13 items found for ""

Blog Posts (4)

  • PROVING ROME PART 1: Roman Law

    In this blog I will go over one of the three sources which allegedly confirms that the Roman Empire existed-Roman Law. The following sources come from the best of the best in scholarship, to expressly show the reader that I am not making these claims. The official scholars with millions at their disposal, are making these claims. at The end of this work, I do explain just why the explicit need of Rome‘s existence in history, is so important to Christianity. The Allegation: “The Justinian Code or Corpus Juris Civilis (Corpus of Civil Law) was a major reform of Byzantine law created by Emperor Justinian I (r. 527-565 CE) in 528-9 CE. Aiming to clarify and update the old Roman laws, eradicate inconsistencies and speed up legal processes, the collection of imperial edicts and expert opinions covered all manner of topics from punishments for specific crimes to marriage and the inheritance of property. Not only used as a basis for Byzantine law for over 900 years, but the laws also therein continue to influence many western legal systems to this day.”-World History Encyclopedia “In February 528 CE Justinian I assembled a group of ten legal experts and 39 scribes to reassess Byzantine law and compile a new collective legislative code.”-Word History Encyclopedia There are some main questions that I have right off the bat: Where are these old Roman texts which inspired the Corpus Juris Civilis? Most particularly from the old Republic? Justinian is considered a Byzantine emperor, an yet this text he wrote is considered a primary codex proving the old Roman Empire/Republic. Which is it? Did Rome speak Greek or Latin? Or both, and why the jumping back and forth of these two languages? According to the scholars, the text in question is known as a new law code. I thought it was a reform of old Roman texts? “The old system relied on such diverse traditional sources of Byzantine law as the Codex Gregorianus (imperial edicts from 196 to 284 CE), Codex Hermogenianus (mostly imperial edicts of Diocletian, r. 284-305 CE), and Codex Theodosianus (issued in 438 CE and containing edicts dating back to Constantine I, r. 306-337 CE).”-World History Encyclopedia “As previously noted, archaic Roman law initially consisted of a body of unwritten customary norms, the nucleus of which had its origins in the period when the gentile organization of society was still effective. These norms were characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and, when a legal question arose, it fell to the college of the pontiffs to give an authoritative answer thereto. As the members of this college, like all state magistrates, were at this time exclusively patricians [elites], it is reasonable to suppose that the plebeians frequently accused them of showing class bias in their determinations.”- So, the official narrative claims that these are the older Roman texts but at the same time initially they were not written down. And of course, all this decision making regarding the law, was in the hands of the elite. Not much has changed it seems. "It is thus unsurprising that one of the plebeians’ chief demands during the struggle of the orders was that the customary law in force be written down and made public so that it could no longer be applied arbitrarily by the pontiffs and other magistrates charged with the administration of justice. After several years of strife, it was agreed that a written code of laws applicable to all citizens should be compiled.”- The above passage is of course speaking of the Law of the Twelve Tablets. The masses forced the elites to write down the laws………However, this idea that it would rid the customs of abstract interpretation, is not true or a mistake in the fabricated narrative, otherwise what point would Justinian have for compiling and clarifying the older laws? And if the people forced the elite to write the laws down, was it in a language they could understand? “It was a truly Herculean task which involved studying hundreds of documents and LATIN Roman laws dating back to the early Roman Republic of the west….”-World History Encyclopedia It is also claimed that old Roman texts were in Latin. Keep this in mind also. These next couple of quotes comes from an article written by a Mark Cartwright. Contradictions: “Many of the laws within the older works were repetitive, contradictory or simply did not meet the requirements of a society which had since moved on from earlier Roman times.”-Mark Cartwright And yet it is claimed further down in the article: “Roman and then Byzantine laws were, above all, rational, precise and comprehensive, and it is these qualities which have greatly influenced many of the national and international laws by which we live today.”