Where Israel and Zionism deliberately got injected into Christianity

[norman]

Catholicism, from where the bible and all the splinter factions came from is not what I would call truly 'Christian'.

But I even think the notion of a 'Christian' falls short because it's a cerebral construct that's already replacing faith with a facsimile of it.

[shaberon]

Posted by norman (here)
Catholicism, from where the bible and all the splinter factions came from is not what I would call truly 'Christian'.

But I even think the notion of a 'Christian' falls short because it's a cerebral construct that's already replacing faith with a facsimile of it.

The Bible does not come from Catholicism.

It comes from the Nicean Council, actually it has been found in a 90% intact version from prior to this, in eastern France.

Catholicism is not doctrinally distinguishable until the Filioque, that is, the Pope's non-Nicean declaration that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

The "factions" were splintered, instantly, that is, there was no single or no definable Christianity from the Gospel era until at least the first Ecumenical council. If the Councils define Christianity--which was their purpose--then Catholicism and Protestantism are not part of it. If they are flawed, the resolution would be found in a previous splinter, and Catholicism and Protestantism are still not part of it.

Whatever happened in early times in Rome revolves around Peter and the issues of primacy, that is, authority, and how a penniless mass of anchorites became a funded institution. Socio-political issues moreso than scripture or doctrine.

The language of early Christianity was Greek, which is why Romans were at a disadvantage to have anything to do with it, and were hardly present at the councils. The Greek term for Faith is "Pistis", which has to do with persuasion, i. e. good reasons that a thing should be so. Pistis is a Daimon, which is now called a "demon", which would be like asking for a demonic pact with Jesus. But the Faith is supposed to be that when dead, he got up and started walking around. The persuasive evidence here, is that someone said it, probably thirty years after it may have happened, and this rumor was repeated. I do not personally find that very persuasive.

I can repair that for them. Just say:


A man was executed for being a criminal. However, he really had good karma, and consciously entered heaven.

Then we would say "Oh".

Then it would fit in and match eastern doctrines and nothing would be weird.

It would fail to grant him any singular, personal worship, but let's face it, he didn't really teach anything that cannot be found elsewhere.

Because the Jewish Messiah ought to be someone who provides temporal and worldly deliverance, Jesus being gone one way or another would disqualify him from that option, but such a Messiah is not original to Judaism either. Again, it most likely came from the Captivity, by copying Zoroaster, who said that he, personally, was the Savior (Soioshant) who would return and win a final battle against evil.

The Greek savior (Soter) was not an individual, but any person who did good works, usually related to medical deities such as Hygeia or Asclepius.

There is no comparable antecedent for a Messiah or Christlike Savior other than Zoroaster, who is like a rebel or breakaway from eastern doctrine.

Pre-Captivity messiahs were persons anointed with holy oil, there not being a "special" one until Cyrus the Great.

It is their debate--means nothing to me personally. I am only attempting to track the intellectual history of revisions and updates, and I can overlook the Orthodox fixation on Jesus because on a human level, they behave much more appropriately, and represent, from what I can tell, good people that I can share a planet with. Similarly to non-Zionist Jews, even if I accept practically nothing Abrahamic whatsoever, those are not the trouble makers.

Rome used basic Christianity for statecraft, broke it with the Filioque, launched the Fourth Crusade against the Orthodox, and continued to digress and still announced Papal Infallibility as recently as 1879. That is not even to place a finger on their other international political meddling. What is more insidious is how in recent times, the Jesuits developed new strategies which ceased resembling the Spanish Inquisition, became willing to work with any weak, watered down form of Jesus, and set up operations in London which work in a weird cahoots with the more English Protestant--Jewish group.

Again, probably a long-term vision which conceives of Zionism biting the dust rather violently and the Roman Church still standing with arms open.

Should not be too surprising after the Jacobite attempts to put a Catholic back on the English throne.

If you put a King James Bible and Scofield Concordance beside an Orthodox Bible taken directly from the Greek, Zionism and various other distortions may stand out rather plainly.

Interestingly, an ancient Syrian Bible smuggled to Turkey was recently intercepted, and Ben Fulford told us it was the Torah filled with Satanic symbols, which screams British Fascism rather loudly. That was some low-order buffoonery. Perhaps he should be ranked as a comedian?

[norman]

Roman statecraft wasn't Christian. It was an inverted mockery.

When was the first crucifix used in ceremony, or more accurately, ritual ?

All that prancing around in long robes and head dresses etc has got nothing to do with Christ or god or faith, other than to symbolise the crap out of it in mockery for totally sick upside down purposes of their own very different loyalty to meaning and purpose of life.

Seriously though, do you know when the Obelisk was built ? . . I don't.

[shaberon]

Posted by norman (here)
Roman statecraft wasn't Christian. It was an inverted mockery.

When was the first crucifix used in ceremony, or more accurately, ritual ?

That is a good point. I believe it was relatively late--600s or 800s.

Note morbid obsession with slain man on a stick.

That is not the Orthodox Cross.

Byzantine iconography is filled with pictures of the radiant living Jesus and other Saints. The chants are Modal not Keyed, there are no pews and you have to stand for three hours, and there is a lot of yelling. As a non-believer, I find it particularly uplifting. Ritual can be tremendous if done properly. That one has not really changed since the beginning, while Roman and other services are a different species, I tried nearly them all and found them thoroughly repellant.

A serious Orthodox will also practice Hesychasm, which is unknown in the west.


Now it is one thing to find the faults in Zionism. It is another to point the compass in a different direction so a path can be found away from there. So I am going to throw out a legend which cannot be verified one way or another:


Jews were living in Kerala (south India) from the time of Solomon.


They are called Cochin Jews and are in the same area as Thomasene Christianity which begins as follows:

30 Crucifixion of Jesus.

40 Apostle Thomas in the service of King Gondophares in Takshasila in Pakistan.

52 Apostle Thomas, landed at Muziris near Paravur, an ancient port city of Malabar (Present-day Kerala).


He is in Pakistan before any Gospel is written, excepting what Jerome had to ask permission to even see:

In AD 190, Pantaenus from Alexandria visited these Christians. He found that they were using the Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. He took this Hebrew text back to his library at the School in Alexandria. Around AD 522, an Egyptian East Syriac monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes, visited the Malabar Coast. He mentions Christians in a country called Male, where pepper grows, in his book Christian Topography. This shows that until the 6th century these Christians had been in close contact with Alexandria.

In AD 883, Alfred the Great (849–899), King of Wessex, England reportedly sent gifts to Mar Thoma Christians of India through Sighelm, bishop of Sherborne.



Thomas was martyred in 72 at Little Mount, a little distant from St. Thomas Mount, and was buried at San Thome, near the modern city of Chennai (Madras).

After the 8th century when Hindu Kingdoms came to sway, Christians were expected to strictly abide by stringent rules pertaining to caste and religion.

They are also known as "Nasranis" as well. The Syriac term "Nasrani" is still used by St. Thomas Christians in Kerala.

Saint Thomas Christians were greatly affected by the arrival of the Portuguese in India in 1498. The Portuguese attempted to bring the community under the auspices of Latin Catholicism, resulting in permanent rifts in the community.

Related branches of Syriac Christianity do not necessarily have concordance with later Ecumenical Councils:


Assyrian Church of the East (Babylonian, Persian, Nestorian)
Chaldean Syrian Church (East Syriac Rite)
Oriental Orthodox


So, they are more primitive or not quite the same as what we call Greek or Eastern Orthodoxy, which holds to all the Councils.

So does Rome, they have the Council doctrines, but not the rite, or, I would say, the humanistic way of life.


The Portuguese refused to accept the legitimate authority of the Indian hierarchy and its relation with the East Syriac Christians, and in 1599 at the Synod of Diamper (held in Udayamperur), the Portuguese Archbishop of Goa imposed a large number of Latinizations. The Portuguese succeeded in appointing a Latin bishop to govern the Thomas Christians, and the local Christians’ customs were officially anathematised as heretical and their manuscripts were condemned to be either corrected or burnt.


Back to the Jews.


This is how you exterminate twenty or thirty interpretations at once.

There is a much-debated Biblical phrase about the Ships of Tarshish.

Most people assume it must be a place name, or, perhaps a person, but the actual solution will render itself:


Its importance stems in part from the fact that Hebrew biblical passages tend to understand Tarshish as a source of King Solomon's great wealth in metals – especially silver, but also gold, tin, and iron (Ezekiel 27). The metals were reportedly obtained in partnership with King Hiram of Tyre in Phoenicia (Isaiah 23), and fleets of ships from Tarshish.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Da'at [he], the biblical phrase "ships of Tarshish" refers not to ships from a particular location, but to a class of ships: large vessels for long-distance trade.

1 Kings 10:22 notes that King Solomon had "a fleet of ships of Tarshish" at sea with the fleet of his ally King Hiram of Tyre:
"Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks." This is echoed (with some notable changes) in 2 Chronicles 9:21.

