Mosaic authority! – Eli]
Part II
PHOTO CAPTION: Top: Floor of ancient synagogue uncovered at Beth-Alpha , Israel . Mosaic shows the 12 signs of the zodiac of pagan astrology. It is illustrative of the influence of Greek culture in Israel of the intertestamental period. Above: Graeco-Roman amphitheater was located in the shadows of the Temple Mount . Hellenism influence cultural and religious life of many in Judaea .
IN THE LAST INSTALLMENT we saw how a majority [No! – Eli] of people were weaned away from their observance of God's laws by the pressures of the Hellenistic culture. Under the rule of the Egyptian Ptolemies, they became interested in the education and culture of the surrounding nations. [This is exactly how America has become INTERNATIONALIZED and Judaized! Remember how our Founding Fathers warned us to stay out of the affairs of other nations? Our once Christian nation has turned into a nation of Jewish debauchery. – Eli]
Later, under the domination of a cruel Seleucid Syrian king, the Jews [sic] revolted against Syria . The revolt was successful, and Hellenism, as a culture of which the Syrians were great exponents, was now discredited. [Good!] The priests (those descended from Aaron), many of whom had been leading Hellenists, were looked upon with distrust by many. Now laymen were beginning to make their voices heard in religious disputes. This was the rise of the Pharisees. It was a layman's party, though some priests also belonged to it. [I totally disagree with this. There were certainly laymen who had ambition to become priests, but the reality is that the New Sanhedrin and the Pharisaic priesthood had become another party of foreign influence: Idumean influence. I’m beginning to suspect that this whole piece is designed to deliberately ignore the Idumean question!!! - Eli]
The Sadducees
No one questioned the right of the priests to officiate in the Temple . But the priests pointed to Deuteronomy 17:8-13 as giving them, and not the lay teachers, the authority to teach and to decide questions pertaining to religion. They and their supporters organized themselves into the party of the Sadducees (name taken from Zadok, the High Priest in Solomon's day). [And even this was phony, as the Sadducees were Hellenizers! The Pharisees were Edomizers! Nothing about the Essenes, either! The Essenes were the True Judahites! – Eli] The priests as a whole were wealthy. This and their previous support of Hellenism caused the people to mistrust them by and large. Josephus tells us, "The Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side" ("Antiquities of the Jews", XIII, x, 6).
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 12 of 16
28 January 2009
Lay Teachers Justify the People's Errors
And yet the main reason for the popularity of the Pharisees and the rejection of the Sadducees was neither the tainted past nor the wealth of the priests. It was in the teachings of the Pharisees themselves. During the period of religious anarchy under Hellenistic rule, the continuity of official teachers of the law had been broken. Hellenism had made its inroads. Consequently, when the Maccabean War came to an end, and some teachers did think of returning to God's Law, it was found that "many new customs and practices for which there were no precedents in the traditions of the fathers, and not the slightest indication in the Book of the Law, were observed by the people and considered by them as a part of their religious laws and practices" (Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays", Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, p. 195). [What more proof do you need that the Pharisees were distorters of the Mosaic Law? – Eli]
In short, the people [No! The Pharisees were the ones who adopted non-Mosaic teachings. If the people adopted new traditions, it was because of ignorance, not deliberate choice. This is exactly how Judeo-Christianity has replaced TRUE CHRISTIANITY TODAY! Look at all of the false doctrines that have come in the name of Judeo-Christianity! - Eli] had adopted many customs and ideas which were in truth clearly pagan. The best example of these is the belief in the immortality of the soul already mentioned.
"The difficulty was to find a sanction in the Torah (the Law) for the new customs and practices which had established themselves in the community ..." (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", Soncino Press, London, 1933, p. 66). The teachers should have shown the people they were sinning (Isa. 58:1). Instead they chose to justify them. This should not seem strange. It was done in Jeremiah's day (Jer. 23:21-22) and in Isaiah's (Isa. 30:10). [But Jeremiah and all of the Hebrew prophets rebuked the Israelites for such heresy. Today, modernist heresies are trumpeted from the pulpits!! – Eli]
Pagan Customs Called Jewish!
And yet the Scripture plainly states: "Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jer. 10:2). Consequently, the teachers taught that the new customs the people had adopted were not really pagan -- they were actually Jewish! [Yes, Jewish, not Judahite!!!! Hehe! - Eli]
They reasoned this: "It is hardly possible that foreign customs and non-Jewish [sic!] laws should have met with such universal acceptance. The total absence of objection on the part of the people to such customs vouched for their Jewish origin, in the opinion of the teachers" (Lauterbach, p. 211). [Of course, Lauterbach teaches that the Old Testament is “Jewish.” This is ridiculous. It is the distortions of the Old Testament that are Jewish. Eli] These teachers told the people that it simply was not possible for them, being Jews [sic], to have inherited any heathen custom or practice. [Just as modern Judeo-Christians falsely believe that their Apostasy is “Christian.” As the Judahites of that time were deceived by the Pharisees, modern Christians have been deceived by the Judeo-Christian pulpitmasters. I can assure that none of these Judaizers know anything about history. – Eli]
They furthermore taught that since the customs were "Jewish," then they must have been taught by Moses himself. [I’m sure you get the point! – Eli] (This is no different from today, when churchgoers by the millions assume that the original apostles observed Sunday, Easter, Christmas and the like.) [Just the tip of the iceberg!!!! – Eli]
"Accordingly, the teachers themselves came to believe that such generally recognized laws and practices must have been old traditional laws and practices adopted by the fathers and transmitted to the following generations in addition to the Written Law. Such a belief would naturally free the teachers from the necessity of finding scriptural proof for all the new practices" (ibid.). [Boy, is history repeating itself, or what? – Eli] In other words they claimed that these customs, since they were not WRITTEN in the Old Testament, must have been handed down ORALLY from Moses -- by word of mouth. Actually, these traditional laws -- these oral laws -- were not from Moses nor any of the prophets. There is not a single reference in the Scripture that Moses gave the Israelites any oral or traditional laws that were to be transmitted to posterity along with the written Word. The Bible states just the opposite. It plainly says that Moses wrote the whole Law in a book. Notice. [Now, here, the authors have stated a most important truth. Since modern Judaism is based upon the so-called “oral tradition,” it is patently obvious that Judaism (the religion of the Pharisees) is a fraudulent religion! It’s about time that someone outside of Identity admitted this!!! – Eli] "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were FINISHED ..." (Deut. 31:24).
There is no such thing as an "oral law of Moses." [Praise Yahweh for ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! – Eli]
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 13 of 16
28 January 2009
Oral Law Gains Acceptance
The theory of the "oral law" was accepted only gradually -- a matter of a few years, rather than months. [I would say, rather, decades. - Eli] "The theory of an authoritative traditional law (which might be taught independently of the Scriptures) was altogether too new to be unhesitatingly accepted ... the theory was too startling and novel to be unconditionally accepted" (Lauterbach, p. 211 ). The greater opposition to the so-called "oral law" came from the priests who, as a whole, declared that the Scripture was the only necessary code of laws to obey. [And these were the Essenes, of whom John the Baptist was a member! – Eli] "This apparently simple solution offered by the priestly group in the Sanhedrin did not find favor with the lay members of that body" (ibid., p. 209). And, with the passage of time, the lay teachers ultimately came to constitute the majority of representatives in the Sanhedrin. These Pharisaic lay teachers succeeded in convincing the people that they were right and that the priests were wrong.
Some of the people's fears concerning the priestly Sadducees were apparently valid, however. Many of the priests did become worldly minded and they found worldly politics far more interesting than religion. The Sadducees eventually adopted the belief that there was no resurrection and that angels did not exist (Act 23:8). [It appears as though we have Sadducees today as well! – Eli] This was probably a result of the influence of the Greek Epicurean philosophy. It taught that there was no future life of any kind and that man should therefore seek as many physical pleasures in this life as possible, since that was all there was. [Didn’t I tell you that the Sadducees were Hellenizers? – Eli]
New Laws of the Pharisees
Many of the Pharisees came to believe what they were doing was God's will. [We can talk ourselves into being “righteous,” when, in fact, we are only being self-righteous! Not so? – Eli] "It is certain that they (the Pharisees) regarded themselves as the successors of the prophets, and not merely in fact but by right" (Herford, p. 71). [I disagree with this. It is apparent to me that the Pharisees knew they were phonies all along. The trick was to convince the Judahites of their legitimacy. They never convinced Jesus Christ of their legitimacy! - Eli] Based on this claimed authority, they adopted a method of teaching what they believed to be laws of God, without any initial reference to Scripture for authority. [This statement is astoundingly accurate! - Eli] "Finding no convincing proof for such laws in the Bible, they taught them independently of scriptural proof, i.e., in the MISHNAH-form" (Lauterbach, p. 229). [A very candid admission! – Eli]
MISHNAH-form was the name given for laying down laws to be observed, apart from Scripture. This is not to say MISHNAH-form avoided Scripture altogether. But it was only AFTER a law had already been accepted that the Scriptures might be checked for corroboration. [The rascals!!] Sometimes "affirmation" of a new law was forced from Scriptures totally unrelated to the particular subject. [Tell me about it!!! Hehe! – Eli]
The word MISHNAH is related to the Hebrew root meaning "second" and "study." MISHNAH-form was the SECOND form that the Pharisees adopted for "STUDY" as opposed to the original form of properly expounding the Scriptures, which was called MIDRASH-form. This older, original form was known as "teaching after the manner of Moses" ("Talmud", Temurah 156, "Yebamoth" 72b). [Now, tell me AGAIN they didn’t know they were deceivers!!! If they knew the difference between Midrash and Mishnah, THEY CERTAINLY KNEW WHEN THEY WERE INVENTING DOCTRINE!!!! Are you smelling the dirty rat that I’m smelling? – Eli]
MIDRASH-form is based on deducing laws, teachings, legends, etc., from the Scripture. As time went on it too became perverted. "Whenever there was the remotest possibility of doing so, they would seek by means of new hermeneutical rules (rules pertaining to Biblical interpretation) to find in the words of the Torah support for these traditional laws" (Lauterbach, p. 212).
Thus the Pharisees were able to "find" the traditions they were now approving of by twisted interpretations of Scripture. In doing this they still claimed to be using the MIDRASH-form. Ezra is said to have taught in MIDRASH-form when he, and his helpers "read in the book in the law of God distinctly and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh. 8:8).