-Mark Cartwright Do we see a problem here? “From over 2000 books and three million lines of legal text, a new comprehensive and consistent body of laws had to be thrashed out and distilled and then better organized into subjects and themes.”-World History Encyclopedia Where are these 2000 books and three million lines of legal text? Where is the list of titles and where did they all end up? This is of course vaguely addressed and never elaborated on. Also keep in mind that this Justinian character had lawyers creating this large text. Do lawyers seem like honest trustworthy people who have the masses’ best interests in mind? Let’s continue. “Finally, A NEW and consistent law code would help in Justinian's plan to expand the Byzantine Empire into new territories and bring those societies under the jurisdiction of Roman law.” A new law code? Yet I have been told this text provEd the existence of the great Roman empire? Interesting, that this text seems to be more Byzantium than old Roman. The World History Encyclopedia claims that a man named Tribonian was in one of the highest legal positions: "The commission to update Byzantine law was led by the great legal expert Tribonian who had already served as quaestor of the Great Palace of Constantinople, the highest legal position in the empire.”-World History Encyclopedia That is quite a tale, because the same encyclopedia states this as well: "Among the LOWEST ranking magistrates in both the early Republic and Roman Empire was the quaestor - “the man who asks questions.” -world History Encyclopedia Do the people who fabricated our current historical narrative, made mistakes which we can now expose? Or did the Father leave us bread crumbs to find our way back, or both? The elites are certainly mocking us. It does not help either, considering most people haven't taken the time to read a single book in decades? This is infuriating! We are indeed a society of illiterates. “The first part of the Corpus Juris Civilis was completed in April [529 CE], and two more parts were added in the following year. The work superseded all previous legal documents and records of any kind. To add to these, Justinian himself issued decrees, and thus the Justinian Code was EVENTUALLY made up of four main parts:”-World History Encyclopedia Codex Justinianus - the Codex, issued in 529 CE, was a collection of 12 books containing 4,562 imperial edicts from the time of Hadrian (r. 117-138 CE) to Justinian I himself, organized by theme and all correctly attributed to the emperor who had made them and with a date. Digestum (or Pandectae) - the Digest (or Pandects), issued in December 533 CE, was a compendium of legal opinions by celebrated Roman jurists of the past, which could be cited by claimants and defenders in court. It was also designed to be of use to practicing judges. These words of wisdom were all edited, reduced and assembled into 50 books (instead of the previous 1,500) and all organized by subject. The works of the prolific 2nd-3rd century CE lawyer and writer Ulpian (aka Domitius Ulpianus) were especially popular with Justinian's legal team, and these make up 40% of the Digest. Institutiones - the Institutes, also issued in December 533 CE, was a sort of handbook of the Codex and Digestum for law students to better understand and apply them. It was compiled by Trebonian and two other experts, Theophilos and Dorotheos. Novellae Constitutiones - the Novels (or New Laws) was a collection of the imperial edicts made by Justinian between 534 and 565 CE, the final year of his reign. Instead of Latin, as used previously (and still used in the other three parts), Greek was mostly used in these new edicts, THE COMMON LANGUAGE of the Byzantine Empire. Notice it is claimed that Greek was the common language of the Byzantine Empire (but what about the Roman Empire-again, I thought this text was to prove the old Roman empire, not Byzantium??) Furthermore, the Codex Justinianus only claims to date to Hadrian at the very earliest, which was well after Yesho according to the official timeline. What about the documents proving the founding of the old Roman Republic to its end (500 BC-27 BC)? I find all these inconsistencies astounding. It is also interesting that the first three documents listed above, were written in Latin. So why then, if the common language is Greek, were the first three written in Latin?? A law the people were bound by, but who couldn’t even read? Hmm…… “The laws within this huge body of work (still around 1 million words) dealt with every aspect of life and society in Byzantium. There are matters regarding the constitution, the powers of the emperor, the duties of high-ranking officials, and the sources of law. There are matters of private law and criminal law with punishments listed for specific crimes, as well as coverage of administrative affairs and issues related to tax, local government, the civil service, and the military. As with previous Roman law, a particular concern was the relations between individuals such as contracts, marriage, divorce, property ownership, inheritance, and succession.”