Psalms 72:10, often interpreted as Messianic in Jewish and Christian tradition, has "May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands render him tribute; may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts!" This verse is the source text of the liturgical antiphon Reges Tharsis in Christian Cathedral music.

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Jonah

Esarhaddon


Bochart, apart from Spain (see there), also suggested eastern localities for the ports of Ophir and Tarshish during King Solomon's reign, specifically the Tamilakkam continent (present day South India and Northern Ceylon) where the Dravidians were well known for their gold, pearls, ivory and peacock trade. He fixed on "Tarshish" being the site of Kudiramalai, a possible corruption of Thiruketheeswaram.


That's right. You can't pick up Peacocks wherever you want. They come from India.

Technologically or in archeological evidence, it appears that mankind designed ships large enough to cross the Indian Ocean shortly before the time of Solomon, ca. 1,200-1,000 B. C. E.

There were traders plying the coast of the Persian Gulf and Red Sea at least as far back as the oldest Egyptian writings. And then, yes, pretty close to Solomon, you get the upgrade that allows you to cross an Ocean.

The Arabs did the same thing, probably at about the same time.

Archaic Indian horses were most likely Arabians (34 ribs). Domestic horses were bred in Arabia at basically the same time as the Scythian or Russian steppe horses.

Not only was it for these exotics, but India ruled the Iron Age. Wootz Steel, also called Damascus Steel, was the most valuable top grade product, that Europe could not imitate until the 1800s.

Kings and Chronicles are primitive or pre-Captivity Jewish books, and, if they say Solomon got peacocks, then you will only exhaust yourself trying to find another way to explain it. You might be able to contend the work was actually done by Arab sailors. That is the only way I can think of to possibly argue that Solomonic Jews were not really in India.

Either way, just consider that big trade circuit, and how it was an upgrade to overland and coastal routes which were connected to Egypt prior to any kind of known writing.

That whole thing died in the hands of the Roman Empire.

Whether you want to put it in terms of religious free will, or commerce...zap!

And I'm supposed to believe in Zionism because of that?

Solomon is far more interesting, and he could not have even known half the stuff that has come up.

Nor does anyone even really know the gems that Aaron's Breastplate had, so, it is impossible to base any doctrine on that.

But we do know the oldest Indian form of writing is in Syria, because Aleppo was ruled by Indians for about ten generations, a few centuries before Solomon. The second oldest form may be the Pillars of Ashoka, some of which are also in Aramaic. So the connections of Syria and Greece to India were massive, solid, and enduring, which is why the Greeks were far more educated when the Ecumenical Councils came around. Rome shattered Virgil's Golden Age. Latium was originally founded by Saturn, a refugee from the Trojan war, and carried out peaceful trading relations with the Etruscans--until the city of Rome.

The Zionist program is a bit different, but to the extent it is English, that means it is nurtured by a form of Roman Law.

Older civilizations had no shortage of wars, but, the idea of killing or suppressing someone because of what they think, does not seem to have occurred most places. Romans and Zionists share the joy of walking all over that.

[norman]

Zionism and the Creation of Israel
Reese Report

https://rumble.com/v3py72s-zionism-a...of-israel.html


by Greg Reese

The word “Israel” was first presented in the Bible as a name given to Jacob after he fought an angel. Its meaning was a man who has struggled with God. And is commonly translated as “God Prevails” or “Man seeing God”. Many have argued that the word Israel in the Bible does not refer to a place, but rather a believer or a group of believers in God.

Others believe the land known as Palestine was where the Biblical state of Israel once stood. And in the 17th century, Sabbatai Zevi was the first Jew to try and re-settle there.

Sabbatai Zevi claimed to be the Messiah and amassed a large Jewish following that engaged in ritual sex orgies and the defilement of God’s law. In the spring of 1666, they were planning to be the first Jewish settlement in Palestine. But things changed when Sabbatai was arrested and thrown in jail. His radical movement continued with the Frankism movement, and Zionism became more political.

Although they claimed to be secular, the Zionists flooded the temples with prayers for a return to Zion and a restoration of the Jewish state. But the rabbis rejected them. In 1885 the rabbis wrote that “we consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws”.

While the rabbis offered no support, the Zionists garnered the support of the British Crown as early as 1841. And they were funded by the Rothschild banking dynasty, otherwise known as the Bank of England, so the Crown was likely involved from the start.

In 1897, the political intent to re-create the state of Israel was made official to the public. And in 1917, under the British government’s Balfour Declaration, British troops seized control of Palestine on behalf of the Zionists.

In 1922, the League of Nations adopted the declaration. And in 1947, the United Nations granted parts of Palestine to the Zionists.

Between 1947 and 1949, Palestinians were made refugees and kicked out of the homes of their ancestors. Hundreds of villages were destroyed, and thousands of Palestinians were murdered in a series of massacres known as the Nakba. The Zionists killed Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews

The Zionists claimed to be non-religious but they were mostly Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi can be traced back to the Khazars; the progenitors of Rabbinic Judaism.

The Khazar Khaganate was a major empire in what is now Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and parts of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. It was ruled by the Khazars but made up of several diverse nomadic tribes.

In the year 740 the Khazars mass converted to Judaism. Synagogues and schools were built and Rabbinic Judaism was born. The original Jerusalem Talmud was replaced by the recently codified Babylonian Talmud. Which was based on Babylonian philosophy and became the mainstream thanks to the Khazars and the Zionists.

Some Christians believe that this is the synagogue of Satan written about in the Bible. “Which say they are Jews, and are not.” And many other Christians have become Zionists themselves.

The Zionists have tremendous support from American Megachurches and Christian Evangelicals many of whom believe that as the world becomes a fiery hell, they will be saved and brought to an eternal paradise. But in order for this to happen, the Temple of Solomon must be rebuilt, and two-thirds of the Jewish people must perish.

According to the Bible, King Solomon’s temple was constructed in 957 BC, and destroyed in 586BC. Rebuilt again in 516BC, and destroyed again in the year 70AD.

Many Christians and Jews believe that this temple must be rebuilt in order for their messiah to come. But there is something in its way. Originally built near the end of the 7th century, the Al-Aqsa mosque is considered one of the three holiest sites in Islam. Islam teaches that this is where the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. The Temple Mount has been occupied by Israel ever since the Six-Day War of 1967. And now it looks like they are ready to complete their mission.

This is the Holy War that sane people have feared, and zealots have prayed for. They want you to pick a side and kill each other. But we can always choose peace. And learn to love our neighbors.

Transcribed by Alexandra Bruce



Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v3nct5m/?pub=1yatds

[shaberon]

Posted by norman (here)
But things changed when Sabbatai was arrested and thrown in jail. His radical movement continued with the Frankism movement, and Zionism became more political.

Yes, that is significant as a kind of Polish "eastern front" which became influential to the financiers of Frankfurt.

Ideologically, one bumps into Wikipedia's mild whitewashing by putting the beginning of French Israelism on the British page:


According to Brackney (2012) and Fine (2015), the French Huguenot magistrate M. le Loyer's The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590, provided one of the earliest expressions of the belief that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated peoples are the direct descendants of the Old Testament Israelites.

Anglo-Israelism has also been attributed to King James VI and I, who believed he was the King of Israel.

The Zionists gained control of the British state with Oliver Cromwell; except it is a little backwards, because Cromwell was the Zionist who imported and wanted to use Jewish businessmen. The Bank of England was a titan before any Rothschild set foot in England.

In the year 740 the Khazars mass converted to Judaism. Synagogues and schools were built and Rabbinic Judaism was born. The original Jerusalem Talmud was replaced by the recently codified Babylonian Talmud. Which was based on Babylonian philosophy and became the mainstream thanks to the Khazars and the Zionists.

They had to do something. The Silk Road was in the hands of Muslims who required everyone to be "people of the Book". If you were not a Muslim, you had to have a Bible or something to legitimize yourself.

The Khazarian Emperor held a debate with an Islamic Cleric, a Latin Priest, and a Rabbi.

No Orthodox Priest was present.

Between those three, he could not tell any difference and picked Judaism because it was older.

It is not known that the population was force converted, but at least some of them did.

As far as survivors or legacy of that, we do not directly know of anything. Mostly speculation unless more things can be found.


A Pole was the first to "do it", but the idea and power base is originally British Christian. Jews didn't "get" Britain to do anything or "take it over", because they were invited and used. Even if there were pre-existing crumbs of the thought of return in some Rabbinical tradition, Christians manufactured the working version independently.

[shaberon]

I tried something because when I see material that sounds like "the Khazarian hypothesis", it usually has a more than five hundred years' gap from Khazaria to the Polish Frankists.

It seems that this is likely an offshoot from Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe" in a way he may not have intended.

I searched our site to see if anyone had questioned this or managed to fill the lacuna.

It looks like the idea has instead got a lot of momentum.

As a slight deconstruction of it, there was an article posted linking the building of a city in Kazakhstan to the fact that Ashkenazis are Ashkenazis to a blatant propaganda:


JC COLLINS

On March 16, 2014 the Times of Israel published a little discussed pieced titled Leaked Report: Israel Acknowledges Jews in Fact Khazars; Secret Plan for Reverse Migration to Ukraine.