There was, however, one major point which Ezra was aware of, but which the Pharisees missed. It is this: God, in the Bible, never contradicts Himself. [Oh, man! This is where the rubber meets the road!! – Eli] Malachi, a contemporary of Ezra was inspired to write: "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal. 3: 6). But many of the traditional laws the Pharisees approved of did contradict Scripture. What's more, many of them even contradicted one another. [If you haven’t figured it out yet, now you know what Judaism really is. “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, WHICH IS HYPOCRISY.” (Luke 12:1) – Eli] With the introduction of the new MISHNAH-form, Scripture came to be less relied on than before. New laws, which were not even necessarily traditional, could be enacted. The Pharisees found the
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 14 of 16
28 January 2009
MISHNAH-form to be an important weapon in their conflict with the Sadducees. Laws that were accepted after being handed down in the MISHNAH-form tended to enhance the authority of the Pharisees, since it was SOLELY on their authority that the law was accepted. The very first individual of whom we have any record who began to teach new commandments in the MISHNAH-form, apart from the scriptural basis, was Jose ben Joezer of Zareda. [He was the first one who ADMITTED IT! – Eli]
Jose laid down three new commandments. The first concerned the eating of a certain locust; the second, the blood of slaughtered animals; and the third, the touching of a dead body. In doing this he became known as "Jose the Permitter" ("Talmud", Abodah Zarah 37b). [Those of you who have followed my writings know that I have stated, “Whatever Moses forbids, the Talmud permits.” Yet, not a word about the Talmud from any of these authors! – Eli]
"Furthermore, Jose is called 'the Permitter,' evidently because in all three decisions he permits things that were formerly considered forbidden" (Lauterbach, p. 219). [Yes, indeed!] These new laws of Jose were not customs the people had inherited from Hellenism. "It is therefore evident that these Halakot (rules) ... were not older traditional laws transmitted by Jose as a mere witness, but Jose's own teachings. He was the one who 'permitted' and he deserved the name (the Permitter)" (ibid., p. 218). These commandments of themselves were not earth-shaking violations, but they did set a precedent! Eventually others began to set down all sorts of new laws. These are what Jesus called "the commandments of men" (Mark 77). [Praise Yahweh for a candid admission of Scriptural Truth! – Eli]
The Prosbul of Hillel
Many others ultimately followed in the steps of Jose. If the majority of Pharisees agreed on a new decision, it was accepted as the Word of God -- even if Scripture taught just the opposite.
Of the myriad of new laws laid down, perhaps the best example and the best known is the Prosbul of Hillel. Hillel the Old headed a Pharisaic school in the days of Herod. [Finally! Herod is mentioned, but I’ll bet they won’t tell you that Herod was an Edomite!!!! – Eli] He was noted for his gentleness and was greatly beloved among the people, but his decisions, nonetheless, were not always in keeping with the Word of God. [YEAH, RIGHT! Don’t make me laugh! – Eli]
For example, "All private loans are automatically remitted at the end of the Sabbatical Year (Deut. 15:2) and hence it became difficult to obtain loans immediately before the onset of that year. In order to avoid hardship and encourage lending, Hillel instituted the "Prosbul" (Greek: "for the court"), which is a declaration made before a court of law by the creditor, and signed by witnesses, stating that all debts due him are given over to the court for collection. Since the remission of loans during the seventh year applies only to individuals but not to public loans, the effect of the Prosbul is to render the individual's loan public, and it is therefore not remitted" (Werblowsky and Wigoder, "The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion", art. "Prosbul," p. 312).
Hillel's motive was apparently quite practical. And yet the Bible clearly states: "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD (Eternal) against thee, and it be sin unto thee" (Deut. 15:9). Rather, God says: "Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when you givest unto him: because that for this thing the Eternal thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto" (verse 10).
It was because of rules like the Prosbul that Christ told the Pharisees, "Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (Matt. 15:6). Hillel saw that the poor were unable to obtain needed loans and was trying to remedy the situation, but he was not doing it God's way! God says: "Trust in the Eternal with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" (Prov. 3:5).
There were many such instances where the Pharisees enacted many new laws, based solely on their own human reasoning in an attempt to make what they thought would be a better way of life. Yet God tells us: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 14:12; 16:25).
Cause and Effect
The Pharisees' error was a classic one. Seeing wrong situations, but relying solely on themselves, they attempted to treat the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE. Notice the case of Hillel's Prosbul. God plainly tells us that the CAUSE of the problem was in the HEARTS of the people (Deut. 15:9). Today too many see the problems besetting mankind. Governments have their solutions and the revolutionary activists have theirs. But all attempt to treat ONLY THE EFFECTS of the problems. None gets at THE REAL CAUSE -- which is to
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 15 of 16
28 January 2009
be found for the most part in carnal human nature with its greed and pride. [The REAL CAUSE of the world’s problems is Talmudic Judaism. If you have not yet figured this out, you are either brain dead or stupid. – Eli]
Today, God is treating the cause of man's ills in some individuals. He is presently changing the hearts of a few. "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them an heart of flesh" (Ezek. 11.19).
God's Law as revealed throughout all of Scripture is indicative of God's CHARACTER. It is a giving, serving, sharing, concern for the other person as well as the self, and can be summed up by the word LOVE -- love first of all toward God and then towards fellowman. God's Law shows us exactly how He would live if He were a human being. And this is precisely what Jesus did when He emptied Himself of His divinity and took on human flesh -- He never once broke a single law of God. The rise of Pharisaism in the period between the Testaments represented an attempt on the part of these people to keep the Law. [No! This is making excuses for the Pharisees.
The Pharisees KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING! Jesus Christ tells us this explicitly!! (Matt. 23; John 8:39-44; John 10) – Eli] But they lacked a clear understanding of their own human nature as revealed in the Scriptures. [This is a nauseating example of pretending that the rabbis are well-intentioned! Even so, we all know what the road to hell is paved with! – Eli] Notice God's deeply felt near-lament in Deuteronomy 5:29: "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever"!
But "such an heart" was not in them at that time. They had only the human nature that we all naturally possess -- the heart that is "... deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9.) Joshua told his generation, "... Ye cannot serve the Lord nor is it in ours.
But man was not left without hope. There was a promise of better things to come. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live" (Deut. 30:6).
The Pharisees as well as the other sects of the period wanted to serve God and keep His commandments. [Rubbish!] They had, as the Apostle Paul (who well knew) put it, "... a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). [Paul was NOT speaking of the Pharisees in this passage. He was speaking TO his brethren, the Israelites! Read it for yourself! - Eli] Not aware of the necessity for a change in their own human nature, they found it necessary to change God's Law. Not that this was done outwardly, but rather by forced interpretations, rationalizations, attempted codifications of laws that are all-encompassing, and new laws that were not admitted always to be new. By changing the Law, they made it of "none effect." That is, it did not have the effect that God's laws should have on those who keep them. Inasmuch as the Pharisees did keep SOME of the laws correctly SOME of the time, it did have SOME good effects. But the overall results that come by living in total harmony with the laws the Creator set in motion simply were lacking. Pharisaic society did not abound with the love of God. You could never convince the Sadducees (with whom they often disputed) that it was otherwise. Nor could you convince the Romans. Nor could you convince the unlearned Jews [sic] of that day, whom many of the Pharisees thumbed their noses at with the epithet "am-ha-aretz" ("people of the land" -- the term is used in a derogatory sense throughout the Pharisaic writings). Pharisaic society was filled with strife. When Alexander Jannaeus, one of the Maccabean kings, ruled, the Pharisees were virtually at WAR with him and there was much bloodshed.
The Talmud [Well! They finally mentioned the Talmud! How about that? Can we have some examples of Pharisaic teaching, so we can know just how evil it is? – Eli] itself is a record of the Pharisees striving among themselves, one with another in religious DEBATES, each one trying to convince the others of the correctness of HIS particular idea, rather than all working harmoniously to seek GOD'S will. [The Talmud is also a record of rabbinical DEFIANCE OF GOD’S LAW! - Eli] Today, professing Christianity is treading down the same well-worn path the Pharisees mistakingly took. Where is the sect that has not attempted to read its own ideas into the Bible which it professes to obey? And where is the denomination that is truly bearing the fruits of God's Spirit -- love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance? Indeed which one even knows what true love is? [It is quite certain that neither the Jews nor the Judeo-Christians have any idea what love is, for, in order to be loving, you have to be willing to tell the TRUTH! – Eli]
Don't YOU follow the crowd. DON'T be led down the garden path into religious deception by any who would warp, distort and twist the scripture to their own destruction. As you peruse the pages of your TOMORROW'S WORLD magazine, we encourage you to search the scriptures daily WHETHER THESE THINGS BE SO (Acts 17:11). But by the same token we also ask that you apply the same criterion to all who claim to represent God! Remember, "... if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them"
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 16 of 16
28 January 2009
(Isa. 8:20). As you continue to prayerfully study your Bible and this magazine of Biblical understanding, you will find new vistas of truth continually opening before your very eyes!
[Final comments: It is evident that these two authors have written this article in order to demonstrate that there is a woeful lack of knowledge about the Intertestamental Period. That their own knowledge of this period is woefully lacking is also evident. Although having demonstrated a willingness to broach the subject, they fall into apologetics about Judaism. Essentially, their analysis is that the Pharisees were well-intentioned stumblebums, the theological equivalent of the Keystone Cops. GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK!! - Pastor Eli James]
Also here without Pastor’s comments: http://www.soyawannamove.com/rcg/fundamentals/betweentestaments.htm
By Ernest Martin and Harry Eisenberg
The Good News of Tomorrow's World September, 1971
Introduction by Pastor Eli James
Children of Israel , one of the most important revelations of my ministry has been the documentation of the fact that the Jewish people are totally UNRELATED to the Judahites of the Old Testament. At the same time, I have also documented the fact that JUDAISM IS NOT THE RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Both of these facts are irrefutable, despite prevailing beliefs to the contrary.
The whole world has been deceived by this dual set of lies, both of which come from the Synagogue of Satan, Judaism. Under no circumstances can Judaism be considered to be either identical to the teachings of Moses, nor can Judaism be considered to be based on the teachings of Moses. Since Judaism is based on the TALMUD, Judaism is, in fact, TOTAL HERESY AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES.
In far more instances than not, the Talmud CONTRADICTS THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES, thereby violating Deut. 4:2, in which Moses himself condemns any attempt to change the WRITTEN DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY BIBLE. Hence, the supposed “oral law,” by which the rabbis of Judaism claim authority over the Old Testament is nothing but a Satanic device to fool Christians into believing that they have some sort of “hidden wisdom” that we should accept as authentic. Nothing could be further from the truth; and the authors, one a Christian and the other apparently a Jew, of the following article agree with me.