-World History Encyclopedia Such an integral part of society! Notice the statement “as with Roman law”……I must sound like a broken record at this point, but I must once again reiterate that I was told this document was proof of the Roman empire. And yet it was not written until allegedly 527 AD? The Roman empire ended in supposedly 476 AD. But the Byzantine empire began in allegedly 330 AD? We are not being told the truth about history! “The Novels, in particular, addressed the social changes that Byzantine society had undergone and its evolution away from the Roman society of Constantine's days.”-World History Encyclopedia The Novels are not about the old Roman empire at all as admitted by the World History Encyclopedia above. A text that supposedly proves the Roman empire, is a text that actually moving away from Roman law? There are so many contradictions here, it’s a wonder they get away with this filth! It is then claimed that it was again revised (how do we know this without the original copy?) and this new revision was available in 534 AD. It is thus a revision of a revision of old Roman texts, of which none now exist? This is what we are told is absolute proof of the Roman Empire. The following is where the official narrative gets really interesting: “The Code was studied by students of law in the fifth year of their studies.” This was said to have been in the 6th century…… “As a consequence, gradually most of the Codex was translated into Greek by the end of the 6th century AD.” But wait! Did not this encyclopedia just state prior in this article, that the common language of the Byzantine empire was Greek? So why then was it not originally written in this common language of the people TO BEGIN WITH? “Justinian's Code was also introduced into the recently reconquered Italy (in 554 CE), but it was relatively neglected there until the 11th century CE when it was incorporated into the medieval Corpus Juris Civils using Latin instead of Greek.” -World History Encyclopedia It takes the people five centuries to learn Latin and now the texts are written in Greek, a language that the people do not commonly speak anymore? What a tale they spin! So, the common people, whose Language was Greek, is now Latin, but 500 years of alleged obscurity is never satisfactorily explained! And were not the people studying it, one of the books being a handbook for that very purpose!? Why are these claims made by this author, Mark Cartwright, not exhaustively explained? The body of laws created by Justinian and his experts, in one form or another, lasted for almost a millennium until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 CE. New Byzantine laws were, of course, added to it over the centuries as each emperor issued their own edicts and society evolved. Leo VI (r. 886-912 CE), for example, famously produced another collection of Byzantine edicts and had everything translated into Greek as next to nobody understood Latin anymore (few ordinary people would have even in Justinian's day). The text lasted for almost a millennium, but from sometime in the 6th century to the 11th century, it was neglected? How? In what way? The first three books were in Latin, but it is claimed no one understood Latin. The last book was in Greek, something that they could understand, but it was neglected all the same? What do other sources tell us about this text? The name given in the early seventeenth century to the collection of Civil Law based upon the compilation and Codification of the Roman system of Jurisprudence directed by the Emperor Justinian I during the years from 528 to 534 a.d.- The Following passages are from a paper written by Frederick W. Dingledy from College of William & Mary Law School and Rafael Domingo in The Revival of Roman Law and the European Legal Tradition Flavius Petrus Sabbatius was born into Tauresium, a LATIN -SPEAKING town in the Byzantine Empire10 around 482 CE,11 and took the name Justinian to honor his adoptive uncle, Emperor Justin I (r. 518-527). Justinian had a knack for discovering talent and placed some of his protégés on the commission. One of those protégés was a lawyer named Tribonian, quite possibly the brightest legal mind in the empire, and a very charming man to boot. He was only the sixth-ranked member, but quickly became one of the most important figures in the Corpus Juris Civilis's story. One year later, the commission finished the Codex Justianus -- a remarkable feat by the reckoning of that age's historians. The Codex was a practical handbook for judges, officials, and litigators that contained the empire's most important laws in one place. This first edition, called the Codex Vetus, is NOW LOST to time. Now lost to time. How? The primary source for the alleged Roman