Because the other two findings are so important, confirmation bias justifies the Secret Plan, which, according to its own linked report:

Editor’s Note: This blog post is a work of satire. It was published in 2014 on the eve of Purim, a Jewish holiday that is celebrated with wild merrimaking and raucous comedy – with a particular emphasis on poking fun at antisemitism and ignorance.

Ben Fulford has turned Khazaria into a brand name, and his recent news switched a Bible from an RT report into a Satanic Torah with what even I would call "fake pictures".


Then we had a photo of Mr. Orsini with a few important-sounding titles attached, and I recognized it immediately, and we do the same thing and find that John Perkins ripped off the report that Webster Tarpley used to shut down P2 Propaganda Due by essentially inverting it. There is nothing really known about the guy, although his wife is famous, but it seems to be pretty blatantly his own imagination.



It concerns me when Zionism or Black Nobility accumulate volunteer camouflage. It is hard to conceive there is not a kind of intent by these authors.

Although the reference to Ukraine was fictional, in terms of it happening, it nevertheless does manage to confess that Israelis must be disproportionally Ukrainian, and so yes the actual reasons for that are important. That is not what any of those three references lead me to.

[shaberon]

A few days ago, we dredged out the modern (1897) belief that the United Kingdom is the Throne of David.


Since that is patently nonsense, here is a recap from the oldest times. The unverifiable legend is that the first Jews went to India. This is physically possible, and perhaps likely, prior to the Captivity.


What we have found about India is that someone had to go there on the Ships of Tarshish. We don't expect it to have surviving written material from any significant historical age. Hebrew was supposed to be a dead language, but, from the oldest written evidence, Cochin Jews were using Hebrew in the 800s, and it said of them in the 1300s:


"[t]hroughout the island, including all the towns thereof, live several thousand Israelites. The inhabitants are all black, and the Jews also. The latter are good and benevolent. They know the law of Moses and the prophets, and to a small extent the Talmud and Halacha."


That's...not very elaborate. We expect them to be less saddled with what may have gotten incorporated into Judaism.

They did not start Zionism but when they heard of it, they jumped on board, and there are only eight or fifteen of them left.

They speak a dialect called Hebrew Malayalam, which uses the same term for Ionian Greek ("Yavana") as in Sanskrit.

As we see what happens to Judaism, we are keeping in mind:

a) Mandaeanism is an alternate Abrahamic line that rejects Moses.

b) Thomas is among the first verifiable Christians, and the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is not the same as Greek.

c) Paul was probably not a Christian that did not know Jesus, may have been a Mandaean or even Apollonius of Tyana, and so most of the New Testament is a hatchet job.



Sometimes we miss because to get a better answer from Wiki, you have to specifically call it Christian Zionism:

Advocacy on the part of Christians for a Jewish restoration grew after the Reformation, and is rooted in 17th-century England. Contemporary Israeli historian Anita Shapira suggests that England's Zionist evangelical Christians "passed this notion on to Jewish circles" around the 1840s, while Jewish nationalism in the early 19th century was largely met with hostility from British Jews.

Advocacy of the restoration of Palestine as a national homeland for the Jews was first heard among self-identified Christian groups in the 1580s following the Protestant Reformation.

Coupled with this was a general cultural Hebraising among more radical Protestants, as they saw the veneration of saints as idolatry and placed more focus on the Biblical prophets of the Old Testament, often naming their children Jeremiah, Zachary, Daniel, Sampson and the like.

Puritans and Presbyterians spent some time in Geneva in the 1560s under Calvin's successor Theodore Beza and developed a translation of the Bible called the Geneva Bible, which contained footnotes in reference to the Book of Romans, specifically claiming that the Jews would be converted to Christianity in the end times and reorientating attention to Palestine as a central theatre. This view came to be taken up strongly by English Puritans, Lowland Scots Presbyterians, and even some Continental Protestants.

The Zionism page is rather small, and no, it has nothing bigger than this that carries any momentum.

To get behind the summary, we need the details.

Let's see. On Beza's page, nothing is really expressed about this. He does however write a book which is defining religion as the exact opposite of Dharma:


Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects and the Duty Of Subjects Towards Their Rulers



Allright. Something happened to Protestantism that did not come from Luther or Calvin. This guy that worked on the Bible does not show much Zionistic thought. And it was actually a really good job, it may be the first example of "quality" in the art of printing. It had some influence to the King James Bible:


It pioneered several innovations in content and translation. For example, it used the word “church” when rendering the Greek ekklesia instead of Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s “congregation.”


It moved "Acts" from the end to the middle, and has a few stock ideas such as:


Antichrist as the Pope



as for it becoming standard in England:


Puritans with such hopes were seriously disappointed when King James I rejected the GB altogether. In his estimate, the GB was the worst on the market, as he made clear at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 (“I think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst.”). Of course, his comments were not directed towards the translation as they were towards the marginal annotations. According to King James I, he saw these notes as “very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.”


And between 1642 and 1715 five or more editions of the KJV used the Geneva annotations!


King James's objection was along the lines of the two possible authorities:


Bishops <--> republicanism


Geneva was a republic; the suspicion is obvious.

The annotations challenged the “divine right of kings,” a doctrine advocated by King James.


But on a popular level:


“England was a Protestant nation, and the Geneva Bible was its sacred book.”



Taking just a couple of its annotations as the seed of the adoration of Israel:


The Geneva Bible’s notes on Romans 11:25 and 11:28 jump out as being light years ahead of their time with regard to the future prophesied for the Jewish people.




And it turns out this is mostly promulgated by the followers of John Knox.

From a longer study on the history of all this:


The first
volume in English to expound this conviction at some length was the translation of
Peter Martyr’s Commentary upon Romans, published in London in 1568.


and it goes on to list numbers of tracts published from there through the 1600s. As a reaction to one:


King James of England was offended by Finch’s
statement that all nations would become subservient to national Israel at the time of her
restoration



Obviously you already have a political idea inserting itself there as well.

Once King James is out of the way, it keeps going:

During the late Tudor and early Stuart period, these Puritans remained outsiders in England and bitterly opposed the Laudian-dominated Anglican Church.

Sadler, Cromwell's secretary, even argued that the British were one of the Lost Tribes of Israel in his pamphlet The Rights of the Kingdom (1649) and thus kindred to the Jews, initiating British Israelism.


Other Puritans such as Jeremiah Burroughs, Peter Bulkley, John Fenwicke and John Cotton, some of whom lived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, saw Jewish re-entry to England as a step on the path to their eventual return to Palestine.

Newton especially, who held Radical Reformation views in terms of religion and also dabbled in the occult (including the Kabbalah) predicted a Jewish return to Palestine, with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the late 19th century and the erection of the Third Temple in the 20th or 21st century, leading to the end of the world no later than 2060. Much of these private writings were embarrassing to his supporters who sought to uphold him as a man of reason and science against Leibniz and while the University of Cambridge inherited his scientific papers, they refused to take these private ones.

A prominent French-born figure Isaac La Peyrère, who was nominally a Huguenot Calvinist, but came from a Portuguese New Christian (converted Sephardic Jewish) family was also a significant 17th century progenitor, with influence on both sides of the English Channel. La Peyrère in his millennialist work Du rappel des juifs (1643) wrote about a Jewish return to Palestine, predicted the building of the Third Temple and Jerusalem playing the most powerful role in world governance: all working towards the Second Coming. La Peyrère closely followed the developments of Oliver Cromwell's Dissenter regime and dreamed of overthrowing Louis XIV of France and replacing him with the Prince of Condé (who he worked for as a secretary) as part of a millennialist proto-Zionist messianic project.

After the publication of La Peyrère's book the Amsterdam-based Menasseh Ben Israel informed his friend, Petrus Serrarius (a close associate of John Dury), about the importance of the theories, showing an early interplay between 17th century Jewish and Protestant proto-Zionism.

Serrarius ended up being the main supporter among Protestants in Amsterdam of the message that Sabbatai Zevi was the Messiah, as proclaimed by Nathan of Gaza (his followers, the Sabbateans, were based in the Ottoman Empire but he had significant support throughout the Jewish diaspora).

Around the 1700s, the tastes of Europe, so to speak, took a Philhellenic turn, i. e., the appreciation of Greek math and philosophy and so forth. As to Israelism:

Although removed from power in England itself, the millennialist Puritans who had moved to North America continued to have a deeper cultural legacy in society. As well as John Cotton, Increase Mather, one of the early Presidents of Harvard University was a strong proponent of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine.

During the Egypt–Syria campaign of the French Revolutionary Wars, Bonaparte invited "all the Jews of Asia and Africa to gather under his flag in order to re-establish the ancient Jerusalem."

In British America and then the United States during the 18th century, Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University was a supporter of Jewish restoration and befriended Rabbi Raphael Chaim Yitzchak Karigal of Hebron in 1773 during his visit to the United States.

In 1818, President John Adams wrote, "I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation", and believed that they would gradually become Unitarian Christians.

