Henry Makow?

[SPECTEC]

good stuff...good stuff...thanks fellas...

FYI...I just posted on the books section...found this dude by the name of Juri Lina...don't know anyone has heard of him...please check it out if you can

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

good stuff...good stuff...thanks fellas...

FYI...I just posted on the books section...found this dude by the name of Juri Lina...don't know anyone has heard of him...please check it out if you can

I have one of Lina's books. Under the Sign of the Scorpion. Other than some very anti-Christian overtones, it is a good book. Very thorough.

[thirdeyewise]

maybe this movement morphed into something else the majority did not approve off but still consider them bretheren...maybe that's how they got this far in world domination...through solidairty of all walks of Jews...Organized World Jewry.

Jews are an ancient brotherhood of thieves that have a hive like mentality, working towards the betterment of the hive as a whole. They know that regardless of their differences in the end they have to have each others back. This hive mentality is the reason they have an advantage over the divided cattle.
 


That is why the bee hive is a prominent symbol within masonry:


The state of Utah which was founded by a mason (and probably a Jew) is steeped in bee hive symbolism.

Doing the masonic "M" gesture




They actually make reference to it in quite a few movies:



They even have on clothing that resembles Rabbi attire

[youtube:224u4yh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__wPDXazRpQ[/youtube]224u4yh0]
SEE ABOVE LINK @8:50 they even try to simulate the noise of a hive by shattering their teeth



The show "Star Trek" is basically a tribute to them. In it the hive mentality is represented as the Borg Collective. The character 7 of 9 is basically a self hating Jew who betrays the hive. I can almost guarantee there are many Jewish star trek fans; they know the show is about them.



In the movie "They Live", they show this bee hive mentality when their identity is discovered:
[youtube:224u4yh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBY6pF42I-c[/youtube]224u4yh0]
@0:40 you can see the hive mentality at work


This movie is one of the reasons I mentioned the Aryan with the Jewish souls. The aliens were indistinguishable from the rest of the population. Jews like this would be the perfect infiltrators.



Cut off the side locks on these kids and they would be the perfect infiltrators. People would be saying "What beautiful Aryan babies!"


"Give me the child until he is seven and i will give you the man" - Jesuit saying

[SPECTEC]

WOW! Thanks 3rdeye...mindblowing

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

viewtopic.php?p=44846

[thirdeyewise]

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=44846

See that is what Monkey see did not understand (or maybe he did) about finding out who is who. One dot connects the other.


Since I'm on a roll with the movie comparisons; one more.

In this movie:


This would be them:





BIG QUESTION:

Why was someone trying to alter my post while I was still editing it. I received this message:

[thirdeyewise]

I forgot the main movie I can use for comparison:


The movie "The Matrix" was also about this Jewish interconnected web of control.

"Non-Jews were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel," ........"This is his servant...That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."......"why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap; and we will sit like an effendi (master) and eat."........ "That is why gentiles were created."
Israeli (former chief) Rabbi Ovadia Yosef 10/18/2010 (radio speech in Israel as reported by The Jerusalem Post)

"The Matrix", this is the system the Jewish Wachowski brothers were alluding to; you are the battery the rabbi is talking about!  




The dark dressed agents are the ones that can assume any identity.



The God of the matrix looks like the God of the Jews.

Rothschild: king of the Jews (chief among thieves)


I point to all this out to say, be watchful for people pushing Jewish agendas, i.e.: positive Fascism

Or another perfect example:

Be careful of self hating White men!


Who even admits he is Jewish!

The other movie "V for vendetta" by the same Jewish brothers is about the coming dictatorship.

[thirdeyewise]

@ 3:05 Habirus/Hyksos are mentioned
[youtube:27sjdrqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8kTa9UkpXo[/youtube]27sjdrqf]

Habiru/Hyksos explained
[youtube:27sjdrqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr1ZvCTmhb8[/youtube]27sjdrqf]


Eustace Mullins explains who are the Jews
[youtube:27sjdrqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIv_N_CeC60[/youtube]27sjdrqf]

"The origin of the Jews is revealed by the origin of their tribal name. The word "Jew" was unknown in ancient history. The Jews were then known as Hebrews, and the word Hebrew tells us all about this people that we need to know....Hebrew means "one who is from across the river." Rivers were often the boundaries of ancient nations, and one from across the river meant, simply, an alien. In every country of the ancient world, the Hebrews were known as aliens. The word also, in popular usage, meant "one who should not be trusted until he has identified himself." Hebrew in all ancient literature was written as "Habiru". This word appears frequently in the Bible and in Egyptian literature. In the Bible, Habiru is used interchangeably with "sagaz", meaning "cutthroat". In all of Egyptian literature, wherever the word Habiru appears, it is written with the word "sagaz" written beside it. Thus the Egyptians always wrote of the Jews as "the cutthroat bandits from across the river". For five thousand years, the Egyptian scribes identified the Jews in this manner. Significantly, they are not referred to except by these two characters. "          - Eustace Mullins, New History of the Jews, Pg. 19

The Jew in this article mentions that the city of  Shechem is mentioned in both Egyptian steles & Jewish history as having some importance to both people. The Habiru are also mentioned in the Amarna letters from Egypt

From Habiru to Hebrews: The Roots of the Jewish Tradition
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/48464/sec_id/48464
http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

In this article the Jewish author explains proudly why he named his school Habirus:

It came from the Hebrew name "HAVER" which means "comrade". The Habirus tribes were people who lived in second millennium B.C and were nomads known as very intelligent and elevated people. They never owned land and would travel in the ancient world between Mesopotamia and Egypt.
The Habirus tribes never accepted the laws and rules of the place in which they came to settle. They had their own laws which determined their existence. All their brotherhood was centered on their values of life delivered for generations from ADAM THE GREAT MASTER. Their king was Malchizedek who sat in Jerusalem long before Abraham the first Jew came to the land of Israel. Their meeting is mentioned in the Bible.

http://habirusschool.org/?page_id=14


[youtube:27sjdrqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6EnooTQL4[/youtube]27sjdrqf]


[youtube:27sjdrqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkDUjss9ZXw[/youtube]27sjdrqf]

Zahi Hawass on Jewish cohesiveness
[youtube:27sjdrqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h71xCCyTJGY[/youtube]27sjdrqf]


Why haven't you heard any of this:

Never trust an honest mason

[SPECTEC]

I'm new to the Jewish question...I was chasing ghosts for years...I was an Alex Jones seal...my first day of active duty was September 11, 2001...mt sponsor picked me up from a train station hours before planes hit...when I woke up at the base I was going to be staying at, planes already hit...funny thing was we were in threat com delta exercises...war games...before the attacks...same game play used on 7/7/07...when I got out the service I started doin homework unfortunately I got caught by prison planet and disinfo wars...ive been researching the Jewish question fir about 4 months now.