empire, is lost to time……..this means that a copy was found later, or fabricated and the originals destroyed. Not something I would hang my hat on. How do we know it existed at all, if it is lost to time? Again, it is not explained. It is my submission ladies and gentlemen, that history is never lost, but only intentionally erased and hidden. “From Justinian's view, there was not even a need to keep the old sources for historical research. Justinian ordered Tribonian's commission to destroy some of the sources they used, and many other copies of the ancient resources disappeared from neglect.” How convenient! The originals were all destroyed or crumbled into dust from neglect………..So what does that mean? This means that there are no actual existing primary documents dating from the actual time the Roman empire is said to have taken place. Only Justinian’s version from the 6th century, again, allegedly! “Justinian’s project to revise Roman law was complete.” This Corpus (dead body) is not proof of the Roman empire, the scholars’ own admittance! It was simply a revision of old texts for a different time period. It in no way proves the Roman Empire ever existed. “The language of instruction was also important. Justinian was a native Latin-speaker,84 and Tribonian preferred Latin to Greek.85 They were in the minority, however. Few people in the capital outside of the legal and bureaucratic spheres spoke Latin…….” Preferred for what reason exactly? So that no one could actually read and understand the law that they were bound by? This is most repugnant to say the least! Of course, is not legalize the same concept today. Laws written so arbitrarily and abstract as to not be understood by the Aryan laymen and aboriginals from all over. Many of which do not belong in Europe or North America. I digress. “Justinian's law of December 16, 533, limited the list of authorized law schools to three: Beirut, Constantinople, and Rome. In the first year of the Justinian curriculum, students attended lectures on the Institutes and the first part of the Digest. Second and third years were devoted to lectures on other parts of the Digest. Fourth year was for private study of the rest of the Digest, and the fifth year was spent on private study of the Codex. Justinian may have added a sixth year for private study of his novels. To help their studies (and increase his new works' visibility, no doubt), Justinian made provisions for law students to receive cheap copies of the Digest, Institutes, and Codex. This sounds very eerily like that of Mason’s moving up ranks to the 33rd degree……. This was a secret society where only select people could understand what texts actually meant! “Justinian died on November 14, 565.The years diluted the impact of Justinian's works in the empire as the Greek language strengthened its hold. Later emperors and scholars abridged and amended the books, translated them into Greek, and added extensive commentary. Emperor Leo VI's (Leo the Wise, r. 886-912) Basilica was probably the most important of these post Justinian revisions, collecting fragments of the Corpus Juris Civilis and integrating them with other laws.” So exactly what part of this massive text is actually of the old Roman Empire? The official narrative admits to abridging the early texts of Justinian, let alone the source texts which were used to create the Corpus Juris Civilis. Considering that all of the source texts were destroyed, we may never know, but this text has yet to prove a Roman empire. Basilica was probably the most important of these post Justinian revisions, collecting fragments of the Corpus Juris Civilis and integrating them with other laws.” If this is a revision, where is its predecessor? …the Codex, Institutes, and Novellae languished in obscurity, and western Europe was ruled by varying mixes of Germanic traditions and Roman law borrowed from the Codex Theodosianus.” It is inevitable that the Germans are forever blamed for so much of history that cannot be proven. It’s par for the mainstream narrative. But is it actually true? Also keep in mind that the Codex Theodosianus is only said to be date back to the END of the Roman empire……..but is it proof of the old Roman Republic, and do we have actually texts dating back to that period? No. The Alleged Medieval Revival The official story claims that many ancient texts were rediscovered, and this is what sparked the Renaissance. There is no evidence to suggest this is true, however. Only empty claims by those who are the gatekeepers of what actually occurred and the circumstances surrounding true events. Were these texts rediscovered, or were they concocted during the Renaissance? I believe this is a fair question. Codex Justinian This is the first of four main parts of the Corpus Juris Civilis. “In the West, Justinian's Codex was largely lost, or in many places never present, due to