As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the advocacy of restorationism increased.

In 1831 the Ottomans were driven from Greater Syria (including Palestine) by an expansionist Egypt, in the First Turko-Egyptian War. Although Britain forced Muhammad Ali to withdraw to Egypt, the Levant was left for a brief time without a government. The ongoing weakness of the Ottoman Empire made some in the west consider the potential of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. A number of important figures within the British government advocated such a plan, including Charles Henry Churchill.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a notable Christian supporter of Israel and Zionism.

Napoleon was an ideological opponent who attempted to use them for hegemony.

The result is a power vacuum.

You can probably detect two parallel ideas--one is the overall goal of converting the Jews, and the other is just the idea of them being there.

Some people have a symbolic view, such as a Jew goes to Israel by becoming a Christian, or a Christian who has practiced properly has gone to Israel.

The input can only possibly be Protestant:

For most Christians the City of God (Psalm 46:4 (Septuagint: ΜΕ:5): "ἡ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ", romanized: "hē pólis toũ theoũ", lit. 'the city of God') has nothing to do with Jewish immigration to Israel and the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, instead, it predicts the sack of Rome (410) and it is cited in the teaching of Saint Augustine of Hippo, whose rejection of millennialism was adopted by the Council of Ephesus (431). That is why neither Eastern Orthodox Christians nor traditional Catholic Christians did consider Zionism in any political form.

If we ask plain Zionism, here we are not told which tradition or if this applies to any literal Throne of David:

Jewish religious belief holds that the Land of Israel is a God-given inheritance of the Children of Israel based on the Torah, particularly the books of Genesis and Exodus, as well as on the later Prophets. According to the Book of Genesis, Canaan was first promised to Abraham's descendants; the text is explicit that this is a covenant between God and Abraham for his descendants.

There isn't a "belief", there are traditions and practices according to different interpretive schools. Similarly to Christianity, plenty of Jews look at the same scripture and see it as a symbolical discussion of state of being.



Judea always had a small number of Jews, and occasional immigrants starting with what were probably non-Hebrews bearing a redacted Genesis:

The Jewish priestly scribe Ezra led the Jewish exiles living in Babylon to their home city of Jerusalem in 459 BC.
Herod the Great also encouraged aliyah and often gave key posts, such as the position of High Priest to returnees.
Throughout the Amoraic period, many Babylonian Jews immigrated to the land of Israel and left their mark on life there, as rabbis and leaders.

In the 10th century, leaders of the Karaite Jewish community, mostly living under Persian rule, urged their followers to settle in Eretz Yisrael.

It doesn't indicate a doctrine or any kind of power.


In large part, they were removed from Palestine, then removed from western Europe. And as we follow along, when eastern Europe attempts to eject them, the west does not want that population:

The expulsion of Jews from England (1290), France (1391), Austria (1421), and Spain (the Alhambra decree of 1492) were seen by many as a sign of approaching redemption and contributed greatly to the messianic spirit of the time.

In the middle of the 16th century, the Portuguese Sephardi Joseph Nasi, with the support of the Ottoman Empire, tried to gather the Portuguese Jews, first to migrate to Cyprus, then owned by the Republic of Venice, and later to resettle in Tiberias.

Nasi is best known for his attempt to resettle the towns of Tiberias and Safed in 1561. He was the first person to attempt to settle Jews in the cities of what was then Palestine by practical means, as opposed to waiting for the Messiah.

The messianic dreams of the Gaon of Vilna inspired one of the largest pre-Zionist waves of immigration to Eretz Yisrael. In 1808 hundreds of the Gaon's disciples, known as Perushim, settled in Tiberias and Safed, and later formed the core of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. This was part of a larger movement of thousands of Jews from countries as widely spaced as Persia and Morocco, Yemen and Russia, who moved to Palestine beginning in the first decade of the nineteenth century—and in even larger numbers after the conquest of the region by Muhammad Ali of Egypt in 1832 — all drawn by the expectation of the arrival of the Messiah in the Jewish year 5600, Christian year 1840, a movement documented in Arie Morgenstern's Hastening Redemption. There were also those who like the British mystic Laurence Oliphant tried to lease Northern Palestine to settle the Jews there (1879).

Jewish immigration to Palestine began in earnest following the 1839 Tanzimat reforms; between 1840 and 1880, the Jewish population of Palestine rose from 9,000 to 23,000.

We don't quite see a "system" yet--and, in their own words, that is considered pre-modern Aliyah. Some ideas and some attempts.


The "system" begins with a group that did not remain in operation, but it did give itself pet names such as "Zion lover" which had not been used before. This is counted as a "new" return by them, and from what I can tell from the outside, I would agree. This is a turning point to something continuous.


1882 Zionist Aliyah:

Most immigrants came from the Russian Empire, escaping the frequent pogroms and state-led persecution in what are now Ukraine and Poland. They founded a number of agricultural settlements with financial support from Jewish philanthropists in Western Europe.


this being controlled by:


...the Kharkiv group or "The Central Bureau,"


It attempts to make Jews into farmers, which leads to Hirsch and Rothschild wine investment.


Of course, the same English Zionists by now have demonized Russia.

Maltreatment is what the Jews had experienced in western Europe, and now it comes here. That is because the background is very different. This larger, organized migration was a reaction to the May Laws:

Since only a small portion of East European Jews had adopted Zionism by then, between 1881 and 1914 only 30–40,000 emigrants went to Ottoman Palestine, while over one and a half million Russian Jews and 300,000 from Austria-Hungary reached Northern America.

During this period, some of the underpinnings of an independent nation-state arose: Hebrew, the ancient national language, was revived as a spoken language; newspapers and literature written in Hebrew were published; political parties and workers organizations were established. The First World War effectively ended the period of the Second Aliyah. It is estimated that over half of those who arrived during this period ended up leaving...

Most did not go to western Europe, which did not want them.



This had been brought about by an unexpected change in the Pale:

Russia's Empress Catherine and Prussia's King Frederick II provoked a conflict between members of the Sejm and the King over civil rights for religious minorities, such as Protestants and Greek Orthodox whose positions, which were guaranteed equal with the Catholic majority by the Warsaw Confederation of 1573, had worsened considerably.

Catherine and Frederick declared their support for the szlachta and their "liberties"...the King accepted the five "eternal and invariable principles" which Catherine had vowed to "protect for all time to come in the name of Poland's liberties": the election of kings, the right of liberum veto, the right to renounce allegiance to and raise rebellion against the king (rokosz), the szlachta's exclusive right to hold office and land, and landowners' power over their peasants.

The Cardinal Laws and the rights of "religious dissenters" passed by the Repnin Sejm were personally guaranteed by Empress Catherine.

The Bar Confederation focused on limiting the influence of foreigners in Commonwealth affairs, and being pro-Catholic was generally opposed to religious tolerance. It began a civil war to overthrow the King, but its irregular forces were overwhelmed by Russian intervention in 1772.

Before the First Partition, a Polish noble, Michał Wielhorski was sent to France by the Bar Confederation to ask the philosophes Gabriel Bonnot de Mably and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for their suggestions on a new constitution for a reformed Poland.
Article I acknowledged the Roman Catholic faith as the "dominant religion" but guaranteed tolerance and freedom to all religions. It was less progressive than the 16th-century Warsaw Confederation, and placed Poland clearly within the Catholic sphere of influence.

...the constitution did not abolish serfdom. The Second Partition and Kościuszko's Proclamation of Połaniec in 1794 would later begin to abolish serfdom.

The Constitution changed the government from an elective to a hereditary monarchy.

... the Constitution abolished the erstwhile union of Poland and Lithuania in favor of a unitary state.

The King also planned a reform improving the situation of the Jews.

The contacts of Polish reformers with the Revolutionary French National Assembly were seen by Poland's neighbors as evidence of a revolutionary conspiracy and a threat to the absolute monarchies.

It asserted that "The parliament ... has broken all fundamental laws, swept away all liberties of the gentry and on the third of May 1791 turned into a revolution and a conspiracy."

Those were the troubles in Poland, and the powers are Catholic and Orthodox.

Russia's reaction is to stop the ideology:

The Empress Catherine II was angered; arguing that Poland had fallen prey to the radical Jacobinism then at high tide in France, Russian forces invaded the Commonwealth in 1792.

Russia invaded Poland to ensure the defeat of the Polish reforms, with no overt goal of another partition (it viewed Poland as its protectorate, and saw little need to give up chunks of Poland to other countries).

Frederick William II of Prussia, however, saw those events as an opportunity to strengthen his country. Frederick demanded from Catherine that for his country's abandoning Poland as a close ally...Prussia should be compensated – preferably with parts of the Polish territory.

Russia had previously left Polish autonomy intact, and some of it suddenly became part of Prussia, which delivered Russia an unexpectedly large Jewish population which was not really part of it. It's not really what they wanted, more of a necessary countermeasure to the Prussian dig.