Jesus Christ, Himself, confirms the fallaciousness of Judaism, when He accuses the Pharisees with this charge: “You have made the Law OF NONE EFFECT BY YOUR TRADITIONS.” (Matt. 15:5.) In Matt., Chapter 23 and in numerous other places, the Messiah condemns the Jews and their religion. The entire Gospel of John is one long excoriation of the Jews and their religion.
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms that Judaism is based on the teachings of the Pharisees and not upon the Law of Moses:
“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature.” - Vol. VIII, p. 474 (1942).
The Origins of the Great Deception
So, how is it possible that the Jews have been able to deceive the world with their fables? Two elements: Jewish deception and popular ignorance.
As I was in the process of writing my book, The Great Impersonation: How the Anti-Christ Has Deceived the Whole World, a careful, historical reading of the Holy Scriptures revealed to me that the Jews are not the Judahites of Scripture. Nor are the Jews derived from any of the other 11 tribes. Nor was Jesus a Jew. He was a Judahite of the House of Judah, which is categorically the OPPOSITE of a Jew. The rabbinate has capitalized on the similarity between the words ‘Jew’ and ‘ Judah ,’ falsely claiming that, therefore, the Jewish people are descended from True Judah. But this is not the case.
I have written extensively on the Edomite origin of the Sephardic Jews, who were the only Jews in existence at the time of Christ. Under King Herod, an Edomite who had usurped the throne of Judah, the Pharisaic priesthood had become a haven for Herod’s Edomite friends. These Pharisees perverted the Law of Moses while claiming to preserve it in their tradition. This is the origin of the Sephardic Jews. Later on in history, the Japhetic/Mongoloid/Hittite nation of the Khazars CONVERTED to this sham religion; and these non-Shemitic Jews make up at least 90% of the Jewish people today. The Khazars are also referred to as the Ashkenazi.
Thus, 90% of modern Jews have zero Shemitic blood in them. The other 10%, the Sephardic Jews, are, since the days of Esau (the race-traitor brother of Jacob/Israel), Edomites with very little Israelite blood in them either. This genetic situation makes the charge of “anti-Semitism” against the Jews’ enemies a sham as well. Since the Jews are not Shemites, but Edomites and Khazars, one who opposes Edomites and Khazars cannot be a accused of “anti-Semitism.” This is just a clever part of the Jewish charade. It must be understood that, therefore, the Jews have been staging a religious and cultural impersonation for the last two
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 2 of 16
28 January 2009
thousand years. The rabbis are fully aware of this charade; and their priesthood is devoted, 100% of the time, to making sure that the religious world remains befuddled by their deceptions. This is what all Jewish rabbinical students learn how to do in their Yeshivas.
This spiritual and cultural cancer has sunk its roots deeply within Christendom and Western civilization. This religious, spiritual and moral cancer is not easily cured.
The Historical Truth
There were two kinds of Judeans in the days of John Hyrcanus and Herod: the original, native Judahites and the recently naturalized Idumeans, who were allowed to become citizens of Judea via a treaty signed by King John Hyrcanus with the nation of Idumea. I can assure you that this treaty did not make these Idumeans into Judahites. But this is precisely what the rabbis do not want you to know. They want you to believe that Judaism somehow emerged out of changes in the doctrine of True Judah. This is nonsense. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, the Minor Prophets, the Apocrypha (especially I and II Maccabees) and Josephus, all describe how True Judah fought with all their might to remain a racially and religiously exclusive nation. They fought wars to maintain their Identity. Now, we are supposed to believe, according to Jewish perversion of history, that these same Judahites simply gave it all up and changed from a segregationist culture into an integrationist culture? Without resistance? I don’t think so!!! The fact is that the Talmudic changes in doctrine arose with the Pharisees, a mixed-race priesthood who were empowered by Herod, the Idumean usurper, who murdered John Hyrcanus, True Judahite, and took his place.
These Idumean Edomites, having taken over the throne of Judah , began the process of dismantling the Judahite power structure, by replacing pure-bred Judahites with race-mixed Edomites. These facts are contained in the historical works of Josephus, who was NOT A JEW. He was a Judahite, as his own writings attest. If you pay close attention to what Josephus wrote, you will discover that he makes a clear distinction between the Judahite people of Judea and the Edomites of Idumea. Whenever someone cites “Josephus, the JEWISH HISTORIAN,” rest assured that this slogan was invented to cement into your mind the false idea that Josephus was a Jew rather than a Judahite. There is a big difference. Every time an author references Josephus, he or she never fails to add the words “the Jewish historian” to the name of Josephus. This is nothing but indoctrination by repetition - repetition of a preposterous lie!!!! Therefore, the works of Josephus should be entitled Antiquities of Judah and Wars of Judah . The Jewish charade as Israel and Judah requires that historical documents be retitled and renamed so that the impersonation can go on undetected and unquestioned.
(If you are paying attention to current history, you will notice that the Jews have been doing exactly the same thing to America, having infiltrated our government with their Zionist agents, beginning in the days of Woodrow Wilson and even more so in the days of Federal Dictator Rosenfeldt, who was nothing but a Zionist puppet during the entirety of his career as a pro-communist, pro-Zionist dismantler of the United States Constitution. During the ought years (’01 - ’09) of our new millennium, the Neo-Kahns (the Neo-Conservatives, the phony “Republicans” who came out of Leo Strauss’s communist school of tactical deception at the University of Chicago), the Jewish takeover of our government has been completed, just as the Herodians displaced the Judahites. It was these Neo-Kahns (internationalist Jews of the New World Order) who elected George Bush, staged 9/11 and used it as an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, thus exploiting the American military, causing our people to lose life and limb to make the world safe for Jewry.)
Even Jewish scholars admit that Herod was an Idumean. Yet, this fact is glossed over, minimized, ignored, buried, hidden and otherwise pigeonholed, so that you, Dear Christian, will not be able to understand that what REALLY HAPPENED in those days was a PUTSCH, a COUP, an OVERTHROW of Judah by the Edomites of Idumea, just as America has been overthrown by the International Jew in modern times.
I have documented these historical deceptions in several works. These can be found online. Here is a list of the studies that can be found on my website, www.anglo-saxonisreal.com :
The Parasite’s Dilemma:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2004_11_02.php
The Origin of Talmudism:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2005_09_01.php
“Tell Me Please, British-Israel Identity Foundation Truths”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2005_09_01.php
“An Informed Consensus: An Essay on the Proper Use of the Word, ‘Jew’”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2006_9_17.php
“Webster and the Term, ‘Jew’”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2006_10_13.php
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 3 of 16
28 January 2009
“Misconceptions About Josephus, the Judean”:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2007_1_22.php
95 Theses Against the Anti-Christ (my free ebook, which explains how Judaism violates every law of Moses)
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/95-theses.php
Arsenal of Words (another fee ebook, documenting how the Talmudic rabbis have invented false definitions of words in order to deceive the masses):
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2007_12_16.php
(Arsenal of Words contains much information on the rabbinical technique of INTERPOLATION, which is the technique of redefining words to suit their deceptive purposes, so this is MUST READING for anyone who wishes to understand how the Talmudic rabbis have butchered the Holy Scriptures.)
For a quick summary of the works of Josephus, please see An Informed Consensus Revisited:
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2008_9_25.php .
I have also documented the whole story of the separate histories, religions and cultures of the Israelites versus the Jews, from Genesis 3:15 to the present, in my book, The Great Impersonation: How the Anti-Christ Has Deceived the Whole World. This book is available by mail for $37. A $37 check to ANP POB 411373 Chicago IL 60641 will secure a copy of this book. In The Great Impersonation, I exhaustively document the Idumean usurpation of the throne of Judah and Jesus Christ’s thorough denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, the founders of the Jewish religion.
From all of these writings, I think I can fairly claim to be the world’s reigning expert on the so-called “Intertestamental Period,” which is the historical period that is, in fact, well covered by both the Apocrypha and the works of Josephus. You will note that there exists, in both the secular academic world and the Judeo-Christian theological world, a stark paucity of written materials about this historical period. There is a good reason for this. The rabbis of Judaism do not want you to know about Judaism’s illegitimate origins; and the Judeo-Christian ministry does not dare to challenge rabbinical authority and claims to the “right” to interpret the Law of Moses or the historicity of Jewish claims. The chosen of Satan do not wish to be contradicted. Their empire of deceit may come crashing down!
As a servant of Yahshua Messiah and my people, Anglo-Saxon Israel, I am most happy to throw a monkey wrench into the mechanism of their grand design. For me, there is no greater joy in life than the pleasure I experience in exposing hypocrisy – especially rabbinical hypocrisy - wherever it may lie. When I hear Lucifer cackling, I dare him to lie some more. The liar always gets caught in his lies; and the rabbinate will not be an exception much longer.
As long as the true facts of this historical period remain unknown, the Jews can perpetuate their IMPERSONATION OF TRUE ISRAEL. I have dedicated my life to EXPOSING THIS HISTORICAL LIE. And I need your help in disseminating this information, so that Christians everywhere will become aware of the true nature of Judaism and its phony claims to origination in the Old Testament, with either Moses or with the prophets or with the Judahites of the Temple.
All of these notions are pure fabrication by the synagogue of Satan, and I will not rest until everyone on this planet is aware of these deceptions. Jesus Himself prophesied that all such deceptions will one day be revealed (Matt. 10:26, Luke 12:2), and this is the revelation. Praise Yahweh!
How Did the Jews Claim the Name of Israel and Judah ?
The word ‘Jew’ derives from the New Testament word, ‘Judean,’ which does NOT have the same meaning as the word ‘Judahite.’ A Judahite is a direct descendant of the Tribe of Judah, which tribe practiced a racially segregated religion and culture. Yahshua’s genealogy is given in Matthew, Chapter 1 and Luke, Chapter 3, thus proving that He is a genealogical descendant of David. In contrast, a Judean is merely a resident of the country called Judea . Since the City of Jerusalem was an international metropolis throughout most of its history, many non-Judahites resided there; and any resident was called a “Judean.” But only native-born Judahites could refer to themselves as “ Judah .”