the limited western extent of the Byzantine territories. The Latin version known today was painstakingly restored over many centuries. The only known manuscript that once contained the entire Latin Codex is a Veronese palimpsest of the 6th or 7th century…” There is a 13th century copy published in Italy which can be viewed here: It is clearly Medieval and not a primary source of the Roman empire. My question is and has been for some time now; where are the actual primary sources that are without a doubt from the actual old Republic of the Roman empire and subsequent years within it? There should be millions of documents coming out of the woodwork in Europe! And they all should be signed with many names of men who penned them. There is not, however. We are forced to refer to texts from the Renaissance! This is not proof, for anyone during the 13th century could forge documents. Considering that these elite Catholics and Jews did so in secret, it would not be difficult to hide this fabrication of history from the masses. Especially when they wrote in a language no ordinary person could read. This was intentionally done to hide their actions! Discovery of the Digest This is the second part of the Corpus Juris Civilis. “Two manuscripts of the Digest SEEM to have been discovered in the eleventh century: one called Littera Florentina or Codex Florentinus (also known as Littera Pisana) and the other called Codex Secundus.”- by Rafael Domingo in The Revival of Roman Law and the European Legal Tradition I have not found exactly the name of the man who found the Digest, only vague references to the 11th century. “Scholarly access was difficult. It took more than three centuries before a reliable edition of the Littera Florentina was finally made available. Nowadays two facsimile editions are at the disposal of scholars.”- Littera Florentina - Wikiwand “The Secundus formed the basis of the Digest versions created in medieval times, but copies of it no longer exist.”- Frederick W. Dingledy in The Corpus Juris Civilis: A Guide to Its History and Use I find all this information extremely dubious. At this point dear reader, all I can say is that if you wish to believe the Roman empire existed, you are doing so purely on blind faith and not concrete factual history. The Institutions “The Institutes of Justinian is a component of the Corpus Juris Civilis, the sixth-century codification of Roman law ordered by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. It is largely based upon the Institutes of Gaius, a Roman jurist of the second century A.D.”-WikiMili This is the third section which makes up the Corpus Juris Civilis. So right off the bat, this official source proving the Roman Empire existed, only dates to the sixth century. It is also claimed that these Institutions were to be used by beginners studying law, whereas the Digest was to be used for advanced students. And we see that it was largely based on a single man. We are not told who else may have been involved the creation of this document. “The bulk of this new Institutes is the Institutes of Gaius, much of it taken verbatim; but it also uses material from the Institutes of Marcian, Florentinus, Ulpian, and perhaps Paulus (the other writers of "authority." There is some debate over which of the commission members is responsible for what part of the new Institutes. Most recently it has been suggested that Theophilus and Dorotheus created the extracts taken from the older works, while Tribonian revised and added new imperial laws.”-Wikipedia This text is called new. This text is a mongrolization of several men, of which we do not know who contributed what. How unconvincing, yet people swallow this fecal matter as if it were sweet wine. “This new version of the Institutes was published on November 21, 533 and promulgated with the Digest on December 30, 533. These new Institutes were not only a textbook for first year law students, but, according to the decree that promulgated them (C. Tanta), they carried the force of law. First year law students used Justinian's Institutes as their textbook for centuries.”-Wikipedia And yet, I thought it had been lost for centuries. If it was indeed used by students so frequently and diligently, why then was there a rediscovery of it in the first place? Again, why was it lost? “Justinian's Institutes was largely unknown in the West. The earliest known manuscript are fragments of a Veronese palimpsest of the ninth century. The first printed edition of Justinian's Institutes was Petrus Schoyff's in 1468. Scholars using the Veronese palimpsest suggested changes to the existing text, and these criticisms resulted in the definitive texts by Paul Krüger and Eduard Huschke in 1867 and 1868 respectively.”