Thomas was an Aramaic-speaking Jew. We are not sure if there was Hebrew or if it is an accidental name for Aramaic. Compared to the others, there is no original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew:

The Hebrew language was largely lost during the Babylonian captivity. During that time, the Babylonians were trying to wipe out the language, religion, and culture of the Jews so they would be easier to assimilate. The US did something very similar with Native Americans through the Indian school program.

This was largely successful and, by the New Testament period, most Jews could not speak, read, or write Hebrew. The spoken language was Aramaic, which is similar to Hebrew but not the same. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, many Jews (especially outside Judea) became Helenized. That means most educated Jews learned to read and write Greek. This was why the scripture most Jews used in the New Testament period was the Septuagent, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

The Gospels were written by Jews who had been trained to read and write Greek. They also included some Aramaic words and phrases, but there is no indication in any of the canonical Gospels that any of them knew Hebrew.

However:

Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantזnus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism.


In the fragments of St. Irenaeus that have survived, there is this:

The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid particular stress upon the fact that Christ [should be] of the seed of David. Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is of the seed of David; and therefore he commences with [an account of] His genealogy.

However, the historian Eusebius quotes early sources saying that Matthew wrote down a ‘logion’, or book of sayings in Aramaic, which the others translated as best they could. There have certainly been people who assumed that this was Matthew’s Gospel, as we now have it. However, this is clearly not the case.

John the Baptist raises the issue if Jesus was simply a follower:

“Was John the Baptizer Greater than Jesus? The Fading of a Prophet” based on our New Testament gospel materials and the book of Acts. I build my case substantially on the ways in which John is increasingly marginalized and minimized, from our earliest gospel Mark to our latest John, but also on a unique and valuable Hebrew manuscript of Matthew that has significantly different readings on John the Baptist than our Greek text of Matthew. My position is that Jesus joined John movement, honoring him as the initiator of the messianic movement, and subsequently joined him in preaching and baptizing to prepare the Way before the impending judgment.

Concerning the 1400s Gospel of Matthew manuscript, called Shem Tov or ST:

George Howard, who published a critical text and translation of this work in 1995, argued that it was not merely a Hebrew translation of our Greek Matthew–but that it showed evidence of an independent origin.

...it is the most unusual text of Matthew extant in that it contains a plethora of readings not found in any other codices of Matthew. It appears to have been preserved by the Jews, independent from the Christian community.

It sometimes agrees in odd ways with Codex Sinaiticus. It contains some striking readings in common with the Gospel of John, but in disagreement with the other Gospels. It is very likely that the author of John polemized against the portrait of John the Baptizer that he found in as text such as ST’ Hebrew Matthew. He might well have then known a Shem-Tov type Matthean text. ST also often agrees with the Lukan version of Q. ST also contains 22 agreements with the Gospel of Thomas.

N.b. Sinaiticus, Q, and Thomas were all lost in antiquity but found in modern times-making the parallels with ST all the more remarkable.

The Pseudo-Clementine writings (Recognitions and Homilies) when quoting or referring to Matthew occasionally agree with ST Hebrew Matthew against the canonical Greek versions.


Howard argues that Shem Tov did not create the Hebrew Matthew himself (e.g., translating from the Latin) but had an existing Hebrew text to work with-as he sometimes comments on its scribal errors and strange readings. Matt 11:11 is a good case in point, as the Greek, Latin, and all other Matthean witnesses contain the qualifying phrase: “nonetheless, the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Shem Tov comments on the unique Hebrew version he is following, and how its lack of such a phrase implies that John is greater than Jesus. If he were translating from the Latin, Greek, or any other version such a comment would be meaningless.

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16) “Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”

None of these surviving quotations seem to have any relationship to our current version of Shem Tov’s Even Bohan.
ST never identifies Jesus as the Christ.

Pseudo-Clementine Writings, Rec 1.60.1-3, where one of the disciples of John argues that his teacher is greater than Jesus, Moses, and all men and thus the Christ.

The kind of polemic found in the Gospel of John appears to be directed toward an evaluation of John the Baptizer such as that found in ST Matthew.

Bultman argued that the Prologue was a hymn of the Baptist community, now recast to refer to Jesus (Gospel of John: A Commentary, 17-18). Luke-Acts 3:20-22 John is in prison-then only is baptism of Jesus mentioned! Luke drops Mark’s moving account of the death of John (Mark 6//Luke 9). Acts 18:25-Apollos knows only baptism of John. Acts 19:1-7-Twelve from Ephesus that only know of John’s baptism.

Some want to say there is still more:


However, there is one individual who has claimed to have uncovered “all” of the “original” Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament in Iraq.

In early 2002 AD an ancient buried library of 245 carefully preserved Scriptures on 1930 year old papyrii was unearthed by a team of Original Word Seekers in ancient eastern YAsarel (present day Iraq), just west of the Euphrates river (Gen 15:18)...



What gets the title "gospel" may sometimes be "sayings" (logia), or, it may have biographical events. May have existed in two forms and be called the same thing. Such as with the Gospel of Thomas

Since its discovery, many scholars have seen it as evidence in support of the existence of a "Q source" which might have been very similar in its form as a collection of sayings of Jesus without any accounts of his deeds or his life and death, referred to as a sayings gospel.


logia or "oracle"

Unlike the canonical Gospels, it is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; instead, it consists of logia (sayings) attributed to Jesus, sometimes stand-alone, sometimes embedded in short dialogues or parables; 13 of its 16 parables are also found in the Synoptic Gospels. The text contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus in logion 65[16] (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, paralleled in the Synoptic Gospels), but does not mention his crucifixion, his resurrection, or the final judgement; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus.

After the Coptic version of the complete text was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, scholars soon realized that three different Greek text fragments previously found at Oxyrhynchus (the Oxyrhynchus Papyri), also in Egypt, were part of the Gospel of Thomas.

Although it is generally thought that the Gospel of Thomas was first composed in Greek, there is evidence that the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is a translation from Syriac (see Syriac origin).


Parallels between the two have been taken to suggest that Thomas' logia preceded John's work, and that the latter was making a point-by-point riposte to Thomas, either in real or mock conflict. Pagels, for example, says that the Gospel of John states that Jesus contains the divine light, while several of Thomas' sayings refer to the light born 'within'. For Thomas, resurrection seems more a cognitive event of spiritual attainment, one even involving a certain discipline or asceticism.

Albert Hogeterp argues that the Gospel's saying 12, which attributes leadership of the community to James the Just rather than to Peter, agrees with the description of the early Jerusalem church by Paul in Galatians 2:1–14[52] and may reflect a tradition predating AD 70.

Moreover, there are some sayings, (principally log. 6, 14, 104) and Oxyrhinchus papyri 654 (log. 6) in which the Gospel is shown in opposition to Jewish traditions, especially in respect to circumcision and dietary practices (log. 55), key issues in the early Jewish-Christian community led by James (Acts 15:1–35,[55] Galatians 2:1–10).

In saying 13, Peter and Matthew are depicted as unable to understand the true significance or identity of Jesus. Patterson argues that this can be interpreted as a criticism against the school of Christianity associated with the Gospel of Matthew, and that "[t]his sort of rivalry seems more at home in the first century than later", when all the apostles had become revered figures.

According to Meyer, Thomas's saying 17 – "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard and no hand has touched, and what has not come into the human heart" – is strikingly similar to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9,[58][38] which was itself an allusion to Isaiah 64:4.

The earliest Christians believed Jesus would soon return, and their beliefs are echoed in the earliest Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (saying 113), and lacks apocalyptic themes.

Elaine Pagels points out the Gospel of Thomas promulgates the Kingdom of God not as a final destination but a state of self-discovery. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas conveys that Jesus ridiculed those who thought of the Kingdom of God in literal terms, as if it were a specific place. Pagels goes on to argue that, through saying 22, readers are to believe the "Kingdom" symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness.


It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions [...] Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity.

Tatian's widely used Diatessaron, compiled between 160 and 175 AD, utilized the four gospels without any consideration of others.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, shorn of its mythological connections, is difficult to connect specifically to the Gospel of Thomas, but the Acts of Thomas contains the Hymn of the Pearl whose content is reflected in the Psalms of Thomas found in Manichaean literature. These psalms, which otherwise reveal Mandaean connections, also contain material overlapping with the Gospel of Thomas.

Mention of being forgiven in relation to blasphemy against the Father and Son, but no forgiveness to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (Logion 44).

Compared to the other texts, this one gives the inner circle as:


Thomas, James the Just




This has several translations and manuscripts.



Some of Ehrman's remarks on apostolic forgery:

New Testament Gospels do not narrate the resurrection. They do say that Jesus was buried, and they indicate that on the third day his tomb was empty; but they do not narrate the account of him actually emerging from the tomb. There is such an account in the Gospel of Peter, however, where Jesus walks out of the tomb accompanied by two angels who are as tall as mountains, supporting Jesus who is taller still; and behind them, out of the tomb, emerges the cross, which speaks out to God in heaven.

At present we know of over a hundred writings from the first four centuries that were claimed by one Christian author or another to have been forged by fellow Christians.

From other responses about Paul:


The apostle Paul never met Jesus in life...