It is patently obvious, therefore, that the racially exclusive Judahites cannot be equated with any of the racially mongrelized Judeans. Mongrelization is strictly forbidden by Deut. 23:2 and many other verses. Jesus Christ Himself confirms His own racial exclusivity in numerous passages of the New Testament, especially at Matt. 15:24, where He tells the woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but unto the lost [Greek appolumi, meaning “exiled”]sheep of the House of Israel .” He goes on to tell this Canaanite woman that His Gospel is intended exclusively for the Children of the Covenant and not for any other people: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” At Matt. 10:5-6, where Yahshua states the Apostolic Commission, He tells the
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 4 of 16
28 January 2009
Apostles: “Go not into the way of the nations, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, BUT GO RATHER TO THE EXILED SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”
Luke 1:68 confirms the fact that Jesus came to redeem His People, Israel . Since no other people had been party to the Covenant of the Law of Moses, no other people had fallen from grace by disobeying the Law. Note this language closely: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel : for He hath visited and redeemed His People.” The Bible does not say, “all people.” It says “ Israel .” The Bible is very clear in stating, hundreds of times, that ONLY ISRAEL CAN BE GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE.”
Jesus clearly distinguishes between His Israelite Kinsmen and the Jews, for He always condemns the Jewish Pharisees for their hypocrisy. “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Luke 12:1) At John 7:1, we are told that,“Jesus would not walk in Jewry, BECAUSE THE JEWS SOUGHT TO KILL HIM.” Knowing the difference between the Judean impostors (the Jews) and His Judean kinsmen (the Judahites) clears up the apparent discrepancy in the language of the Gospels, concerning the word ‘Jew.’ Many Bible scholars have been mystified by this duality of “good Jews” and “evil Jews” in the Bible.
Because they do not understand that the Jews are impostors impersonating True Israel, they assume that the “evil Jews” in Scripture were rebellious Judahites, who turned against Christ, thus becoming “evil Jews.” Yes, there were such Judahites. But there is far more to this story. The fact is that the rejection, railroad trial and crucifixion of Jesus was led by the Pharisees, who were the Edomite agents, the preferred priesthood of the Edomite coup against Judah, by a bunch of Satanic conspirators, led by Herod and his father, Antipater. Without knowing the history of the various conflicts between these two peoples, the Israelites versus the Edomite Jews, Bible commentators have simply assumed that the “evil Jews” were Judahites gone bad. On the contrary, the “evil Jews” were, first and foremost, the Sephardic Edomites of Idumea.
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits that today’s Jews have Edomite blood in them. “Edomis in Jewry.” How did this Edomite blood get into Jewry? Of all Bible scholars, only Pastor Eli James has revealed the precise, significant history behind this fact.
The Jewish Impersonation of Judah and Israel is based on their false claims regarding their origins in Judah . The reality is that the Jewish people originated in Idumea, as the racial descendants of the Edomites and Canaanites of old Canaanland, which HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE RANKEST ENEMIES OF TRUE ISRAEL. The master strategy of Talmudic Judaism has been to deceive the world by impersonating Israel and Judah
Unfortunately, after the Davidic throne was permanently established, the Israelites of the House of Judah had been in the habit of hiring Edomite scribes to help out in their recordkeeping procedures. Even King David did this. Since these Edomite scribes were intimately aware of the true racial differences between themselves and the Judahites, they developed the idea of impersonating Judah . (Ezek. 36:5.) But it was impossible to implement this idea as long as the Judahites prevented the Edomites access to the Holy Temple and the priesthood. Only True Israelites were allowed into the Temple or allowed to be priests. Non-Israelites were never allowed to become priests and, with regard to the Temple , they were never permitted to get any closer than the outer court. This is documented, historical fact.
In his Antiquities of the Judahites, Josephus records (Book 14, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3) the day that Herod’s Edomite kinsmen were finally allowed into the Temple : "And now Herod having overcome his enemies, his care was to govern those FOREIGNERS WHO HAD BEEN HIS ASSISTANTS, FOR THE CROWD OF STRANGERS RUSHED TO SEE THE TEMPLE , AND THE SACRED THINGS IN THE TEMPLE …" These "foreigners," being Herod’s assistants and ambitious priests from Idumea, were to become the new government and priesthood of Judea . These Idumeans had for many centuries wanted to enter the Holy of Holies, which had always been forbidden to them because they were not Israelites. Thus, under Herod, the Pharisaic priesthood, comprised mainly of his Idumean friends, became the official priesthood of Judea . Secular history, numerous Biblical passages and numerous Apocryphal passages confirm the fact that the Judahites of Judea strove, with all of their might, to preserve their racial integrity and exclusive religion. In my various essays on this subject, I have dissected the false claims of the Jews. I have proven, without any shadow of a doubt, that Judaism’s claim to a Biblical origin is history’s greatest deception. I have also proven, without any shadow of a doubt, that the Jewish people, contrary to the racially exclusive Judahites of Judea, are descended from the mongrelized people then known as Canaanites and Edomites and are today known, simply, as Jews.
Since the Talmudic rabbis are in the business of falsifying history and falsifying Scripture, their claims must be scrutinized. But no one in either academia or in Judeo-Christian theology has ever had the notion – let alone the courage – to question Jewish assertions regarding the origins of their religion and people. All of their claims to Israelite, Hebrew, Shemitic or Israelite heritage are demonstrably false.
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 5 of 16
28 January 2009
Anyone who does not understand what I am saying must reflect upon these two questions: 1.) If the Jewish people are Israel, at what point did Yahweh permit His Chosen People, Israel, to allow non-Israelites into His congregation? The whole of Scripture, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, confirms the exclusivity, separateness, and racial segregation of True Israel. This is another taboo subject for modern scholarship. All sorts of false doctrines have been promoted by the un-Scriptural notion that the Covenants made exclusively with True Israel have somehow been amended or changed and given to some other entity, or to other races of people. This doctrine IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND HAS NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE. It is simply part of the BIG LIE that the Old Testament is Jewish in origin and that the New Testament applies to Christians by mere belief in Christianity. I can assure you that THE WHOLE BIBLE was written to, for, by and about Israel exclusively, and no one else.
2.) If Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament, at what point did Yahweh permit Talmudic interpretations of Scripture to supersede or overrule the Law of Moses? I can assure you, without any fear of contradiction from God’s written Word, the Bible, that Yahweh never authorized Talmudic changes to the Holy Scriptures. The Talmud is Satan’s doctrine, pure and simple. Thus, Jewish and Judeo-Christian doctrine have combined to form THE GREAT APOSTASY of the end times. (II Thess. 2:3.) Talmudism and Judeo-Christianity are the GREAT DELUSION (II Thess. 2:11) by which all Judeo-Christians have been fooled into accepting the Jews as the people of the Old Testament and mere “believers” as the “saved Christians” of the New Testament. These doctrines are simply loaded with rabbinical deception.
My work has exposed the deceptions of the rabbis and put the lie to the rabbinical claim that “Christianity owes its existence to Judaism.” This statement is unadulterated nonsense. There was no such religion before the Pharisees invented it.
The Jews Have Always Been the Greatest Enemy of True Israel
The Jewish people are Jewish by religion (via Talmudic Judaism), but they are NOT Judahites by race, ethnicity, culture, descent, customs, or by religion, because the Judahites of Scripture practiced the Mosaic Law, not the Talmud. There is actually proof of this fact in modern Palestine . There is a remnant of the ancient Samaritans still in existence in Palestine today. They are known as Karaites, and they still practice the Mosaic Law, uncontaminated by the Jewish Talmud. In addition, the so-called Black Hebrews, who are Ethiopian Blacks that have a tradition that goes back over 3,000 years (when Mosaism was practiced there by Adamite Hebrew Israelites), also practice an non-Talmudic version of Old Testament religion. The fact that both of these groups practice a non-rabbinical form of the Mosaic Law, which was borrowed from the True Israelites, shows that true Mosaism is that which is uncontaminated by the Talmud. And since Jesus Christ is the lineal descendant of the House of David, there is no doubt that He is the Messiah and that Christianity is the true fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Judaism fails on all counts. Christianity owes its existence to the prophets of Israel and Yahshua’s redemption. Christianity owes nothing to Judaism, because Judaism in not the same as the religion of the Old Testament.
In tracing the genealogy of Jesus Christ, it was obvious to me that the Jews descend from the ENEMY NATION OF EDOM.
Rarely does anyone outside of Christian Identity broach this subject of the origins of the Talmud and of the Jewish people. Recently, while doing research on a completely different subject, namely, divorce in the Holy Scriptures, I came across an article, which deals with the origins of the Jewish religion. Before this time, I had never come across any serious research by a non-Identist. I can say that everything these two authors say confirms my teaching on the subject of the non-Scriptural origin of the Jewish religion. But the article does not deal with the subject of the non-Israelite origin of the Jewish people. One of the authors appears to be Jewish, so that person would not be inclined to expose the entire fallacy. Consequently, the article still falsely equates the historical Judahites with “Jews.”
For this reason, I have annotated the article with my comments, so that you will thoroughly understand the nature of the deception, the depths of which these two authors do not comprehend. The fact that these two authors assert that Judaism IS NOT to be equated with the Law of Moses is a gigantic leap forward, a major step in the revelation of the Truth that, in the end times, the whole world will have been deceived by the anti-Christ. (Rev. 12:9.)
A major piece of the puzzle has thus been put into place and confirmed by two non-Identists.
Between the Testaments by Ernest Martin and Harry Eisenberg
The Good News of Tomorrow's World September, 1971
[With Annotated Commentary by Pastor Eli James, in italicized brackets.]
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 6 of 16
28 January 2009
Part I
Just who were the Pharisees and where did their religious doctrines originate? In the Old Testament? If so, why did Christ so strenuously oppose their ideas? Is the Bible -- both Old and New Testaments -- a house divided? An examination of the period "between the Testaments" shows that while men may be divided -- the Bible is not! PHOTO CAPTION: During the Ptolemaic period, Hellenistic culture rapidly spread among the Jewish people. [Sic: Here is the gist of the problem. The Judahites of the Hellenistic period were NOT “Jews.” They were Judahites of the House of Judah . This is precisely the false equation (i.e., the deceptive interpolation) that is assumed by all writers except Identists. The Judahites of the Intertestamental Period were the racially and religiously exclusive citizens of the House of Judah .