[asianlion7]

Now I ask you: why would people who confess Jesus to be the Lord, be satan/fish worshipers? And why would somebody claim that Jesus is a Jew, the people whose only central tenets of faith is to deny Jesus and proclaim their own false holocaust; the very people that are Revelations refers to as the synagogue of Satan?  

That doesn't make any sense.

YOUR ANSWER

Fritz Springmeier on T4Iam

[googlevid:1cdiqa91]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1058372349704594335[/googlevid:1cdiqa91]

BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION



[youtube:1cdiqa91]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpWA4Ilak4s[/youtube]1cdiqa91]

http://thetruthandlight.wordpress.com/2 ... -pt-1of-5/

[SPECTEC]

@asianlion...I think you may be on the wrong website...hokem is frowned opon here.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I'm new to the Jewish question...I was chasing ghosts for years...I was an Alex Jones seal...my first day of active duty was September 11, 2001...mt sponsor picked me up from a train station hours before planes hit...when I woke up at the base I was going to be staying at, planes already hit...funny thing was we were in threat com delta exercises...war games...before the attacks...same game play used on 7/7/07...when I got out the service I started doin homework unfortunately I got caught by prison planet and disinfo wars...ive been researching the Jewish question fir about 4 months now.

You are in good company. Many of us were into Alex Jones at one point.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Now I ask you: why would people who confess Jesus to be the Lord, be satan/fish worshipers? And why would somebody claim that Jesus is a Jew, the people whose only central tenets of faith is to deny Jesus and proclaim their own false holocaust; the very people that are Revelations refers to as the synagogue of Satan?  

That doesn't make any sense.

YOUR ANSWER

Fritz Springmeier on T4Iam

[googlevid:1my6smv9]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1058372349704594335[/googlevid:1my6smv9]

BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION



[youtube:1my6smv9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpWA4Ilak4s[/youtube]1my6smv9]

http://thetruthandlight.wordpress.com/2 ... -pt-1of-5/

That doesn't answer the question actually. In no place in the Bible is Jesus ever called a Jew. He is called a Judean and of the tribe of Judah. Today's Jews may have a superficial bloodline to Judeans and those of the tribe of Judah, but they can in no wise be called Judeans or Judahites themselves. They are the synagogue of Satan as Jesus called them.

[SPECTEC]

To be honest, I'm glad I found this outlet...it's really hard trying to talk to anyone about this...most people just stop with the Palestians in the Gaza...that's it...most have never even heard of the term "Zionism"...and when I do try to explain what it is people kinda get it...it gets interesting when I talk about Judeo Masonry...that's when people give me "that look" ...like I'm drinking the cool aid...my co-workers are college graduates who subscribe to the false left right paradigm...I over hear them talk about Obama, universal healthcare, The GOP, Fox News, Wall Street, Islamic terrorists...they really have no idea...

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

To be honest, I'm glad I found this outlet...it's really hard trying to talk to anyone about this...most people just stop with the Palestians in the Gaza...that's it...most have never even heard of the term "Zionism"...and when I do try to explain what it is people kinda get it...it gets interesting when I talk about Judeo Masonry...that's when people give me "that look" ...like I'm drinking the cool aid...my co-workers are college graduates who subscribe to the false left right paradigm...I over hear them talk about Obama, universal healthcare, The GOP, Fox News, Wall Street, Islamic terrorists...they really have no idea...

It's generally a lonely world where you often are forced to lead a double life of some sort. But it is a life of truth and that's what matters.

[thirdeyewise]

BIG QUESTION:

Why was someone trying to alter my post while I was still editing it. I received this message:

I'm still waiting on an answer. Who was trying to alter my post while I was still editing it and why?

[SPECTEC]

very good question...

[pas]

@asianlion...I think you may be on the wrong website...hokem is frowned opon here.

With all due respect sir, we don't have to agree on everything.
Asianlion is only expressing his view point, wich i think is not that far fetched.

I do disagree with the statement that Christ was a jew, simply because of ,whether he existed or not, his actions and behavior.
Very Unjewish.

What is funny is that Christians call Christ a jew.

[GordZilla]

@asianlion...I think you may be on the wrong website...hokem is frowned opon here.

With all due respect sir, we don't have to agree on everything.
Asianlion is only expressing his view point, wich i think is not that far fetched.

I do disagree with the statement that Christ was a jew, simply because of ,whether he existed or not, his actions and behavior.
Very Unjewish.

What is funny is that Christians call Christ a jew.

Not all Christians  

[Panoptimist]

What is funny is that Christians call Christ a jew.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[asianlion7]

What is funny is that Christians call Christ a jew.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

ok Yeshua was not an Ashkenazi Jew but from the Sephardic kind of Judean if you want me to be more articulate.  Happy now?

[SPECTEC]

Hmm...@asianlion...are you saying he was a Spanish Jew?

[Panoptimist]

SPECTEC, maybe his eyes don't open wide enough to see truth.

Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar.
From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59

"Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon."

"This 'big lie' technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was "King of the Jews", in the sense that so-called 'Jews' today call themselves 'Jews'. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews highjacked the word 'Jew' in the 18th century A.D. to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called 'Jews' of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable."

"American Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their curricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called "Jews" of historic Khazar ancestry. Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges.