...the stories (with the exception of 8 letters written by Paul) were not written by the people to whom they are attributed (they’re forgeries), and c) the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) weren’t written by anyone who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus (hear-say, if not outright made up), as the first book was written between 30 and 35 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.



Seven letters (with consensus dates)

considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
Galatians (c. 53)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Philippians (c. 55)
Philemon (c. 55)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 57)

The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:

Colossians
Second Thessalonians
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:

Ephesians
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

Finally, Epistle to the Hebrews, though anonymous and not really in the form of a letter, has long been included among Paul's collected letters, but most scholars regard it as not written by Paul.



In more forgery:

Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias have both averred that the Christ lived to old age (even as late as 98-117 A.D.), flatly denying thus as “heresy” the Gospel stories as to his crucifixion at about thirty years of age.

The great Pope Clement I (died 97 A.D.?), first-to-fourth “successor” to Pope Peter, knew nothing of his great Predecessor’s “Gospel according to Mark”; for, admits the CE.: “The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels.” (CE. iv, 14.) Of course, he did not, could not; they were not then written. And no other Pope, Bishop or Father (except Papias and until Irenaeus), for nearly a century after “Pope Clement,” ever mentions or quotes a Gospel, or names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. So for a century and a half—until the books bobbed up in the hands of Bishop St. Irenaeus and were tagged as “Gospels according to” this or that Apostle, there exists not a word of them in all the tiresome tomes of the Fathers

To argue and prove that the Four were regarded as “Apostolic” and hence “canonical” after the middle of the second century, argues and proves that until that late date they were not so regarded...

Certainly Popes Peter and Clement I, not to review the silent others, would have “inalterably fixed” the Divine Canonicity of the Four a century before, if they had known about these precious productions of the Apostles;—if, in fact, they had existed, the known works of Holy Apostles and apostolic men! But until “towards the middle of the second century” there was no “canon” or notion of divinely inspired Apostolic Gospels—simply for the reason that until just about that period they were not in existence.

According to the names “supplied” to the Four Gospels, as to the other New Testament books, the “Apostolic” authors were all of them Jews; the same is supposedly true of most of the now confessed apocrypha. All these were forgeries in the names of Jewish pseudo-apostles. But all of the Gospels, the other New Testament Books, and the forged apocrypha, were written in Greek. Self-evidently, these “ignorant and unlearned” peasant Apostles, speaking a vulgar Aramaic-Jewish dialect, could neither speak nor write Greek,—if they could write at all. The Old Testament books were written mostly in Hebrew, which was a “dead language,” which only the priests could read; thus in the synagogues of Palestine the rolls were read in Hebrew, and then “expounded” to the hearers in their Aramaic dialect.

Obviously, the Gospels and other New Testament booklets, written in Greek and quoting 300 times the Greek Septuagint, and several Greek Pagan authors, as Aratus, and Cleanthes, were written, not by illiterate Jewish peasants, but by Greek-speaking ex-Pagan Fathers and priests far from the Holy Land of the Jews.

The Four Gospels are thus demonstrated as: not written by Jews; not written by any of the “Twelve Apostles”; not written nor in existence for over a century after the supposed Apostles.


Bishop Papias , about 145 A.D., is the very first name of something like written “Gospels” and writers; and this is what he says, quoting his anonymous gossipy old friends, the presbyters:

“And the presbyter said this. MARK having become the interpreter of PETER, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied him. ... For one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. MATTHEW put the Oracles (of the Lord) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Papias, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii, 39; ANF. i, 154-5.)

Here, then, over one hundred years after Christ, we have the first mention of written gospels and of Mark, and the recital, by hearsay on hearsay, that he wrote down “whatsoever he remembered” that Peter had said the Lord had said and done. This is rather a far cry from divine inspiration of inerrant truth in this first hearsay by memory recital of the supposed Gospel-writers. Thus “Mark” is admittedly not “inspired,” but is hearsay, haphazard “traditions,” pieced together a generation and more afterwards by some unknown priestly scribe. But note well, even if Mark may have written some things, alleged as retailed by Peter, yet this is not, and is not an intimation even remotely, that this by-memory record of Mark is the “Gospel according to Mark” which half a century after Papias came to be known. Indeed, such an idea is expressly excluded; Mark’s notes were “not in exact order,” but here and there, as remembered; while the “Gospel according to Mark” is, or purports to be, very orderly, proceeding from “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” orderly and consecutively through to his death, resurrection and ascension. It includes the scathing rebuke administered by the Christ to Peter: “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God” (Mk. viii, 33) ; one may be sure that Peter never related these eminently deserved “sayings of Christ” to Mark or to anyone.

Moreover, the present “Gospel according to Mark” relates the crucifixion of Jesus at about thirty years of age, after one year’s ministry; which is wholly false, as Jesus died at home in bed of old age, in effect says Bishop Papias, on the “tradition” of these same presbyters. So, every other consideration here aside, Papias is not a witness to “The Gospel according to Mark.” As for Matthew, Papias simply reports the elders as saying that Matthew wrote down the “ORACLES” or words of the Lord, and in Hebrew; the “Gospel according to Matthew” is much more than mere “words of the Lord”; it is the longest and most palpably fictitious of the “Lives” of the Christ; it was written in Greek, and very obviously by a Greek priest or Father, many years after the reputed time of Jesus Christ.

There was nothing like ecclesia known to the Jews; it was a technical Greek term designating the free political assemblies of the Greek republics. The Greek Fathers who, a century later, founded the Church among the Pagan Greek-speaking Gentiles, adopted the Greek word ecclesia for their organizations because the word was familiar for popular assemblies, and because the translators of the Septuagint had used ecclesia as the nearest Greek term for the translation of the two Hebrew words qahal and edah used in the Old Testament for the “congregation” or “assembly” of all Israel at the tent of meeting.

From Acts of the Apostles as the worst distortion:

The entire letter of 1 Clement and Paul’s account across Galatians 1-5 illustrates the contrary; indeed he attests not only to a fierce and disharmonious division between the Torah-observant and his own sect, but to yet other Jesus sects so abhorrent to Paul he orders his congregations to shun them, as well as internecine factionalism he constantly had to battle.

Zionism mainly came from the brains of the earliest printers in the English language, and has been a divisive issue ever since.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by norman (here)
Roman statecraft wasn't Christian. It was an inverted mockery.

When was the first crucifix used in ceremony, or more accurately, ritual ?

That is a good point. I believe it was relatively late--600s or 800s.

Note morbid obsession with slain man on a stick.

That is not the Orthodox Cross.

Byzantine iconography is filled with pictures of the radiant living Jesus and other Saints. The chants are Modal not Keyed, there are no pews and you have to stand for three hours, and there is a lot of yelling. As a non-believer, I find it particularly uplifting. Ritual can be tremendous if done properly. That one has not really changed since the beginning, while Roman and other services are a different species, I tried nearly them all and found them thoroughly repellant.

A serious Orthodox will also practice Hesychasm, which is unknown in the west.


Now it is one thing to find the faults in Zionism. It is another to point the compass in a different direction so a path can be found away from there. So I am going to throw out a legend which cannot be verified one way or another:


Jews were living in Kerala (south India) from the time of Solomon.


They are called Cochin Jews and are in the same area as Thomasene Christianity which begins as follows:

30 Crucifixion of Jesus.

40 Apostle Thomas in the service of King Gondophares in Takshasila in Pakistan.

52 Apostle Thomas, landed at Muziris near Paravur, an ancient port city of Malabar (Present-day Kerala).


He is in Pakistan before any Gospel is written, excepting what Jerome had to ask permission to even see:

In AD 190, Pantaenus from Alexandria visited these Christians. He found that they were using the Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. He took this Hebrew text back to his library at the School in Alexandria. Around AD 522, an Egyptian East Syriac monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes, visited the Malabar Coast. He mentions Christians in a country called Male, where pepper grows, in his book Christian Topography. This shows that until the 6th century these Christians had been in close contact with Alexandria.

In AD 883, Alfred the Great (849–899), King of Wessex, England reportedly sent gifts to Mar Thoma Christians of India through Sighelm, bishop of Sherborne.



Thomas was martyred in 72 at Little Mount, a little distant from St. Thomas Mount, and was buried at San Thome, near the modern city of Chennai (Madras).

After the 8th century when Hindu Kingdoms came to sway, Christians were expected to strictly abide by stringent rules pertaining to caste and religion.

They are also known as "Nasranis" as well. The Syriac term "Nasrani" is still used by St. Thomas Christians in Kerala.

Saint Thomas Christians were greatly affected by the arrival of the Portuguese in India in 1498. The Portuguese attempted to bring the community under the auspices of Latin Catholicism, resulting in permanent rifts in the community.

Related branches of Syriac Christianity do not necessarily have concordance with later Ecumenical Councils:


Assyrian Church of the East (Babylonian, Persian, Nestorian)
Chaldean Syrian Church (East Syriac Rite)
Oriental Orthodox


So, they are more primitive or not quite the same as what we call Greek or Eastern Orthodoxy, which holds to all the Councils.