By referring to this segregationist people as “the Jewish people,” a false identity between the segregationist Judahites and the racially mongrelized Jews is posited. No such identity has ever existed! And, most certainly, no such identity exists between modern Jews and the ancient Israelites or Judahites! Hence, the proper identification of these people is “Judahites.” All pre-Herodian references to “the Jewish people” are quite anachronistic, simplistic, and erroneous, despite the popular usage. There were no “Jewish people” before the first Edomite was circumcised under John Hyrcanus, circa 121 BC. Before this Edomite admixture into the House of Judah , the citizens of Judah were called either “Judeans” or “Judahites” and their nation was called, simply, “ Judah ” or “the land of Judah .”
Thus, to be historically accurate, this sentence should read: “During the Ptolemaic period, Hellenistic culture rapidly spread among the Judahites of Judea .” The false identification of these Judahites as Jews simply perpetuates the impersonation of Judah by the Edomite Jews. For the remainder of this article, I will simply bracket the word ‘Jewish’ with [‘Sic’], without further explanation, wherever this error occurs. The simple fact is that there was no such thing as a “Jewish religion” or a “Jewish people” until the Pharisees invented both, during the days of Hyrcanus and Herod. – Eli] One reason why was the existence of numerous Greek cities in their midst, such as Gerasa (Jerash) pictured below. Another bastion of Hellenism was Ashkelon (see inset photo) on the Mediterranean coast.
MUCH OF the professing Christian world today suffers from the mistaken notion that Christ came to do away with His Father's religion -- the religion of the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth! Jesus Himself said, "Think NOT that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (fill to the brim)" (Matt. 5:17). [Hooray for the Truth, plainly stated! – Eli]
Christ plainly said that He did not come to do away with His Father's religion but to COMPLETE God's revelation. Then why are so many confused on this point? Why do some mistakenly preach that the Law was "done away"?
One of the major assumptions in this connection is that most theologians ASSUME that the Pharisees and the other religionists of Jesus' day were the representatives and the exponents of the revelation given to Moses -- God's Old Testament religion. But the Bible shows that the One who later became Jesus Christ was the Lord of the Old Testament:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .... All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1, 3, see also Eph. 3:9 and Heb. 1:2).
Just where and when did the Pharisees get their practices which Jesus condemned?
The Return From Babylon
Chronologically speaking, the last three authors of the Old Testament are Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi. These three men all worked among the Jewish [Sic., Judahite] community that had returned to Judaea after the Babylonian captivity. They were largely successful in bringing the people an awareness of God's true religion. A body of priests (Aaron's descendants whom God had ordained to be the religious leaders) was set up to guide the people in matters of religion. This company of men was known in history as the "Great Assembly" or "Synagogue" ("Knesset Hagedolah"). Due to the work of this body throughout the period of Persian dominance the Jews were living for the most part in accordance with God's Law (Heinrich Graetz, "History of the Jews", Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1894, Vol. I, pp. 406-407).
[Typically, these commentators fail to mention that Ezra and Nehemiah expelled all of the children of missed marriages and no priests were allowed to engage in racially mixed marriages. (Ezra 9:12, Neh. 10, plus
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 7 of 16
28 January 2009
many more. Read these books for yourself to find out!) Either no one outside of Identity has read these passages or they all decline to cite them for fear of offending the Jews. – Eli]
Because of this, God granted them special protection and privileges by a series of miracles, at the coming of Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. This is described in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", [Sic, Judahites] Book XI, Chapter X, Parts 5-6.
A New Way of Life
At his death, Alexander's empire was divided into four parts (Dan. 8:22). Judaea first passed under rule of Ptolemies of Egypt and, later, the Seleucidae of Syria. Both of these were Macedonian (Greek) dynasties and were great exponents of the pagan, Gentile way of life known as "Hellenism." [The word ‘Gentile’ is also a confusing word. The rabbis of Judaism use it to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews; but the authors of the Holy Scriptures do not use this word at all. The Hebrew word, ‘goyim’ means, simply, “nations” and the Greek word ‘ethnos’ means “race, kinsmen.” So, we can see that the Jews redefine words to suit their deceptive doctrines and practices. In my seminal work on the subject, Arsenal of Words, I have proven conclusively that the word ‘Gentiles’ is a false translation of these two Hebrew and Greek terms. The reality is that the Bible uses these terms, in most cases, to refer to ISRAELITES.
The Hebrew ‘goyim’ is used in Scripture to refer to both Israelites and non-Israelites, depending upon the context. The Greek ‘ethnos,’ in contrast, almost always refers to Israelites of the Dispersed Twelve Tribes. (James 1:1, John 7:35.) By following the false usages of these words by the Jews, Christians have been deceived into thinking that the word ‘Gentiles’ always refers to “non-Jews.” This is gross deception. – Eli]
The basic philosophy behind Hellenism was this: Every man had the right to think for himself on any matter as long as there was not a real departure from the customs that were essentially Greek.
This philosophy -- freedom of thought or individualism, which is SEEMINGLY altruistic in-principle -- resulted in myriads of confusing and contradictory beliefs among the Greeks in every phase of life. Every man was allowed his own ideas about the sciences, the arts, law and about RELIGION. So varied were the opinions among the Greek scholars in the various fields of study that individuals took pride in contending with one another over who could present the greatest "wisdom" and "knowledge" on any particular subject.
With the encouragement of the rulers, Hellenism spread rapidly in the Ptolemaic Empire. Judaea was by no means exempt.
Great Assembly No Longer in Authority
Within a score of years after the coming of the Greeks, the Great Assembly disappears from history as an organized body having religious control over the Jewish people. It is not known how the Greeks dismissed this authoritative religious body from its official capacity as teachers of the Law. But it is obvious that the authority of the Great Assembly was eroded and the Greek leaders forbade them to teach. [The books of I and II Maccabees cover this era very well. It was a period filled with civil war between pro-Greek Judahites and pro-Mosaic Judahites. – Eli] Without the religious guidance of the Great Assembly, many Jews [Sic.] began to imbibe the Greek customs and ideas which were inundating the land.
"With the change from Persian to Greek rule (the Ptolemies were Greeks, remember), Hellenism made its influence felt, and came pouring like a flood into a country which had known nothing of it. There was no escape from its influence. It was present everywhere, in the street and the market, in the everyday life and all the phases of social intercourse" (R. Travers Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", Soncino Press, London, 1933, page 77).
Much of this Hellenistic influence came from the numerous Greek cities which were established under the Ptolemies. Most of these were on the Mediterranean seacoast or on the east side of Jordan .
With the Great Assembly removed from the scene and this new culture substituted for the Law of God, the Jews [Sic. Judahites] began to absorb many elements of Hellenism. The Jews [Sic] had no one to guide them in understanding the Law except a few isolated teachers here and there who lacked the official authority of the Great Assembly. [But the Judahites always had spiritual men military leaders who were leading the opposition against Hellenization. The Greeks never gained a total victory over Judah . – Eli] After a few years of this influence, the people literally came to a state of religious confusion. Some endeavored to keep a form of the Scriptural teachings, but with Hellenism everywhere, it became almost impossible to adhere to the true form of the law of Moses. Almost everything the Greeks brought to the Jews [sic] was antagonistic to the
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 8 of 16
28 January 2009
laws of God, and, without the religious guidance of the Great Assembly, many of them began to tolerate these innovations and even, as time progressed, to take up many of the Greek ideas and customs themselves.
100 Years of Ptolemaic Rule
After a series of battles with the Syrians, Ptolemy I, the Greek king of Egypt , took firm control of Judaea in 301 B.C. His descendants retained that control for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS, until 198 B.C. This one-hundred-year period of Greek-Egyptian domination is very important in the religious history of the Jews [sic]. This is the period in which many great and significant changes first began to take place in Jewish [sic. Judean, or Judahite] religious life. "During the comparatively quiet rule of the Ptolemies, Greek ideas, customs and morality had been making peaceful conquests in Palestine " (Charles Foster Kent, "History of the Jewish People", page 320). [All of the so-called “histories” of the “Jewish people” make the false equation between Judah and Edomite Jews. This is by rabbinical design. – Eli]
There was little resistance to these inroads. We are informed by Dr. Jacob Lauterbach, a learned Jewish scholar, that Jewish tradition knows of no religious teacher who taught any form of religion from the death of Simon the Just (270 B.C.) until about the year 190 B.C. (Jacob Z. Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays", Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, 1951, page 196). "This would have been impossible," Dr. Lauterbach says, "if there had been any official activity of the teachers in those years" (ibid.).
But there was none. In fact, whole generations came and went, offering no great resistance to the new customs which were encouraged by the commercial and educational intercourse taking place between the Jews, Greeks and Hellenistic Egyptians. In fact, thousands of Jews migrated to Egypt during this period. By the end of the Ptolemaic period, there were over a million Jews in Egypt , out of a total population of about seven million. A prime example of Hellenistic influence is the PAGAN concept of the immortality of the soul. This doctrine was widely publicized in the writings of the pagan Greek philosopher Plato. [These last four paragraphs are nonsense. The Hasmonean dynasty endeavored to maintain the Law of Moses and fought against the Greeks and the Romans to maintain it. Josephus goes into the most minute detail of how both the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans fought valiantly to maintain their religion, race and culture. Also, the Bible clearly teaches that Israelites were predestined from the beginning of creation to have eternal life and to bring the everlasting Kingdom of Yahshua Messiah . These statements are simplistic! “Absent from the body, present with the Lord.” - Eli]
The Coming of the Seleucids
In 198 B.C. the Seleucid kingdom of Syria conquered Judaea and drove out the Egyptians. Like the Ptolemies, the Seleucids were also of Greek origin and equally Hellenistic in culture and outlook. At first, conditions in Judaea were pretty much like what they had been under the Ptolemies. The Seleucid ruler, Antiochus III, was favorably inclined toward the Jews [sic].
Conditions rapidly changed, however, with the coming to the throne in 175 B.C. of Antiochus Epiphanes. Shortly after he ascended the throne, there was a contention among several of the priests in Jerusalem for the office of High Priest. Jason, the brother of the reigning High Priest, persuaded Antiochus to transfer the office to him, by offering a large sum of money to the King. Jason was Hellenistically inclined and was followed in this by many of the people. "A passion for Greek costumes, and Greek names (Jason's Hebrew name was Joshua) seized the people. Large numbers were enrolled as citizens of Antioch (the capital of Syria ). Many even endeavored to conceal the fact that they had been circumcised .... To demonstrate that he had left all the traditions of his race behind, Jason sent a rich present for sacrifices in connection with the great festival at Tyre in honor of the god Hercules" (Kent, "History of the Jewish People", pp. 324-325). Of course, not everyone in Judaea went this far, but by and large, most people are inclined to follow their human leaders, at least to a certain extent.