"The historic existence of the Khazar kingdom of so-called "Jews", their rise and fall, the permanent disappearance of the Khazar kingdom as a nation from the map of Europe, and how King Bulan and the Khazar nation in about 740 A.D. became so-called "Jews" by conversion, were concealed from American Christians by censorship imposed by so-called "Jews", of historic Khazar ancestry, upon all U.S.A. media of mass communications directed by them. Then in 1945 this author gave nation-wide publicity to his many years intensive research into the "facts of life" concerning Khazars. The disclosures were sensational and very effective but apparently angered so-called "Jews" who have continued to vent their spleen upon this author since then solely for that reason. Since 1946 they have conducted a vicious smear campaign against him, seeking thus to further conceal these facts, for obvious reasons. What have they to fear from the truth?

"In an original 1903 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia in New York's Public Library, and in the Library of Congress, Volume IV, pages 1 to 5 inclusive, appears a most comprehensive history of the Khazars. Also in the New York Public Library are 327 books by the world's greatest historians and other sources of reference, in addition to the Jewish Encyclopedia, dealing with Khazar history, and written between the 3rd A.D. and 20th centuries by contemporaries of the Khazars and by modern historians on that subject."

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

JESUS WAS NOT A Jew

by Jason Collett

Many denominational Christians and even church leaders are under the mistaken belief that Jesus was a Jew. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Judea and Galilee were two separate states and political entities, as illustrated on the map of Palestine in the time of our Saviour in your Bible. Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean) or resident of Judea, He was a Galilean or resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41), and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah. The Judeans of prominence were not of the Tribe of Judah, but of Edomites. Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, "the Galilean who was King of the Judeans," as in "Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India." Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee. And although He visited Jerusalem, he spent most of His life in his home country of Galilee. John 7:1, "After this Jesus stayed in Galilee; for He could not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him." His followers were constrained "for fear of the Jews" (John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19).

Why was this?

Psalm 83:3 says God's elect are "hidden" or protected ones, and that they are under attack from a coalition of evil groups led by Edom. Who was Edom?

Esau, the brother of the patriarch Jacob, became the ancestor of the people called Edom, or Idumea. The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, XIII ix 1; XV vii 9 instructs us: John Hyrcanus forcibly assimilated the Edomites as a national group and they became "Jews" in about 120BC. The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived just after the time of Christ, wrote, "They [Edom] were hereafter no other than Jews'. The Jewish scholar Cecil Roth in his Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980) says on page 154, "John Hyrcanus forcibly converted [Edom] to Judaism. From then on they were part of the Jewish people. In the Talmud the name of Edom was applied to Christian Rome, and was then used for Christianity in general".

Terrible judgements against Edom are made in most of the prophecies of the Old Testament. For instance, Isaiah 34, 63, Jeremiah 49, and the entire book of Obadiah.

Isaiah 63:1-6, "Who is this coming from Edom . . . in garments stained with crimson? It is I [the Lord] who speak in righteousness and am mighty to save."

"Why are your garments red, as if you had trodden the winepress?"

"I have trodden the winepress alone: and of the people there was none to help Me. In My anger I trod them down, trampled them in My wrath. Their blood splattered My garments, and all My clothes are stained. For the day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redeemed has come. . . I will tread down the people in My anger, and bring their blood upon the ground".

These verses refer to Revelations chapter 19:11-21, when the Word of God destroys His enemies: "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse: and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True. . . His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, and He had a Name written that no man knew but Himself. And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His Name is called The Word of God. . . and He trod the winepress of God's fierce anger".

Jehovah of the Old Testament "hated Esau (Edom), against whom He has indignation forever"  (Malachi 1:2-4). If Jesus will destroy Edom when He returns, then Edom is present today, and obviously evil, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic.

The Edomite, Antipater, became the Procurator of Judea in 47BC. Ten years later his son Herod actually became "king of the Jews," initiating the Edomite dynasty which ruled Palestine under Roman authority for over a hundred years. The Edomite assimilation opened the way for the virtual takeover along the lines predicted by Ezekiel and stimulus for an influx of population from the arid country of Edom into the more hospitable environment of Judea, an influx obviously encouraged for political reasons by the ruling Herodian dynasty. Edomites would have been appointed to the most influential positions, in order to extend and consolidate Edomite authority over the land and its people. Herod became notorious for his massacre of infant boys two years old and undger," a supernaturally inspired attempt on the life of Christ (Matthew 2:16). Herod's son Herod Antipas, continuing the work, and was responsible for the gruesome murder of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:6-12).

Christ demonstrated a very real antipathy towards the people called Jews, in Bibles published after about 1776, but who would be more accurately described as Judeans, or residents of the Edomite-dominated territory of Judea. Jesus said to the Jews "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:24-27). "I was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). In fact, Christ referred to "those Jews (or residents of Judea regardless of religion, race or color) who believed on him," as "of their father the devil" for although they were children of Abraham, they were not children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and heirs of the blessing of Abraham, nor did they have the faith of Abraham, and were in all probability descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Esau (John 8: 31,44). In contrast, Jesus instructed His disciples - who were from Galilee of the Gentiles, not Judea (Acts 1:11; 2:7) - to pray to And in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, Jesus speaks of "those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan".

The Jews shouted "Crucify Him!" (John 19:15); "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). In an appropriate turn about, when Jesus returns, their blood will stain His own garments. The spiritual leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees, who not surprisingly were associated with the (Edomite) Herodians (Matthew 22:15-16; Mark 3:6; 12:13). Jesus repeatedly condemned the Pharisees as "hypocrites" (Matthew 15:7; 22:18; 23:13,15,23,25,27-27). He also called them "serpents, the offspring of vipers" (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33).

"Jesus spoke to the crowds only in parables" (Matthew 13:10-17). Why was this? Many nominal churches and Sunday schools teach that Jesus used parables to make His teachings clearer. But all four Gospels say the opposite. When Jesus was asked why He spoke to them in parables, He replied "Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:10-11; Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:9-10; John 12:37-44). Brother Branham simply said, Jesus spoke in parables to thin down the crowds.

Jesus told "those Jews who believed in Him . . . You are of your father the devil, and lust for what is forbidden. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him . . . as he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:31-44). This characteristic is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the verb jew .

But do Jews ever come up with such brazenly audacious lies, lies so enormous in scope and implication as to qualify as "chutzpah," so admired by Jews?

Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York says:

"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim' state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified" (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (2000) published by Verso, p. 3).

In other words, Finkelstein exposes the HYPOCRISY.

Some further quotes:

"In an authoritative study, Leonard Dinnerstein reported: Sixty thousand Jews . . . walked out of the concentration camps. Within a week more than 20,000 of them had died." But 'As it entered into negotiations with Germany [just two years ago, in 1999], the Holocaust industry demanded compensation for 135,000 still living former (camp inmates).'

On page 83 he notes that 'The Israeli Prime Minister's office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million.' Finkelstein exposes the LIES.

On page 127 he further notes 'If 135,000 former Jewish slave laborers are still alive today, some 600,000 must have survived the war. That's at least a half-million more than standard estimates. . . If Jews only constituted 20% of the surviving camp population and, as the Holocaust industry implies, 600,000 Jewish inmates survived the war, then fully 3 million inmates in total must have survived. By the Holocaust industry's reckoning, concentration camp conditions couldn't have been that harsh at all; in fact, one must suppose a remarkably high fertility and remarkably low mortality rate. . . If, as the Holocaust industry suggests, many hundreds of thousands of Jews survived, the Final Solution couldn't have been so efficient after all – exactly what Holocaust deniers argue" (pp. 127-8).

"Both my father and my mother were survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps. . . One of my father's lifelong friends was a former inmate with him in Auschwitz, a seemingly incorruptible left-wing idealist who on principle refused German compensation after the war. Eventually he became a director of the Israeli Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem. Reluctantly and with genuine disappointment, my father finally admitted that even this man had been corrupted by the Holocaust industry, tailoring his beliefs for power and profit. As the rendering of the Holocaust assumed ever more absurd forms, my mother liked to quote (with intentional irony) Henry Ford: "History is bunk." (ibid. p. 7).

"The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel" (ibid p. 30).

"Much of the literature on Hitler's Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." (p. 55).

"Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics". (p. 68).

"Annual Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust are a national event. All 50 states sponsor commemorations, often in state legislative chambers. . . Seven major Holocaust museums dot the American landscape. The centerpiece of this memorialization is the United States Holocaust museum in Washington. . . [This] museum's annual budget is $50 million, of which $30 million is federally subsidized." (p. 72). (This is in spite of the fact that, as he points out on page 32, per capita Jewish income in the US is almost double that of non-Jews).

"With a reelection campaign looming, Jimmy Carter initiated the [US Holocaust Museum] project to placate Jewish contributors and voters, galled by the president's recognition of the "legitimate rights" of Palestinians.' (p. 73).

Finkelstein exposes the SWINDLE, a word formerly most often associated with Jews.

"The Holocaust" is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary, but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests." (p. 3). And:

"The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the "greatest robbery in the history of mankind". . . The Holocaust industry has clearly gone berserk." (p. 138-9).

Is this evaluation fair?

Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel's Five Chimneys: a woman survivor's true story of Auschwitz (Granada/Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).

The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: "Passionate, tormenting". Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering "You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten (sic) speak."

Lengyel says:

"After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies. . . Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry." (Paperback edition, pp. 80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in 'death pits' has been found.]

This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).

Could this claim be a misprint?

Kitty Hart, in spite of her name, a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:

"Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period." (p. 118; Return to Auschwitz - paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).

According to the cover blurb, "The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name." "Both engaging and harrowing . . . an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive" – Martin Gilbert, The Times.

Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the 'Holocaust' and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:

In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states:

"The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe's Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka." (p. 26).

If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say one million over a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert's blessing.

A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground penetrating radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there.

For six days in October 1999, an Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland, where, Holocaust historians say, more than half a million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in mass graves.

According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1997), for example, "a total of 870,000 people" were killed and buried at Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943. Then, between April and July 1943, the hundreds of thousands of corpses were allegedly dug up and burned in batches of 2,000 or 2,500 on large grids made of railway ties.

Krege's team used an $80,000 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) device, which sends out vertical radar signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR detects any large-scale disturbances in the soil structure to a normal effective depth of four or five meters, and sometimes up to ten meters. (GPR devices are routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists, and police.) In its Treblinka investigation, Krege's team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples.

The team carefully examined the entire Treblinka II site, especially the alleged "mass graves" portion, and carried out control examinations of the surrounding area. They found no soil disturbance consistent with the burial of hundreds of thousands of bodies, or even evidence that the ground had ever been disturbed. In addition, Krege and his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes.

"From these scans we could clearly identify the largely undisturbed horizontal stratigraphic layering, better known as horizons, of the soil under the camp site," says the 30-year old Krege, who lives in Canberra. "We know from scans of grave sites, and other sites with known soil disturbances, such as quarries, when this natural layering is massively disrupted or missing altogether." Because normal geological processes are very slow acting, disruption of the soil structure would have been detectable even after 60 years, Krege noted.

While his initial investigation suggests that there were never any mass graves at the Treblinka camp site, Krege believes that further work is still called for.

"Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp's use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed," he says. "Personally, I don't think there was a mass extermination camp there at all."

Krege prepared a detailed report on his Treblinka investigation. He says that he would welcome the formation, possibly under United Nations auspices, of an international team of neutral, qualified specialists, to carry out similar investigations at the sites of all the wartime German camps.

(Sources: "'Vernichtungslager' Treblinka: archaelogisch betrachtet," by Ing. Richard Krege, in Vierteljarhreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, June 2000 [4. Jg., Heft 1], pp. 62-64; "'No Jewish mass grave' in Poland," The Canberra Times, January 24, 2000, p. 6; "Poland's Jews 'not buried at Treblinka'," The Examiner [Australia], Jan. 24, 2000. Information provided by Richard Krege; M. Weber and A. Allen, "Treblinka," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp. 133-158; Y. Arad, "Treblinka," in I. Gutman, ed., Encyclopedia of the Holocaust [New York: 1997], pp. 1481-1488.)