So does Rome, they have the Council doctrines, but not the rite, or, I would say, the humanistic way of life.


The Portuguese refused to accept the legitimate authority of the Indian hierarchy and its relation with the East Syriac Christians, and in 1599 at the Synod of Diamper (held in Udayamperur), the Portuguese Archbishop of Goa imposed a large number of Latinizations. The Portuguese succeeded in appointing a Latin bishop to govern the Thomas Christians, and the local Christians’ customs were officially anathematised as heretical and their manuscripts were condemned to be either corrected or burnt.


Back to the Jews.


This is how you exterminate twenty or thirty interpretations at once.

There is a much-debated Biblical phrase about the Ships of Tarshish.

Most people assume it must be a place name, or, perhaps a person, but the actual solution will render itself:


Its importance stems in part from the fact that Hebrew biblical passages tend to understand Tarshish as a source of King Solomon's great wealth in metals – especially silver, but also gold, tin, and iron (Ezekiel 27). The metals were reportedly obtained in partnership with King Hiram of Tyre in Phoenicia (Isaiah 23), and fleets of ships from Tarshish.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Da'at [he], the biblical phrase "ships of Tarshish" refers not to ships from a particular location, but to a class of ships: large vessels for long-distance trade.

1 Kings 10:22 notes that King Solomon had "a fleet of ships of Tarshish" at sea with the fleet of his ally King Hiram of Tyre:
"Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks." This is echoed (with some notable changes) in 2 Chronicles 9:21.

Psalms 72:10, often interpreted as Messianic in Jewish and Christian tradition, has "May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands render him tribute; may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts!" This verse is the source text of the liturgical antiphon Reges Tharsis in Christian Cathedral music.

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Jonah

Esarhaddon


Bochart, apart from Spain (see there), also suggested eastern localities for the ports of Ophir and Tarshish during King Solomon's reign, specifically the Tamilakkam continent (present day South India and Northern Ceylon) where the Dravidians were well known for their gold, pearls, ivory and peacock trade. He fixed on "Tarshish" being the site of Kudiramalai, a possible corruption of Thiruketheeswaram.


That's right. You can't pick up Peacocks wherever you want. They come from India.

Technologically or in archeological evidence, it appears that mankind designed ships large enough to cross the Indian Ocean shortly before the time of Solomon, ca. 1,200-1,000 B. C. E.

There were traders plying the coast of the Persian Gulf and Red Sea at least as far back as the oldest Egyptian writings. And then, yes, pretty close to Solomon, you get the upgrade that allows you to cross an Ocean.

The Arabs did the same thing, probably at about the same time.

Archaic Indian horses were most likely Arabians (34 ribs). Domestic horses were bred in Arabia at basically the same time as the Scythian or Russian steppe horses.

Not only was it for these exotics, but India ruled the Iron Age. Wootz Steel, also called Damascus Steel, was the most valuable top grade product, that Europe could not imitate until the 1800s.

Kings and Chronicles are primitive or pre-Captivity Jewish books, and, if they say Solomon got peacocks, then you will only exhaust yourself trying to find another way to explain it. You might be able to contend the work was actually done by Arab sailors. That is the only way I can think of to possibly argue that Solomonic Jews were not really in India.

Either way, just consider that big trade circuit, and how it was an upgrade to overland and coastal routes which were connected to Egypt prior to any kind of known writing.

That whole thing died in the hands of the Roman Empire.

Whether you want to put it in terms of religious free will, or commerce...zap!

And I'm supposed to believe in Zionism because of that?

Solomon is far more interesting, and he could not have even known half the stuff that has come up.

Nor does anyone even really know the gems that Aaron's Breastplate had, so, it is impossible to base any doctrine on that.

But we do know the oldest Indian form of writing is in Syria, because Aleppo was ruled by Indians for about ten generations, a few centuries before Solomon. The second oldest form may be the Pillars of Ashoka, some of which are also in Aramaic. So the connections of Syria and Greece to India were massive, solid, and enduring, which is why the Greeks were far more educated when the Ecumenical Councils came around. Rome shattered Virgil's Golden Age. Latium was originally founded by Saturn, a refugee from the Trojan war, and carried out peaceful trading relations with the Etruscans--until the city of Rome.

The Zionist program is a bit different, but to the extent it is English, that means it is nurtured by a form of Roman Law.

Older civilizations had no shortage of wars, but, the idea of killing or suppressing someone because of what they think, does not seem to have occurred most places. Romans and Zionists share the joy of walking all over that.

My research tells me that Tarshish was indeed where Solomon got his gold and silver from. And it was near an island in the middle of a river, one that dumps into the Med. just to the East of Cadiz in Spain. That island was covered over, and the city it contained, nearly overnight, when the Guad. river dumped mud over it, and the course of the river itself changed. It may have been an inspiration for the story of Atlantis as well.
In the period BC and after, we see groups or families of Hebrews resident in that area as well.

[shaberon]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
My research tells me that Tarshish was indeed where Solomon got his gold and silver from. And it was near an island in the middle of a river, one that dumps into the Med. just to the East of Cadiz in Spain. That island was covered over, and the city it contained, nearly overnight, when the Guad. river dumped mud over it, and the course of the river itself changed. It may have been an inspiration for the story of Atlantis as well.
In the period BC and after, we see groups or families of Hebrews resident in that area as well.

It may be.

Some thought is that it was a location; others, a person; I responded more from the Jewish dictionary as a "class of ship".

It would be likely that whatever Solomon was doing, must be pretty similar to the Phoenicians, who of course made it to the British Isles.

Gold and silver have numerous sources, but the clue from the Solomonic telling would appear to be "peacocks".

The stone anchors at Dwarka I match those that Indians dropped in Oman and a few other places ca. 1,300-1,200 B. C. E., which closely corresponds to newer, larger vessels that could sail straight across the Indian Ocean, instead of hugging the coast.


The second half of what I am scratching for, is to say, if Solomon could not possibly have had all the materials now considered "Judaism", what did he have?

Was Genesis just the story of Moses, with the cosmic origin and Flood added during the Babylonian Captivity?



What has now caught my attention is that a soft precursor of Zionism comes right in with modern English, in the first printed Bible. We think it may be a bit backwards, as per Beza:


Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects and the Duty Of Subjects Towards Their Rulers


Indian Dharma pretty specifically says a king has less rights and more duties, and that peasants have more rights. The office of the king did not own the state or land, and he, personally, could not own private property.

The Ashokan Pillars already translated Dharma to Greek in 250 B. C. E.:


Eusebia

The opposite of eusebeia is asebeia, which was considered a crime in Athens. The punishment could have been death or being exiled. Some philosophers, such as Anaxagoras, Protagoras and Socrates were accused and trialed by the Heliaia.



It was already well-known for centuries, but then:


"Eusebeia" enters the New Testament in later writings, where it is typically translated as "godliness," a vague translation that reflects uncertainty about its relevant meaning in the New Testament.


Obviously neither a primary concern, nor something they understand from their own language. Something went missing. It is in the first line of Titus, and used multiple times by Timothy and Peter. Titus and Timothy are pseudo-Paul, and Peter is probably a fabrication. So this may be a replacement/insertion.


Comparatively, Marcion's shortened Pauline epistles were collected as the Apostolicon:

Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Romans, FirstThessalonians, SecondThessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, and Laodiceans (fragment)

The word εὐσέβεια as it is used in the Greek New Testament carries the meaning of "godliness", and is distinct from θρησκεία (thrēskeia), "religion". Eusebeia relates to real, true, vital, and spiritual relation with God, while thrēskeia relates to the outward acts of religious observances or ceremonies, which can be performed by the flesh. The English word "religion" was never used in the sense of true godliness. It always meant the outward forms of worship. In 1Ti 3:16, the Mystery, or secret connected with true Christianity as distinct from religion, it is the Genitive of relation. (This specific meaning occurs only in Act 3:12.)

So, no, Dharma is not "a religion".

From another comment:



The proper service for God according to that Hellenistic-Platonistic-Stoic Egyptian Jew is called eusebeia, hosiotēs, and therapeia.



New Testament translators could not deal with something which was common to India and Greece. This seems to show its absence, that it was unimportant until someone decided to install it.

The discourses about pseudo-Paul are cumbersome, but to us, it is secondary to the word "Christos", which may be an alteration in every case.


Ashoka was communicating with Platonists or pagans; Christians losing the message are irrelevant.



The trouble is that Zionism does not work without Christianity.



The English language received something which was not even present in Latin Bibles, particularly the annotations. I am not sure about the verse translations. If, to our review, Paul was not only never Saul, did not say half the stuff that has been put in his name, and was, in fact, preaching something altogether different from any church because it was Eusebia, not religion, we would not expect he had any Zionist intent in any of his authentic work.

But these English versions are attributed to Paul:


Romans 11:25 and 11:28


For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom. 11:25).

The blindness of the Jews is neither so universal that the Lord hath no elect in that nation, neither shall it be continual: for there shall be a time wherein they also (as the Prophets have forewarned) shall effectually embrace that which they do now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse.