About three years after Jason assumed office, Menelaus (Hebrew name "Onias"), a man most believe to have been of the tribe of Benjamin (not a descendant of Aaron and therefore not truly a priest) offered Antiochus a larger bribe than Jason, and he was named High Priest instead. Because of this, Jason fled beyond Jordan to the Ammonites for refuge. (See McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature", Vol. I, pp. 271-272; and II Maccabees, Chapter 4). Many of the Jews [sic] thought Jason had been unjustly deprived of becoming High Priest. Many of the people began to take sides -- some for Jason, some for Menelaus. Fighting broke out between the two groups, both of whom were led by outright Hellenists. [Sounds like today’s Republicrats and Demopublicans, doesn’t it? – Eli] Jason's forces won out and Menelaus fled to Antioch . There Antiochus became infuriated to learn that many of the Jews [sic] had taken sides against his appointed official or, in effect, against his government itself! At that time Antiochus was planning to conquer Egypt . When that failed, due to the intervention of the Romans, he decided to take
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 9 of 16
28 January 2009
out his anger on the rebellious Jews [sic, Mosaic Judahites] at Jerusalem . He planned not only to subdue the Jews [sic] but to put an end to their religion once and for all.
Antiochus, feigning peace, proceeded to take the city. He polluted the Temple by burning swine's flesh on its altar, and erected a statue of Jupiter Olympus in the Holy Place . This had been prophesied by Daniel (Dan. 11:29-31). He plundered the Temple of all objects of value and then issued a decree forbidding the Jews [sic] to worship God or in any way to exercise their religion. Despite the severity of this decree, there were many Hellenistically inclined Jews [sic] who nonetheless accepted it without protest. Many of these Hellenists were priests and Levites.
On the other hand, for many other Jews [sic], the majority of whom may have been only slightly interested in religion previously, this decree forbidding such basic practices as circumcision and requiring idol worship was simply too much.
The Maccabean Revolt
In the small village of Modi'in, the head of a priestly family, Mattathias, and his five sons, stood up to oppose Antiochus and his decree. "If anyone zealous for the laws of his country and for the worship of God, let him follow me," he proclaimed (Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", Book XII, Chapter VI, Part 2). Thousands flocked to his banner and a full revolt was under way.
Just before his death, Mattathias made his third son, Judah (called Maccabee), general of their army. After a long series of battles with his forces greatly outnumbered, Judah defeated the Syrians and their Samaritan allies. In 165 B.C. he went up to Jerusalem and purified the Temple , restoring the true ritual of God.
Judah was killed in a later battle.
Finally Simon, the last survivor of Mattathias' sons, was able to proclaim an independent nation with himself as High Priest. [The last few paragraphs essentially provide an accurate retelling of the history of those times. Under no circumstances was the entire nation of Judah Hellenized, as the constant rebellions against the Greeks proves. True Judah strove to maintain her identity as Mosaic segregationists. The Hellenizing Judahites were the liberals of the day. – Eli]
The nation was now, at last, free of foreign domination. But the years of religious anarchy and Hellenistic influence had taken their toll. Dr. Lauterbach states: "During the seventy or eighty years of religious anarchy, many new practices had been gradually adopted by the people" (Lauterbach, page 205). The British scholar Travers Herford adds: "In the absence of authoritative guidance, the people had gone their own way; new customs had found a place among old religious usages ... new ideas had been formed under the influence of Hellenism which had permeated the land for more than a century, and there had been no one to point out the danger which thereby threatened the religious life of the people" (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", pp. 64-65). [This is a gross exaggeration. It is part of the Jewish falsification of history that demands this false story of near-universal apostasy. The fact is that the Temple priesthood and the 24 Courses were solidly in Judahite hands, despite the turmoil. These institutions were HEREDITARY in nature, passed on from Judahite father to Judahite son. In this way, Judah maintained their religion and culture in spite of these hardships. It was the High Priesthood and other positions of leadership that were up for grabs. The priests of the Temple duty were always ready to do their jobs, circumstance permitting. The Essenes, a faction of True Judahites, were organized in opposition to these foreign influences. The Essenes were the ones who preserved the holy books of the Israelites, today known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The authors are relying on Jewish sources to misinform them. If they had read Maccabees and Josephus, they could not quote such nonsense without finding counter evidence therein. – Eli]
The Sanhedrin
We are now at the point where the Pharisees first make their appearance in history, some time after the Maccabean wars. But before we note this, we need to examine briefly the rise of the Sanhedrin, the body which they dominated during much of its existence. While some sources would lead us to believe that the Sanhedrin was the direct successor to the Great Assembly, this was not the case. It was not until about 196 B.C. after a hiatus of some eighty years that the Sanhedrin was first established. This is shown by an ancient manuscript found today in a text called "Fragments of a Zadokite Work". This text points to 196 B.C. as the year the Sanhedrin first met. This body is said to consist of "men of understanding from Aaron" (that is, priests), and "from Israel wise teachers" (that is, non-priestly teachers) (Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays", page 203).
This is significant! [Indeed! – Eli] The writer mentions there were both priests and lay teachers in the new Sanhedrin. This was an innovation. Until this time only the priests, with their assistants, the Levites, were
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 10 of 16
28 January 2009
considered to have the authority to teach religion to the people. This would not have been permitted while the Great Assembly, the successor of Ezra, was in authority. This is clearly shown from the writings of Malachi, who was contemporary with Ezra, Nehemiah and the early days of the Great Assembly. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he (the priest) is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. 2:7). The law of Moses, which God had directly commanded him, dearly enjoined that the priests and Levites were to perform the functions of teachers, not just any layman who would presume to do so. (See Deut. 18:1-7, 33:10 and also Ezek. 44:23.)
Lay Teachers Reject Sole Authority of Priests to Teach
Why this radical change? Again we must briefly go back to the period of religious anarchy when the Egyptian Ptolemies ruled Judaea . Both the Ptolemies and the later Seleucid rulers looked upon the High Priest as the head of the Jewish [sic] nation. In turn, it was the High Priest, with his assistants (other priests) who dealt with the Hellenist rulers on behalf of the nation. [Yes, and it was this body of liaison men who were caught in the middle and often changed sides! – Eli] Outstanding among these were Joseph, the son of Tobias, and his son Hyrcanus. In order to be successful diplomats at the Hellenistic court in Alexandria , they felt it necessary to adopt Greek ways. And these they brought back with them to Judaea . Thus, it was the priests, the ones who should have been teaching the people God's Law, who became the chief proponents of Hellenism. [No! Not all of “the priests,” but these particular priests of the newly-formed Sanhedrin. Please do not overgeneralize! – Eli]
From 206 to 196 B.C. a series of battles between the rival Hellenistic kings of Syria and Egypt devastated many parts of Judaea . Some blamed Hellenism for this trouble and began to seek to return to the laws of their fathers. But to whom could they turn?
The priests as a whole had become thoroughly Hellenized. [Again, not true!] In fact, different priests were taking sides in the wars and were even raising up armies to help either the Syrians or the Egyptians. The only ones who had studied God's Word and remained committed to it in any form were a few laymen and some minor priests. These sat in the new Sanhedrin. [It is true that the Levitical priesthood was effectively driven out of existence, but their replacements, most of whom were Judahites, continued to perform the Temple sacrifices according to the ordinances, even during the time of Jesus. The Pharisees had never taken total control of this priesthood, although Herod had given them “authority” to monitor their activities. These priests had not yet adopted the traditions of the Pharisaic rabbis. That was yet to come. – Eli]
What Was God's Way?
Prior to and during the Maccabean revolt, the outwardly Hellenistic priests and their followers supported Antiochus Epiphanes. The lay teachers and the Sanhedrin as a whole supported the Maccabees. [This statement supports my argument and renders theirs contradictory!!! An occupied population may pretend to go along with the occupiers, but most do not! – Eli] Religiously speaking, the major result of the Maccabean victory was the TOTAL DISCREDITING OF HELLENISM in Judaea . The High Priesthood was given to the Hasmonean (Maccabean) family itself, which descended from minor priests. No one was an outright Hellenist any longer. Many were desirous of following God's way. But whatever religious unity there might have been was short-lived.
The question basically was one of determining just what was God's way. There was, of course, the written Bible (the Old Testament). But how were the people to apply its teachings to the various problems and events that arise in daily life? The Jews [sic], remember, had just emerged from a period where the teaching and practice of God's Law had been forbidden. [But it was never totally expunged. The Judahites were always striving to rid themselves of their oppressors. - Eli] And this had been preceded by an era of some eighty years during which Hellenism had made great inroads into the daily lives of the people; and all this while there had been no organized body directing religious life. [They had been driven underground! – Eli]
Hundreds of years before, Ezra and those priests and Levites assisting him had "... read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and (had given) the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh. 8:8.). Through the ages, God's servants have been responsible to show the people (with His guidance) how His Law applied in various situations in their lives. This was never the prerogative of anyone who wanted to choose "the ministry," "the priesthood" or "the rabbinate" for a vocation, but only those whom God specifically chose. And in ancient Israel , under the Old Covenant, God chose the priests, primarily, with the Levites to assist them, for this purpose of teaching. [Let’s be TOTALLY ACCURATE HERE! The Levitical priesthood was HEREDITARY, belonging exclusively to the Levites and their sons!!! DUH!! Yes, Yahweh did choose them; and He also made their priesthood exclusively Israelite and hereditary! - Eli]
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 11 of 16
28 January 2009
The Pharisees Come on the Scene
Following the Maccabean victory there were many priests who were ready and willing to resume their ancient, God-given role as teachers and expounders of the Law. But there were also the lay teachers who had come to sit in the Sanhedrin and had made a notable contribution to the Maccabean cause at a time when many priests were outright Hellenists and supporters of Antiochus Epiphanes. Lauterbach says that the lay teachers "refused to recognize the authority of the priests as a class, and, inasmuch as many of the priests had proven unfaithful guardians of the Law, they would not entrust to them the regulation of the religious life of the people" (Lauterbach, page 209). It was these lay teachers who organized themselves into the party of the Pharisees. [Again, this is an oversimplification. It was the new Sanhedrin that had assumed power during these times; and they began appointing their own people into the positions that were available, just as the Jews today, in America, appoint their own people into positions, which were formerly held exclusively by REAL AMERICANS, not Jews! Note that there is absolutely NO MENTION OF HOW THE EDOMITES OF IDUMEA WERE INVITED IN BY HEROD. The authors are still trying to convey the false notion that this was an INTERNAL AFFAIR –among Judahites – making no mention of the Idumean usurpers who were busy subverting True Judah . It was among this new Sanhedrin that the Pharisees had the greatest influence. – Eli] Although many of the priests had indeed become Hellenized, this did not necessarily give the lay teachers the right to usurp some of the priests' God-given authority. But, sadly they insisted on following the way that seemed right to them (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). However, two wrongs did not make a right in that day any more than they do today. What these two wrongs did result in will be shown in the next installment. Watch for it in an upcoming issue of TOMORROW'S WORLD.