Who was the First Jew?
John Standring

We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called Jew. Nor were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a Jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called Jew. In fact you will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drave the Jews from Elath. Isn't it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the Bible before we find a Jew anywhere, yet those who call themselves Jew today claim the first five books of the bible and call it their Torah. Do you not find it rather strange that those who claim to have written the first five books of the Bible and call themselves Jew, can't find the word Jew written anywhere in the book they call their own bible, and claim to have written? Jesus Christ tells John in Revelation 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN". We know that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, and that He changed the name of Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28, but nowhere in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of Israel to Jew! There is therefore no authority by which those who say they are Jews can claim to be Israel!

By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible, 1611, translated Idumaean-Judean into Iewes. It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel.

http://www.jesuswasnotajew.com

[SPECTEC]

Good stuff...thanks for posting.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Now I ask you: why would people who confess Jesus to be the Lord, be satan/fish worshipers? And why would somebody claim that Jesus is a Jew, the people whose only central tenets of faith is to deny Jesus and proclaim their own false holocaust; the very people that are Revelations refers to as the synagogue of Satan?  

That doesn't make any sense.

YOUR ANSWER

Fritz Springmeier on T4Iam

[A VIDEO WHICH PURPORTS TO EXPLAIN WHY 1 BILLION CATHOLICS THINK THEY ARE WORSHIPING JESUS CHRIST, BUT IN FACT ARE WORSHIPING A FISH.  I DID NOT WATCH THIS, BUT I HAVE SEEN THE INCREDIBLE MR. LIMPET, OR AS CATHOLICS LIKE TO CALL IT: THE INCREDIBLE GOD.]

BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION


(I.E. THE POPE HAS A FUNNY HAT; THESE ANCIENT GUYS HAD A SIMILAR, FUNNY HAT; THEREFORE A BILLION CATHOLICS WORSHIP A FISH AND DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.

GEE, IF SOMEONE COULD JUST SOMEHOW KNOCK THAT FUNNY HAT OFF THE POPE'S HEAD, AND THEN PUT ON A DECENT HAT, THEN ALL THE MAGIC FISH WORSHIP SPELLS WOULD BE BROKEN. ALAS.)  


[VIDEO OF A FAT MEXICAN PREACHER, A FORMER SATAN WORSHIPER WHO DROPS MORE NAMES THAN DOMINICK DUNNE AT AN OSCAR COCKTAIL PARTY, CONDEMNING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH]

asianlion's logic and video selection overwhelms me.

[Panoptimist]

The Kingdom That Cannot be Shaken
by T. Austin-Sparks

Chapter 2 - Sonship, Outside the Camp of Traditional and Earthly Religion

Reading: Hebrews 12:26-29.

We come back to this letter to the Hebrews, and we can narrow the whole thing down to it. In the first place, is there not some peculiar and wonderful significance about the preservation of this letter in particular? You see, it was written for a special occasion, and that occasion was one historically very near to the time of its writing. If, as many believe, its date was between 66 and 70, then it was very near in time to the actual carrying out or fulfilment of the thing for which it was written; that is, it was written because Jerusalem and Judaism in the order in which it then existed was about to be shattered to pieces and scattered to the ends of the earth, it was preparation for that, and that took place in 70. So the letter, written so near to the occasion, fulfilled its purpose within a very short time.

Why, then, should it last out till now? Why should it occupy the place that it occupies now in the preserved and protected writings of the New Testament? Some have been lost, we know. Why did not the Lord let this be lost, seeing that it had fulfilled its purpose? I venture to say that this letter is living now. It is not a letter that has no life in it, as though it had served its purpose and could now be put aside. It is a tremendous letter as a spiritual document today. What does it mean? Why was it written? Certain Jews had turned to Christ, and in turning to Christ had turned to the fulfilment of all their Jewish patterns, all their Jewish types and figures and shadows, passed from the substance to the reality. Then ardent Jews came along and sought to make it very hard for them. It meant ostracism, boycott, persecution, and much suffering; and a great effort was launched to Judaise Christianity, that is, to link Christianity on with Judaism and preserve, maintain, perpetuate all the Jewish orders in connection with Christianity.

The letter, as you see, was written against such a movement, and to strengthen those believers in the faith, and it set forth the fact in a very comprehensive way that Jesus fulfilled, embodied, transcended all the spiritual values of the Jewish foreshadowing and types, and put them aside, and that henceforth for the Lord's people it was not a matter of a tabernacle or a temple, an altar and its sacrifices, a priesthood in rota and all that outward order of things, but it was all in Christ in heaven, of spiritual value.

That was the content of the letter in brief. Its object was immediate. How far it achieved its object we do not know. It is possible that some of those believers went back in spite of the repeated warnings, and perished with Jerusalem and Judaism. It is probable that many of them were saved by this letter, so that when Jerusalem, the temple and the Jewish system was shaken, as the Word says, and ceased to remain, their link was with heaven, with a living, risen, exalted Christ, and it meant nothing to them of loss that all that did go. The immediate purpose was accomplished. Why maintain the letter? Why keep it alive? Why preserve it? That is the question we have to answer, and the answer is that the letter does not merely deal with an historic instance. It deals with an abiding tendency. It is something which is always the peril of God's people, whether they be Jews or Christians. The value of this letter today is that it is a letter no longer to Jewry, no longer to Israel but to the Christian church, and that is why it lives, because God knows that that tendency is a persistent one in the direction to which these Hebrew believers were being tempted, and in the direction to which they were almost being driven. So that something very concrete arises. It is this: that Christianity can become exactly what Judaism became, and God is against that. And it brings us back to the central point of our earlier meditation. It is one of the master-strokes of Satan against the Lord Jesus, and the principle result of his work is tradition. By that I mean the making of things into a system run by man. Now that covers a lot of ground, a lot of history. Christianity has become a repetition of Judaism. Organised Christianity today is what Judaism was when this letter was written: an historic thing, a systematised thing, a whole system of beliefs, truths, doctrines, activities, movements, which are very largely but an imitation of something.

We come to the New Testament. As to the things taught in the New Testament, we say these are the New Testament doctrines and we are called upon to subscribe to these doctrines. Now we are not going to attempt to cover the ground of what the New Testament doctrine was. Fundamentalism as such draws a circle around New Testament doctrines, but then there are a good many that go beyond that. Then we come to the New Testament and we see not only doctrines but practices, and we say, This is the practice of the New Testament. Then we come again, and we see the activities, what we may call the work which was carried on or carried out in New Testament times by the apostles, by the church. And then we come again and we see what the church was in New Testament times. We have a presentation of the church as it is here on the earth.