-Wikipedia Let us see if we can at least concretely track down this man named Gaius. “Gaius (AD 130–180) was a celebrated Roman jurist. Scholars know very little of his personal life. It is impossible to discover even his full name, Gaius or Caius being merely his personal name (praenomen). As with his name it is difficult to ascertain the span of his life, but it is safe to assume he lived from AD 110 to at least AD 179, since he wrote on legislation passed within that time. From internal evidence in his works it may be gathered that he flourished in the reigns of the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. His works were thus composed between the years 130 and 180. After his death, however, his writings were recognized as of great authority, and the emperor Theodosius II named him in the Law of Citations, along with Papinian, Ulpian, Modestinus and Paulus, as one of the five jurists whose opinions were to be followed by judicial officers in deciding cases. The works of these jurists accordingly became most important sources of Roman law.”-Wikipedia We do not know if Gaius is his real name. We do not know where he was born. We do not know his lifespan. His works were only recognized after his death which is convenient. And yet this man is one of the most important sources of Roman law? If we know nothing of his personal life, when he lived, or even his full name, how then can we ascertain his written works? “Many quotations from the works of Gaius occur in the Digest, created by Tribonian at the direction of Justinian I.” The Digest, however, was only discovered in the 11th century. We are told this man Gaius wrote several great works, but do we have any texts which are signed by him to validate this claim? I have yet to find any; and further still from the date in question. Circular reasoning anyone? “The Institutes of Gaius, written about the year AD 161, was an introductory textbook of legal institutions divided into four books: the first treating of persons and the differences of the status they may occupy in the eye of the law; the second of things, and the modes in which rights over them may be acquired, including the law relating to wills; the third of intestate succession and of obligations; and the fourth of actions and their forms.”-Encyclopedia Britannica So, when was this indispensable (and yet dispensable all the same, to have been discarded and subsequently lost-for this text served as law, remember this dear reader) rediscovered and then published? “The Institutiones of Gaius, written about 161 CE, comprise four books. The first concerns the legal status of persons; the second and third, property rights, including inheritance; and the fourth, forms of legal actions. The text was lost until 1816, when a manuscript, probably of the 5th century, was discovered at Verona, Italy. It was deciphered with great difficulty, because writings of St. Jerome had been superimposed on Gaius’s words. It is the only classical law book to have survived nearly complete and unchanged during the time of Justinian.”-Encyclopedia Britannica How conclusive! I do declare this does stink in the foulest manner. I believe this sums up the bulk of what we know of one of the most foundational texts proving the Roman Empire’s existence. Justinian’s Novels “The basic history of Justinian’s sixth century codification of Roman law is no secret. Literature about the Corpus Juris Civilis (CJC), as that body of law came to be known, abounds in many languages.1 However, one part of that compilation, the Novellae constitutiones (New Constitutions, or Novels), has been less widely discussed than the others. Moreover, it appears that, in particular, detailed descriptions of how editions of the Novels were transmitted from Justinian’s time to our own era have not been published in English.”- Timothy G. Kearley in The Creation and Transmission of Justinian’s Novels The fact that so many text remain in languages other than English only goes to show how the powers at be do not want the lingua franca of the world to be aware of the concealment of history; our history. “It was not until 1476, however, that the Novels was printed. This first print edition was based on the text of the Authenticum and was made in Rome, apparently as part of the whole CJC, not as an individual printing of the Novels.122 The CJC was organized differently then than now:”-Timothy G Kearley It is admitted that even Justinian did not complete an official compilation of the Novels. There are five categories of alleged sources of Justinian’s novels: 1. The Liber Legum 2. Compilations The Epitome Juliani 3. The Authenticum 4. The Greek Collection of 168 5. Other Collections Justinian’s administration is credited with the first source, the Liber Legum. Apparently, this is a dubious collection of texts men used later to create the Novels. I could find only a single paper going over the Liber Legum in any kind of detail, if it can be suggested as details at all. “According to Noailles, the laws were kept in “groups of six months” but were not necessarily in chronological order within those semiannual batches. He believed this Liber Legum was the common source of the novel texts used by private parties to create the novel compilations that have come down to us.”