[If nothing else, Part I proves that the transition from the Levitical priesthood to the Pharisaic priesthood was ANTI-MOSAIC! No matter how you try to explain away Judaism’s origins, this fact is irrefutable!!! Do you understand the significance of such an admission? This proves that Judaism and its practitioners have no Mosaic authority! – Eli]
Part II
PHOTO CAPTION: Top: Floor of ancient synagogue uncovered at Beth-Alpha , Israel . Mosaic shows the 12 signs of the zodiac of pagan astrology. It is illustrative of the influence of Greek culture in Israel of the intertestamental period. Above: Graeco-Roman amphitheater was located in the shadows of the Temple Mount . Hellenism influence cultural and religious life of many in Judaea .
IN THE LAST INSTALLMENT we saw how a majority [No! – Eli] of people were weaned away from their observance of God's laws by the pressures of the Hellenistic culture. Under the rule of the Egyptian Ptolemies, they became interested in the education and culture of the surrounding nations. [This is exactly how America has become INTERNATIONALIZED and Judaized! Remember how our Founding Fathers warned us to stay out of the affairs of other nations? Our once Christian nation has turned into a nation of Jewish debauchery. – Eli]
Later, under the domination of a cruel Seleucid Syrian king, the Jews [sic] revolted against Syria . The revolt was successful, and Hellenism, as a culture of which the Syrians were great exponents, was now discredited. [Good!] The priests (those descended from Aaron), many of whom had been leading Hellenists, were looked upon with distrust by many. Now laymen were beginning to make their voices heard in religious disputes. This was the rise of the Pharisees. It was a layman's party, though some priests also belonged to it. [I totally disagree with this. There were certainly laymen who had ambition to become priests, but the reality is that the New Sanhedrin and the Pharisaic priesthood had become another party of foreign influence: Idumean influence. I’m beginning to suspect that this whole piece is designed to deliberately ignore the Idumean question!!! - Eli]
The Sadducees
No one questioned the right of the priests to officiate in the Temple . But the priests pointed to Deuteronomy 17:8-13 as giving them, and not the lay teachers, the authority to teach and to decide questions pertaining to religion. They and their supporters organized themselves into the party of the Sadducees (name taken from Zadok, the High Priest in Solomon's day). [And even this was phony, as the Sadducees were Hellenizers! The Pharisees were Edomizers! Nothing about the Essenes, either! The Essenes were the True Judahites! – Eli] The priests as a whole were wealthy. This and their previous support of Hellenism caused the people to mistrust them by and large. Josephus tells us, "The Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side" ("Antiquities of the Jews", XIII, x, 6).
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 12 of 16
28 January 2009
Lay Teachers Justify the People's Errors
And yet the main reason for the popularity of the Pharisees and the rejection of the Sadducees was neither the tainted past nor the wealth of the priests. It was in the teachings of the Pharisees themselves. During the period of religious anarchy under Hellenistic rule, the continuity of official teachers of the law had been broken. Hellenism had made its inroads. Consequently, when the Maccabean War came to an end, and some teachers did think of returning to God's Law, it was found that "many new customs and practices for which there were no precedents in the traditions of the fathers, and not the slightest indication in the Book of the Law, were observed by the people and considered by them as a part of their religious laws and practices" (Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays", Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, p. 195). [What more proof do you need that the Pharisees were distorters of the Mosaic Law? – Eli]
In short, the people [No! The Pharisees were the ones who adopted non-Mosaic teachings. If the people adopted new traditions, it was because of ignorance, not deliberate choice. This is exactly how Judeo-Christianity has replaced TRUE CHRISTIANITY TODAY! Look at all of the false doctrines that have come in the name of Judeo-Christianity! - Eli] had adopted many customs and ideas which were in truth clearly pagan. The best example of these is the belief in the immortality of the soul already mentioned.
"The difficulty was to find a sanction in the Torah (the Law) for the new customs and practices which had established themselves in the community ..." (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", Soncino Press, London, 1933, p. 66). The teachers should have shown the people they were sinning (Isa. 58:1). Instead they chose to justify them. This should not seem strange. It was done in Jeremiah's day (Jer. 23:21-22) and in Isaiah's (Isa. 30:10). [But Jeremiah and all of the Hebrew prophets rebuked the Israelites for such heresy. Today, modernist heresies are trumpeted from the pulpits!! – Eli]
Pagan Customs Called Jewish!
And yet the Scripture plainly states: "Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jer. 10:2). Consequently, the teachers taught that the new customs the people had adopted were not really pagan -- they were actually Jewish! [Yes, Jewish, not Judahite!!!! Hehe! - Eli]
They reasoned this: "It is hardly possible that foreign customs and non-Jewish [sic!] laws should have met with such universal acceptance. The total absence of objection on the part of the people to such customs vouched for their Jewish origin, in the opinion of the teachers" (Lauterbach, p. 211). [Of course, Lauterbach teaches that the Old Testament is “Jewish.” This is ridiculous. It is the distortions of the Old Testament that are Jewish. Eli] These teachers told the people that it simply was not possible for them, being Jews [sic], to have inherited any heathen custom or practice. [Just as modern Judeo-Christians falsely believe that their Apostasy is “Christian.” As the Judahites of that time were deceived by the Pharisees, modern Christians have been deceived by the Judeo-Christian pulpitmasters. I can assure that none of these Judaizers know anything about history. – Eli]
They furthermore taught that since the customs were "Jewish," then they must have been taught by Moses himself. [I’m sure you get the point! – Eli] (This is no different from today, when churchgoers by the millions assume that the original apostles observed Sunday, Easter, Christmas and the like.) [Just the tip of the iceberg!!!! – Eli]
"Accordingly, the teachers themselves came to believe that such generally recognized laws and practices must have been old traditional laws and practices adopted by the fathers and transmitted to the following generations in addition to the Written Law. Such a belief would naturally free the teachers from the necessity of finding scriptural proof for all the new practices" (ibid.). [Boy, is history repeating itself, or what? – Eli] In other words they claimed that these customs, since they were not WRITTEN in the Old Testament, must have been handed down ORALLY from Moses -- by word of mouth. Actually, these traditional laws -- these oral laws -- were not from Moses nor any of the prophets. There is not a single reference in the Scripture that Moses gave the Israelites any oral or traditional laws that were to be transmitted to posterity along with the written Word. The Bible states just the opposite. It plainly says that Moses wrote the whole Law in a book. Notice. [Now, here, the authors have stated a most important truth. Since modern Judaism is based upon the so-called “oral tradition,” it is patently obvious that Judaism (the religion of the Pharisees) is a fraudulent religion! It’s about time that someone outside of Identity admitted this!!! – Eli] "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were FINISHED ..." (Deut. 31:24).
There is no such thing as an "oral law of Moses." [Praise Yahweh for ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! – Eli]
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 13 of 16
28 January 2009
Oral Law Gains Acceptance
The theory of the "oral law" was accepted only gradually -- a matter of a few years, rather than months. [I would say, rather, decades. - Eli] "The theory of an authoritative traditional law (which might be taught independently of the Scriptures) was altogether too new to be unhesitatingly accepted ... the theory was too startling and novel to be unconditionally accepted" (Lauterbach, p. 211 ). The greater opposition to the so-called "oral law" came from the priests who, as a whole, declared that the Scripture was the only necessary code of laws to obey. [And these were the Essenes, of whom John the Baptist was a member! – Eli] "This apparently simple solution offered by the priestly group in the Sanhedrin did not find favor with the lay members of that body" (ibid., p. 209). And, with the passage of time, the lay teachers ultimately came to constitute the majority of representatives in the Sanhedrin. These Pharisaic lay teachers succeeded in convincing the people that they were right and that the priests were wrong.
Some of the people's fears concerning the priestly Sadducees were apparently valid, however. Many of the priests did become worldly minded and they found worldly politics far more interesting than religion. The Sadducees eventually adopted the belief that there was no resurrection and that angels did not exist (Act 23:8). [It appears as though we have Sadducees today as well! – Eli] This was probably a result of the influence of the Greek Epicurean philosophy. It taught that there was no future life of any kind and that man should therefore seek as many physical pleasures in this life as possible, since that was all there was. [Didn’t I tell you that the Sadducees were Hellenizers? – Eli]
New Laws of the Pharisees
Many of the Pharisees came to believe what they were doing was God's will. [We can talk ourselves into being “righteous,” when, in fact, we are only being self-righteous! Not so? – Eli] "It is certain that they (the Pharisees) regarded themselves as the successors of the prophets, and not merely in fact but by right" (Herford, p. 71). [I disagree with this. It is apparent to me that the Pharisees knew they were phonies all along. The trick was to convince the Judahites of their legitimacy. They never convinced Jesus Christ of their legitimacy! - Eli] Based on this claimed authority, they adopted a method of teaching what they believed to be laws of God, without any initial reference to Scripture for authority. [This statement is astoundingly accurate! - Eli] "Finding no convincing proof for such laws in the Bible, they taught them independently of scriptural proof, i.e., in the MISHNAH-form" (Lauterbach, p. 229). [A very candid admission! – Eli]
MISHNAH-form was the name given for laying down laws to be observed, apart from Scripture. This is not to say MISHNAH-form avoided Scripture altogether. But it was only AFTER a law had already been accepted that the Scriptures might be checked for corroboration. [The rascals!!] Sometimes "affirmation" of a new law was forced from Scriptures totally unrelated to the particular subject. [Tell me about it!!! Hehe! – Eli]
The word MISHNAH is related to the Hebrew root meaning "second" and "study." MISHNAH-form was the SECOND form that the Pharisees adopted for "STUDY" as opposed to the original form of properly expounding the Scriptures, which was called MIDRASH-form. This older, original form was known as "teaching after the manner of Moses" ("Talmud", Temurah 156, "Yebamoth" 72b). [Now, tell me AGAIN they didn’t know they were deceivers!!! If they knew the difference between Midrash and Mishnah, THEY CERTAINLY KNEW WHEN THEY WERE INVENTING DOCTRINE!!!! Are you smelling the dirty rat that I’m smelling? – Eli]
MIDRASH-form is based on deducing laws, teachings, legends, etc., from the Scripture. As time went on it too became perverted. "Whenever there was the remotest possibility of doing so, they would seek by means of new hermeneutical rules (rules pertaining to Biblical interpretation) to find in the words of the Torah support for these traditional laws" (Lauterbach, p. 212).