Now those four things since New Testament times have been taken up as a system and imitated: that is, there has been the forming of the doctrine into the creed, the Christian creed, and it is accepted, and we say, I believe in so-and-so! Why do you believe in it? Because it is in the New Testament. Well, that may be quite good so far, but you proceed beyond that. This was the practice of the church in New Testament times: therefore we can do likewise. This is how the church was organised (I am doubtful about that word, but we will use it for the moment) in New Testament times. This is how the church came into being, and how it was ordered and arranged in New Testament times, therefore we do the same. We have our churches on that basis, we imitate. And then as to the work, whatever it might be, evangelism and all the other activities on the side of the work of Christianity as a movement, we see this is what happened, we do the same, we imitate. And so for centuries the thing has become a system like that, of imitation, and that is what I mean by tradition.

That can just be Judaism repeated in Christendom. That is what Judaism was. Remember that Judaism came from God out of heaven at one time; it came by revelation, and it came in power, and it was accompanied, as this letter points out, with the voice of a trump, with fire and smoke, shaking and earthquake. It came with the accompaniments of God Himself, all terrible, a consuming fire: and yet it became that, a thing which had to be overthrown, for the overthrow of which God had to shake the earth. It became the thing which was the occasion of the chief conflicts of apostolic times. Paul's battles were on the field of Judaism. Yes, a thing which originally came from God, now one of God's main difficulties, doing more harm than it is worth, set aside, repudiated. You have only got to look at Jewry today and see how much respect God has for Judaism as such. Well, Christianity came from God, out of heaven, and this letter says that Judaism came through man but this faith came from the Son of God Himself. That is the comparison. He that spoke then on the earth, Moses; how much more in the case of Him that speaks from heaven. "God, who in time past spake unto the fathers in the prophets... hath at the end of the times spoken unto us in his Son..."; yet the peril and possibility and tendency is exactly the same in both cases, the end can be similar, and God will yet shake Christendom to its foundations, that it shall be shattered as He has done with Judaism. That is the testimony here. Yes, all our creeds, all our imitation of the New Testament. God never meant anything of His in this dispensation to be an imitation. He meant it to be the real thing. The difference between the real thing and the traditional is between life and death. Tradition is in one realm and life is in another. It depends entirely upon whether it is earthly or heavenly.

I am impressed with that phrase, "...as of things which are made..."; that is, things shaken, passing. "Things which are made"; imitations are always made. The original is never made: that comes out from God Himself. What then is the truth? What is it that God is after? Well, you turn to the beginning of this letter and it all becomes very clear at the outset. "God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us Son-wise." It is not just what Jesus said: it is what Jesus is. The revelation is not of something, it is a Son-revelation, and if you pursue this thought — and you will have to seek to follow closely — into this letter a little further, you will find that this word "Son" is a term, not only a personal designation. It belongs to Him in a unique way, in a specific and peculiar way, in a way which has that in it which is not shared by any other, and yet there is that in it which is an imparted thing, and God speaks first of all Son-wise in the absoluteness and finality of His Son.

Then it is not long before you find yourself being engaged with a secondary thought; that Son's relatedness to the race, and bringing out of the race sons, and bringing them to glory, so that a family issues, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partners in a heavenly calling..."; "...bringing many sons to glory..."; "...he is not ashamed to call them brethren...". And then you move on from what lies between, and you come to chapter 12: "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord... whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." We gave to the fathers of our flesh reverence: how much more unto the Father of our spirits. There you have got to the heart of things. What is the essence of living Christianity? What is the thing that God is after, which will be established, which will be eternal, which will satisfy His heart, which will fulfil all His intention, and which will be the very occasion of His shaking the heavens and the earth to get rid of all else? It is Sonship.

It is in Sonship that we have all that God means, and so here you see it is a matter of living union with the living Son of God as raised from the dead and exalted to God's right hand: for that is what this chapter says. "Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" Turn to the book of the Acts, chapter 13 and verse 33: "He raised up Jesus, as it is written, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Now He was the Son of God from eternity, He was the Son of God when He was born at Bethlehem, He was the Son of God in Jordan's waters, attested there, but here is something peculiar, related to Him in Sonship: He is declared, says Paul, the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead. God raised Him, as it is written, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

There is a Sonship connected with His resurrection which is of peculiar significance, because when Jesus was dead (if I may put it this way) that was an end of everything, everything as to the thoughts and intentions and purposes of God. If Jesus had remained dead, all God's eternal purposes would have ceased. When God raised Him from the dead and He lives again, it is Sonship, but it is Sonship in an inclusive way. All God's purposes and thoughts and intentions spring to life again, have realisation, and this very principle of Sonship is a related thing, is a family thing, is that He should not be the only begotten but the first begotten; that He should be the firstborn from among the dead, that He should be the firstfruits of those that sleep, "Bringing many sons to glory". And so Sonship has a very far-reaching significance in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

Now then, Sonship embodies, as you may see, all the thoughts of God, all the purposes of God, all that God has before ordained and intended. It is in the Son whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He made the ages. Now the Spirit of God's Son, of that risen, living Son, is given to believers for the purpose of realising all those intentions and thoughts of God in the church, and that is God's method. God's method is not to call upon you and me to accept certain doctrines, prescribe to certain things set forth as New Testament truths, to act in a certain New Testament way, and do a certain kind of New Testament work. God's all-inclusive thing is that you and I should receive the Spirit of His Son, and from that time everything is in His hands. We do not take on anything from the outside; everything begins from inside. And anybody who simply takes Christian truth as in the New Testament from the outside, accepts it, adopts it, and assents to it, will become a traditional Christian and a dead one, and anybody who tries to conform to the New Testament order of things has put on a mould, a garment and will simply get into what the New Testament describes as "dead works". Anybody who tries to do the work of the Lord, because that was done, and it was done in that way, in the New Testament, will find that they have a long way to go in the matter of power with which to meet the demands. Unless the Son of God does it all, and that from within, in the end it will be lost, it will be shaken, and it will fail to possess. Everything becomes inward by Sonship. Christ is the sum total of God's thoughts, God's desires, God's intentions.