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Rom. 11:28).

Again, that he may join the Jews and Gentiles together as it were in one body, and especially may teach what duty the Gentiles owe to the Jews, he beateth this into their heads, that the nation of the Jews is not utterly cast off without hope of recovery … . In that, that God respecteth not what they deserve, but what he promised to Abraham.



All that seems to say is that Jews are redeemable, which may not have suited the Catholics:

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God").

In 1965, the Second Vatican Council declared that God loves the Jews. Before that, the Church had taught for centuries that Jews were cursed ...

The Pauline Marcion of Sinope (c. 85 – c. 160 AD) declared that the Jewish God was a different God, inferior to the Christian one, and rejected the Jewish scriptures as the product of a lesser deity. Marcion's teachings, which were extremely popular, rejected Judaism not only as an incomplete revelation, but as a false one as well, but, at the same time, allowed less blame to be placed on the Jews personally for having not recognized Jesus, since, in Marcion's worldview, Jesus was not sent by the lesser Jewish God, but by the supreme Christian God, whom the Jews had no reason to recognize.

In combating Marcion, orthodox apologists conceded that Judaism was an incomplete and inferior religion to Christianity, while also defending the Jewish scriptures as canonical.


If this soft stance was a new point, it makes sense that about 20-30 years later, more in-depth and hardcore versions will evolve. The above is not too different from Luther's (later) belief.

It does not seem "changed", i. e. Romans already accepted convertibility, rather than doling out damnation.

Then it was just a matter of "acceptance" turning to "favoritism". By Cromwell's time, not only are "Lost Tribes" significant, but this one also sounds potent:

La Peyrère in his millennialist work Du rappel des juifs (1643) wrote about a Jewish return to Palestine, predicted the building of the Third Temple and Jerusalem playing the most powerful role in world governance: all working towards the Second Coming.



Hardly a Jewish doctrine, but rather commanding to the English-speaking world.

[gini]

Russell Brand talks with Candace Owens about the lies about the history of the oppression of christians ,the lies about the 2e WW,Stalin & marxism .
'WE’VE BEEN BRAINWASHED! '| EXCLUSIVE Interview with Candace Owens - 68 min---23/7/24--'t’s here! I’m excited to have Candace Owens on the podcast! Candace is a political commentator and the host of The Candace Podcast. This conversation goes deep as we discuss Candace’s thoughts on the secret historical persecution of Christians, Marxists actively working as Satanists to move our lives further from God, and how the US especially has been purposefully brainwashed into a weaker form of Christianity which is at war with itself. We also discuss Candace’s ‘Christ is King’ comment, Bridgitte Macron (did she have a sex change?), and the deep state’s control over all politiicans in blackmail rings. You’ll need a cup of tea after this one. -----

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bvKgZce0XG8

't’s here! I’m excited to have Candace Owens on the podcast! Candace is a political commentator and the host of The Candace Podcast. This conversation goes deep as we discuss Candace’s thoughts on the secret historical persecution of Christians, Marxists actively working as Satanists to move our lives further from God, and how the US especially has been purposefully brainwashed into a weaker form of Christianity which is at war with itself. We also discuss Candace’s ‘Christ is King’ comment, Bridgitte Macron (did she have a sex change?), and the deep state’s control over all politicians in blackmail rings. You’ll need a cup of tea after this one.

https://rumble.com/v57yyoy-weve-been...ns-sf-413.html

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v55mq2i

[Kryztian]

The Biblical Case For Supporting Israel
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-...QrsIT7GWDAmNgA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t9RlQSdEmjg

During a speech in South Carolina, US Senator Lindsey Graham warned that God will “pull the plug” on Americans if they stop supporting Israel.

“This is not a hard choice if you’re an American. It’s not a hard choice if you’re a Christian,” Graham said. “A word of warning: if America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us. And we’re not going to let that happen.”

https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status...24036346142993

The senator is correct, of course.

What, do you doubt him? God clearly and explicitly commands Christians to support the modern state of Israel. It’s right here in the Holy Bible; give me a moment and I’ll find the verse for you.

Aha! Got it. Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.”

Wait, hold on, that’s not it.

Here it is, Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Hang on, shoot, that’s not the one. What I meant to say is Lamentations 2:19, “Lift your hands to him for the lives of your children, who faint for hunger at the head of every street.”

Ah, wrong one, lemme thumb through this a bit more. Got it! Proverbs 24:11, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.”

Wait, sorry, no, it’s Psalm 101:7, “No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”

Oh no actually it’s Proverbs 6:16–19, “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.”

Oops, no, it’s definitely not that one. Actually it’s Deuteronomy 27:25, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.”

No, dang it, that makes AIPAC recipients sound bad. Gimme a minute. Ah! Mark 12:31, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

No, wait, got it! Here it is, Romans 14:19, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”

Oh no, that isn’t the one I was looking for, it was Second Corinthians 13:11, “Strive for full restoration, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.”

Oh actually that one sounds kind of antisemitic in this context, gimme a sec.

Got it! Ephesians 4:3, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

Hold on, that’s not it either. The one I meant to cite was Hebrews 12:14, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.”

Oh boy, this really isn’t going well. Lemme see… oh! James 3:18, “Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.”

Gosh darn it, I made a mistake. The verse I meant to point to was First Peter 3:11, “They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it.”

Wait, no, it was Galatians 5:22, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

Actually it was Luke 6:35–36, “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

Oops, no, nope. Man this is way harder than I thought it was going to be. Oh! Hey! Found it! It was right here in Genesis the whole time, chapter 12, verse 3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

There! See? It’s right there in black and white. God’s saying we are commanded to support a modern state that we created in 1948, no matter what it does. The Bible is entirely clear and unequivocal about this, and says absolutely nothing to the contrary.

Checkmate, heathen.

[shaberon]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
“This is not a hard choice if you’re an American. It’s not a hard choice if you’re a Christian,” Graham said.

They are stealing the term "Christian" again.

He's not part of the religion of Jerusalem. He is making a false representation, which is the work of Anti-Christ.


I'm not either, but I respect it enough to repudiate my neighbors' beliefs.


The Christian dilemma over this is pretty difficult. On the one hand, it more or less says the Jews are the most damned kind of person, because they eternally and willingly reject the Savior. That makes it the worst spiritual choice possible. But in actuality they are not loved by God any less than you are. Hence, the mystery. Because of that, you are not allowed to create a social structure that oppresses them. Obviously, you can't make one that goes the other way, either.

Orthodoxy does not require any particular form of government, it only asks equal rights for the Orthodox to try to do the best they can.

It's far more about justice than going around mouthing off national destinies as if death were your personal property.

[Tintin]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
The Biblical Case For Supporting Israel
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-...QrsIT7GWDAmNgA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t9RlQSdEmjg

During a speech in South Carolina, US Senator Lindsey Graham warned that God will “pull the plug” on Americans if they stop supporting Israel.

“This is not a hard choice if you’re an American. It’s not a hard choice if you’re a Christian,” Graham said. “A word of warning: if America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us. And we’re not going to let that happen.”

https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status...24036346142993

The senator is correct, of course.

What, do you doubt him? God clearly and explicitly commands Christians to support the modern state of Israel. It’s right here in the Holy Bible; give me a moment and I’ll find the verse for you.

Aha! Got it. Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.”

Wait, hold on, that’s not it.

Here it is, Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Hang on, shoot, that’s not the one. What I meant to say is Lamentations 2:19, “Lift your hands to him for the lives of your children, who faint for hunger at the head of every street.”

Ah, wrong one, lemme thumb through this a bit more. Got it! Proverbs 24:11, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.”

Wait, sorry, no, it’s Psalm 101:7, “No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”

Oh no actually it’s Proverbs 6:16–19, “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.”

Oops, no, it’s definitely not that one. Actually it’s Deuteronomy 27:25, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.”

No, dang it, that makes AIPAC recipients sound bad. Gimme a minute. Ah! Mark 12:31, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

No, wait, got it! Here it is, Romans 14:19, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”

Oh no, that isn’t the one I was looking for, it was Second Corinthians 13:11, “Strive for full restoration, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.”

Oh actually that one sounds kind of antisemitic in this context, gimme a sec.

Got it! Ephesians 4:3, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

Hold on, that’s not it either. The one I meant to cite was Hebrews 12:14, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.”

Oh boy, this really isn’t going well. Lemme see… oh! James 3:18, “Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.”

Gosh darn it, I made a mistake. The verse I meant to point to was First Peter 3:11, “They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it.”

Wait, no, it was Galatians 5:22, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

Actually it was Luke 6:35–36, “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

Oops, no, nope. Man this is way harder than I thought it was going to be. Oh! Hey! Found it! It was right here in Genesis the whole time, chapter 12, verse 3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

There! See? It’s right there in black and white. God’s saying we are commanded to support a modern state that we created in 1948, no matter what it does. The Bible is entirely clear and unequivocal about this, and says absolutely nothing to the contrary.

Checkmate, heathen.

Post of the day. Thankyou