Thus the Pharisees were able to "find" the traditions they were now approving of by twisted interpretations of Scripture. In doing this they still claimed to be using the MIDRASH-form. Ezra is said to have taught in MIDRASH-form when he, and his helpers "read in the book in the law of God distinctly and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh. 8:8).
There was, however, one major point which Ezra was aware of, but which the Pharisees missed. It is this: God, in the Bible, never contradicts Himself. [Oh, man! This is where the rubber meets the road!! – Eli] Malachi, a contemporary of Ezra was inspired to write: "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal. 3: 6). But many of the traditional laws the Pharisees approved of did contradict Scripture. What's more, many of them even contradicted one another. [If you haven’t figured it out yet, now you know what Judaism really is. “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, WHICH IS HYPOCRISY.” (Luke 12:1) – Eli] With the introduction of the new MISHNAH-form, Scripture came to be less relied on than before. New laws, which were not even necessarily traditional, could be enacted. The Pharisees found the
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 14 of 16
28 January 2009
MISHNAH-form to be an important weapon in their conflict with the Sadducees. Laws that were accepted after being handed down in the MISHNAH-form tended to enhance the authority of the Pharisees, since it was SOLELY on their authority that the law was accepted. The very first individual of whom we have any record who began to teach new commandments in the MISHNAH-form, apart from the scriptural basis, was Jose ben Joezer of Zareda. [He was the first one who ADMITTED IT! – Eli]
Jose laid down three new commandments. The first concerned the eating of a certain locust; the second, the blood of slaughtered animals; and the third, the touching of a dead body. In doing this he became known as "Jose the Permitter" ("Talmud", Abodah Zarah 37b). [Those of you who have followed my writings know that I have stated, “Whatever Moses forbids, the Talmud permits.” Yet, not a word about the Talmud from any of these authors! – Eli]
"Furthermore, Jose is called 'the Permitter,' evidently because in all three decisions he permits things that were formerly considered forbidden" (Lauterbach, p. 219). [Yes, indeed!] These new laws of Jose were not customs the people had inherited from Hellenism. "It is therefore evident that these Halakot (rules) ... were not older traditional laws transmitted by Jose as a mere witness, but Jose's own teachings. He was the one who 'permitted' and he deserved the name (the Permitter)" (ibid., p. 218). These commandments of themselves were not earth-shaking violations, but they did set a precedent! Eventually others began to set down all sorts of new laws. These are what Jesus called "the commandments of men" (Mark 77). [Praise Yahweh for a candid admission of Scriptural Truth! – Eli]
The Prosbul of Hillel
Many others ultimately followed in the steps of Jose. If the majority of Pharisees agreed on a new decision, it was accepted as the Word of God -- even if Scripture taught just the opposite.
Of the myriad of new laws laid down, perhaps the best example and the best known is the Prosbul of Hillel. Hillel the Old headed a Pharisaic school in the days of Herod. [Finally! Herod is mentioned, but I’ll bet they won’t tell you that Herod was an Edomite!!!! – Eli] He was noted for his gentleness and was greatly beloved among the people, but his decisions, nonetheless, were not always in keeping with the Word of God. [YEAH, RIGHT! Don’t make me laugh! – Eli]
For example, "All private loans are automatically remitted at the end of the Sabbatical Year (Deut. 15:2) and hence it became difficult to obtain loans immediately before the onset of that year. In order to avoid hardship and encourage lending, Hillel instituted the "Prosbul" (Greek: "for the court"), which is a declaration made before a court of law by the creditor, and signed by witnesses, stating that all debts due him are given over to the court for collection. Since the remission of loans during the seventh year applies only to individuals but not to public loans, the effect of the Prosbul is to render the individual's loan public, and it is therefore not remitted" (Werblowsky and Wigoder, "The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion", art. "Prosbul," p. 312).
Hillel's motive was apparently quite practical. And yet the Bible clearly states: "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD (Eternal) against thee, and it be sin unto thee" (Deut. 15:9). Rather, God says: "Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when you givest unto him: because that for this thing the Eternal thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto" (verse 10).
It was because of rules like the Prosbul that Christ told the Pharisees, "Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (Matt. 15:6). Hillel saw that the poor were unable to obtain needed loans and was trying to remedy the situation, but he was not doing it God's way! God says: "Trust in the Eternal with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" (Prov. 3:5).
There were many such instances where the Pharisees enacted many new laws, based solely on their own human reasoning in an attempt to make what they thought would be a better way of life. Yet God tells us: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 14:12; 16:25).
Cause and Effect
The Pharisees' error was a classic one. Seeing wrong situations, but relying solely on themselves, they attempted to treat the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE. Notice the case of Hillel's Prosbul. God plainly tells us that the CAUSE of the problem was in the HEARTS of the people (Deut. 15:9). Today too many see the problems besetting mankind. Governments have their solutions and the revolutionary activists have theirs. But all attempt to treat ONLY THE EFFECTS of the problems. None gets at THE REAL CAUSE -- which is to
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 15 of 16
28 January 2009
be found for the most part in carnal human nature with its greed and pride. [The REAL CAUSE of the world’s problems is Talmudic Judaism. If you have not yet figured this out, you are either brain dead or stupid. – Eli]
Today, God is treating the cause of man's ills in some individuals. He is presently changing the hearts of a few. "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them an heart of flesh" (Ezek. 11.19).
God's Law as revealed throughout all of Scripture is indicative of God's CHARACTER. It is a giving, serving, sharing, concern for the other person as well as the self, and can be summed up by the word LOVE -- love first of all toward God and then towards fellowman. God's Law shows us exactly how He would live if He were a human being. And this is precisely what Jesus did when He emptied Himself of His divinity and took on human flesh -- He never once broke a single law of God. The rise of Pharisaism in the period between the Testaments represented an attempt on the part of these people to keep the Law. [No! This is making excuses for the Pharisees.
The Pharisees KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING! Jesus Christ tells us this explicitly!! (Matt. 23; John 8:39-44; John 10) – Eli] But they lacked a clear understanding of their own human nature as revealed in the Scriptures. [This is a nauseating example of pretending that the rabbis are well-intentioned! Even so, we all know what the road to hell is paved with! – Eli] Notice God's deeply felt near-lament in Deuteronomy 5:29: "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever"!
But "such an heart" was not in them at that time. They had only the human nature that we all naturally possess -- the heart that is "... deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9.) Joshua told his generation, "... Ye cannot serve the Lord nor is it in ours.
But man was not left without hope. There was a promise of better things to come. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live" (Deut. 30:6).
The Pharisees as well as the other sects of the period wanted to serve God and keep His commandments. [Rubbish!] They had, as the Apostle Paul (who well knew) put it, "... a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). [Paul was NOT speaking of the Pharisees in this passage. He was speaking TO his brethren, the Israelites! Read it for yourself! - Eli] Not aware of the necessity for a change in their own human nature, they found it necessary to change God's Law. Not that this was done outwardly, but rather by forced interpretations, rationalizations, attempted codifications of laws that are all-encompassing, and new laws that were not admitted always to be new. By changing the Law, they made it of "none effect." That is, it did not have the effect that God's laws should have on those who keep them. Inasmuch as the Pharisees did keep SOME of the laws correctly SOME of the time, it did have SOME good effects. But the overall results that come by living in total harmony with the laws the Creator set in motion simply were lacking. Pharisaic society did not abound with the love of God. You could never convince the Sadducees (with whom they often disputed) that it was otherwise. Nor could you convince the Romans. Nor could you convince the unlearned Jews [sic] of that day, whom many of the Pharisees thumbed their noses at with the epithet "am-ha-aretz" ("people of the land" -- the term is used in a derogatory sense throughout the Pharisaic writings). Pharisaic society was filled with strife. When Alexander Jannaeus, one of the Maccabean kings, ruled, the Pharisees were virtually at WAR with him and there was much bloodshed.
The Talmud [Well! They finally mentioned the Talmud! How about that? Can we have some examples of Pharisaic teaching, so we can know just how evil it is? – Eli] itself is a record of the Pharisees striving among themselves, one with another in religious DEBATES, each one trying to convince the others of the correctness of HIS particular idea, rather than all working harmoniously to seek GOD'S will. [The Talmud is also a record of rabbinical DEFIANCE OF GOD’S LAW! - Eli] Today, professing Christianity is treading down the same well-worn path the Pharisees mistakingly took. Where is the sect that has not attempted to read its own ideas into the Bible which it professes to obey? And where is the denomination that is truly bearing the fruits of God's Spirit -- love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance? Indeed which one even knows what true love is? [It is quite certain that neither the Jews nor the Judeo-Christians have any idea what love is, for, in order to be loving, you have to be willing to tell the TRUTH! – Eli]
Don't YOU follow the crowd. DON'T be led down the garden path into religious deception by any who would warp, distort and twist the scripture to their own destruction. As you peruse the pages of your TOMORROW'S WORLD magazine, we encourage you to search the scriptures daily WHETHER THESE THINGS BE SO (Acts 17:11). But by the same token we also ask that you apply the same criterion to all who claim to represent God! Remember, "... if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them"
Global-Judaic origins-Between Testaments.dochttp://groups.google.com/group/globalsov Page 16 of 16
28 January 2009
(Isa. 8:20). As you continue to prayerfully study your Bible and this magazine of Biblical understanding, you will find new vistas of truth continually opening before your very eyes!
[Final comments: It is evident that these two authors have written this article in order to demonstrate that there is a woeful lack of knowledge about the Intertestamental Period. That their own knowledge of this period is woefully lacking is also evident. Although having demonstrated a willingness to broach the subject, they fall into apologetics about Judaism. Essentially, their analysis is that the Pharisees were well-intentioned stumblebums, the theological equivalent of the Keystone Cops. GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK!! - Pastor Eli James]
Also here without Pastor’s comments: http://www.soyawannamove.com/rcg/fundamentals/betweentestaments.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)