By the Spirit of sonship indwelling, those thoughts, those desires, those intentions become an inward thing in the believer, and then begins our real history spiritually. What is spiritual history? Spiritual history is not what we believe as doctrine; there is no history in that at all. Spiritual history is not in what we do as practice. There is no history in that. Spiritual history is our testing, our trying in relation to the thoughts, desires and intentions of the Lord.

Now that is difficult to grasp. How can I put it clearly to you? The apostle Paul, after he had met Jesus of Nazareth on the Damascus way, went away into Arabia for two or three years. He got new things revealed in him by the revelation of God's Son in him. God's thoughts in Christ, God's intentions in Christ were revealed to him. Up to that time Paul had been pursuing a course dictated by outward acceptances. If Jewry said a certain thing ought to be done, because Jewry said it Saul did it. He conformed to the outward system. It was something imposed. But now the whole initiative had been taken out of his hands, the authority had been taken away from him, and from a system. Now his relationship with the living, exalted Jesus of Nazareth meant that he could no longer adopt his own course, follow his own thoughts, be governed by any outward order or system. Even though that thing had originally come in through and from God no longer could it be the governing thing in his life, the thing now is, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Then there was a new Lordship, a new mastery, and on his side a new imprisonment, and he was going to be tested all through his life as to that basis. He had the Old Testament, but I challenge you to find in the Old Testament what Paul found in it, without special revelation of the Holy Ghost. I could give you one or two passages quoted by Paul, and ask you if you could see that in the Old Testament. There is every justification on the natural line and ground for what his opponents said, that he was just reading into the Old Testament his own ideas. But we do not believe that. With spiritual illumination you see that that is what God meant, but it is extraordinary that God meant that: it never looked like that at all. Judaism said that God said it meant this. Now then Paul, you are going to be tested by God's thoughts as interpreted in your heart by the Spirit of God's Son.

That brings us right back to this first chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus Christ, God's Son, is absolute Lord, and that Lordship has got to have its expression in the believer in the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the believer is not governed by anything but the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the living, exalted Christ, and that is the only safe way; it is the only true way. It is made so perfectly clear, with an abundance of evidence in the Word. You go through this letter and see what it says about the new covenant, for instance. And then you take up other parts of the New Testament which deal with the new covenant, like the second letter to the Corinthians, and see what the new covenant is. Well, it is quoted from Jeremiah 31:31: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." What is the nature of the new covenant? "I will write my laws in their hearts, and upon their minds will I write them." Paul says in 2 Corinthians, "Not on tables of stone with pen and ink, but upon the tables of the heart by the Spirit of the living God". This new order of things is the inward writing of God's Spirit in the heart of His people as to what He wants. John writing his epistle says, "The anointing which you have received abideth in you, and ye have no need that anyone teach you, for the anointing which abideth in you teacheth you...". You say, that is dangerous; that makes everybody a law to themselves; that is setting the Word of God on one side. Do not think that. There is one Spirit, not so many Holy Spirits as people who receive Him. The Holy Spirit will never take us away from the Word of God, but He will fulfil it in us, and we will come to know the Word of God as we can never know it by the most ardent application and study; and believe me, no Holy Spirit governed life will at any point contradict the Word of God. It is because of this other kind of thing that reading any part of the Word of God results in a hundred or five hundred or a thousand different interpretations of it, and applications of it, and practices concerning it. There is all the difference between the thing made and the thing not made. The thing made is mechanical, the thing not made is organic; it is living.

So that God's thoughts and intentions become the testing ground of a believer. Oh well, God has a plan, and He does not reveal His plan to us all at once: but as far as He goes as a rule — even with His most devoted, consecrated, sacrificing servant — is the next step. And so Paul, with all his revelation, and all his vision, and all his walk with God, and all his knowledge of the Lord, would just be allowed to go to the border of a country with his own feeling that that is the direction, that is from where the call comes, that is where the need lies, and that is the thing to do. Yes, he is a devoted man, he is a consecrated man, but he has thought that this is the present movement, this is the present direction, this is where the present need is, this is where the call is, and just there he gets a showing from the Lord that night that it is in another direction altogether, and when he explains it he says: "Assuredly gathering...". (That is,
"concluding.") And so he leaves that about which he had such strong convictions and for which he had such good arguments, and goes this other way. He has been tested as to whether he will follow outward dictates, the dictates of appearances and seeming demands, or whether the voice of the Spirit in him will govern him.

Now we can organise our movements, lay our plans, draft our schemes. We can lay it all out according to the New Testament and it can be dead, ineffective. God is merciful, God is gracious, and God is sovereign, and in so far as there is devotion to Him, and in so far as His interests are at our hearts, and in so far as there is a possibility of something being accomplished for Him, He blesses; but that is not the point at all. The thing is, can God go all the way with this? Is this ultimately God's way, God's thought? Will not a very great deal of that go when the shaking comes? That is the point. The thing is now what God Himself through the Spirit of His Son is doing in a living way. Every life, and every assembly has to be constituted directly and immediately upon the basis of the living expression of the thought of God, and that thought as wrought into the very life by testing. A thought from God, a divine thought is not enough. It is not enough to carry us through. It is not enough to act upon. That thought has got to test us, try us, until we are constituted by that thought. You are dealing with tremendous principles. It is not enough for me to say to you that the Word of God means this, and for you to take it and straight away in accepting it, try to make it a part of your order of things. It may be the truth, you may have to believe it, you may have to adjust yourself to it, you may have to obey it, but it has not become a living power in you until you have been tested on it, tried on it, taken through the fires by it, and that thought of God has become a part of your very being, that you are constituted according to it in perfect oneness with the living Lord. It is thus that the believer's life becomes a living expression of those thoughts and desires and intents of God. It is thus that the church is constituted. You cannot imitate apostolic methods. The Holy Ghost must do this. He must constitute the church.

You see the difference between a traditional system, whether it be Judaism or Christianity, and a living thing coming all the time in a living way out from the Christ Himself by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit Himself doing it. Well, this is going to cost something. See what it meant for these people. At the end of this letter you come on this: "Wherefore, Christ also... suffered without the camp. Let us therefore go to him without the camp, bearing his reproach." The camp was Judaism, and He suffered without the camp because He repudiated Judaism and stood for the realisation of all God's thoughts as in Himself personally. He gathered up everything into His own person, "I am." It is the Christ who is the full sum and embodiment of all God's thoughts and ways, and that takes the place of Judaism, and He, therefore, repudiated Judaism and suffered without the camp. Let us go to Him without the camp.

If, as we were saying at the beginning, this letter's preservation has any significance at all from God's standpoint, then its significance is that it applies to the same tendency in Christianity as there was in Judaism. What is the issue? If you are going to take this line you are going to repudiate organised Christianity, going to repudiate Christendom as a traditional system, going to repudiate that order of things which is made, and going, therefore, to suffer reproach and be outside of the camp suffering His reproach. In other words, in line with what we have said earlier, we are immediately going to come up against that force of antagonism to stop what has come in through the death and resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus, the heavenly thing. Is it not sad that these people met it through God's historic people, the people who claimed to have the oracles, to be the elect, to be the favoured of the Lord? It is always like that. "A man's foes shall be those of his own household." Do not narrow that down to the limits of a family where one is a Christian and all the rest are not. That is not the point at all. It is his own household, the Christian household. You will meet the antagonism to what has come in from heaven as a heavenly thing; you will meet the antagonism amongst those who are the traditional people of God in this dispensation. That is how it will be. That is going to be the cost of a walk in life with the Lord and not with man, knowing the Lord for yourself.

Now what will be the form? Why all this difference, this separation? Well you see, it is so difficult to understand, and yet the fact stares you in the face that organised Christianity as it is today cannot understand anything that is not organised, that is not advertised, that is not run. It must have names that carry weight, that mean influence. If you can get people with some title you are going to have the guarantee of success for your Christian enterprise. And so the letters and the titles strung on are a necessary requisite for the success of the Lord's work. You must write it up in the press, you must give a report of it, you must be able to make some kind of return that people can read, and say, This is a successful thing. If you cannot do that the whole thing is doomed to failure. They say, you must advertise, you must have publicity, you must organise, you must bring in all these things to support it, to carry it on. If you did none of those; if you were never heard of in the press; if you never had a report; if you never had any names; if there was nothing at all that came out in a public way for people to take account of, what is the verdict of organised Christianity? Nothing is being done. You are doing nothing. It is a-hole-in-a-corner sort of thing. Is that true? What must we say about that? There was a striking absence of all that in the beginning, and a marvellous manifestation of power, of progress, of effectiveness, so that nothing could stand in the way. We must only conclude, we are driven to this extremity, that the Lord can do His own work. Evidently the risen Lord is able to carry on His own work, the Holy Ghost knows how to manage things. What a surprising discovery! Forgive my irony. I say, this is that upon which Hebrews 12:26-28 is fixed. "I will shake the earth and the heavens"; that which can be shaken will be shaken; that which cannot be shaken will remain; and what is that? It is what God has done. "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." What God does is done in a spiritual way, is spiritual, is heavenly, is eternal.

That may leave you perhaps in a vague, perplexed position, not knowing where you are, but I have no doubt about the truth of the message. If you do not feel you can accept it; if you disagree; if you revolt; if you feel it cuts clean across all your training, all your acceptance; if you feel that it runs counter to all that you know, all I ask of you is honesty with God. I ask you to come and ask Him to open to you the meaning of the letter to the Hebrews, why it was written, what its significance is, why God has preserved it, what its application is now. Have honest dealings with the Lord. Please do not go away hot in spirit, antagonistic; do not lay this at the door of any man. At least give God a chance. It may be costly, it may be that you will have to be prepared to accept the position that God's greatest work through you is something hidden, something secret, something that no one can read about, perhaps no one can discern what is going on; and it is the mightiest work that God is doing. But, oh, this natural life — how it must see, how it must be in things. That is just the point. Where the cross has done its work to slay that natural craving of ours to have some feeling, some place of some kind in the things of God, not prepared for God to do His work through us without our coming in some way personally into it.

May the Lord give us His own interpretation, give us honesty of heart, and show us His meaning in having brought us to this consideration.

http://sol-godsend.blogspot.com/2010/12 ... daism.html

[pas]

What is funny is that Christians call Christ a jew.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not saying they're right, but a lot of Christians i know claim this and my old church also taught us that.

Not all Christians

Absolutely agree, Gordzilla and don't get me wrong i have the upmost respect for ''real'' (for lack of a better term) Christians and i'm glad they still exist.
I see all good people as my brothers.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

What is funny is that Christians call Christ a jew.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

ok Yeshua was not an Ashkenazi Jew but from the Sephardic kind of Judean if you want me to be more articulate.  Happy now?

Asianlion7, you use the term Yeshua. Are you Messianic? Did you know that Yeshua is not a Hebrew term for Jesus? It is a guess name. Scholars do not agree nor can they confirm that Yeshua means Jesus in Hebrew. Same with the many other variations: Yashua, Yehoshua, Yahushua etc.

Seems like it is yes another attempt to "blot out the memory and name" of Jesus per Talmud order.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's Makow's latest... note the Jew Menorah Glow of the "Illuminati"  

Illuminati Use Women to Destroy Men

December 7, 2010

"You're not dangerous," I told Garry. "A man has a right to be master of his domain. Quit beating yourself up."

by Henry Makow, Ph.D.

When I was young, there was a saying: "Behind every successful man is a woman."

Women used to empower men. How? By accepting their leadership. By being First Mate to their Captain.

Women benefited from this arrangement. In marriage, they shared in the fruits of a man's achievements.  

The Illuminati realized that this process can work both ways. Instead of empowering men, women can emasculate them by challenging their power. By teaching women to usurp male power, the Illuminati created a new breed of feckless males incapable of concerted political action. Divide and Conquer.

http://www.henrymakow.com/how_a_woman_c ... a_man.html

[SPECTEC]

Solid article...although, you do need a welders helmet to read it through that menorrah glow...blinding.