-Timothy G. Kearley I wonder if we will ever be privileged enough to know the names of those making up the private party of men who have done us such a service! Although scholars disagree, they claim that there was this ancient archive where the documents making up the Novels, were kept safe. There is a lot more information regarding this topic of the proof the Roman Republic/Empire existed, and I will adding to this series as I am able to find the time to write it. All of the sources came from the official narrative. Many people do not like Wikipedia, and neither do I. The entire reason for the use of that gatekeeping site, was to show what the official's elites ruling over us, are claiming. but as it has been shown, all the encyclopedias say the same thing. It's a carefully constructed narrative to hide the truth. Which brings me to the very reason for studying the Roman Empire at all-the New Testament. For if Rome cannot be proven to exist with any authentic document, and it will be learned in later studies that the same people who wrote the Roman narrative, are the same people who gave us the official narrative of the New Testament. I wish to make perfectly clear; I am not denying the existence of Yesho my Savior, the Son of David. I am not denying that the 12 apostles were real and that they spread the truth to the lost sheep, Matthew 15:24. What I am questioning is the official version we have been force-fed. And not necessarily each and every verse, for many verses do line up with what the Father commands. But the overall narrative. The time and location of the true events did not happen in Palestine or Rome. They took place alright, but in a must more goodly land. I will leave the reader with an essential piece of this scattered puzzle. A piece that we are just now beginning to understand at ethnic Yshral. For is it about time that we are able to read the scripture apart from the rabbi? Matthew 23. For is it about time that we truly took Yesho's words seriously? Matthew 16:6. Please consider watching this incredible documentary by a dear brother, Jonathan Machtemes. Please also consider visiting his website and looking over the tools he has so diligently been producing. They are his own original work and quite impressive, and if I may say so, impossible to ignore from an honest Germanic Celtic Nordic Yshralite. The enemy wants our people mentally enslaved, for Jonathan discovered that the bible is written in such a way as to chain and constrict the truth of the scripture. I also wish to make quite clear, that when I say 'our people' I am specifically speaking of my Germanic Celtic Saxon Nordic kinsfolk. I am not speaking of all Aryans and certainly not the aboriginals of the world. I am speaking to my genetic kinsmen. This is politically incorrect these days, however tribal identity is fundamental in a true morale and biblical society. Please also consider browsing through the library I am compiling. Be blessed my most dear kinsmen. For it is you who I labor for, to therefore give glory to the Father. The true scriptures are our history. Never forget that beloved. Be blessed and seek the Father.

  • The Gospel THEFT Series: Part 2

    Welcome back to those who have been reading through my blog. This is of course a continuation of part 1. If the reader has not read part 1, please do so here as we will be building upon what was said previously. This section will cover Matthew 4 through 7. Part 2 will be a longer study due to the nature of the information presented. This will be stepping on a lot of sacred cows, but ask yourself; what is more important, the doctrine of man, or the truth of the Father? Matthew Chapter 4 We pick up where we left off, which was at the end of chapter 3. Now in chapter 4, we see that the Messiah has been fasting for 40 days. Someone, who is referred to as the tempter, precedes to test the Son of David. I wish to go over the verses which Messiah quoted. The tempter tells Yesho to turn stones into bread, knowing that he is hungry. Our Messiah is then fed by the Word and is given strength. He quotes of course the Law, Deuteronomy 8:3 He humbled you, and in your hunger, He gave you manna to eat, which neither you nor your fathers had known, so that you might understand that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yeue. What an amazing passage. Most have no idea this verse comes from Moses. Yesho was leaning on his loving Father to sustain him in a time of horrible temptation. This is an example for us to follow. When in times of great peril and temptation, we resist, remember the Word of our Father and flee from sin. The tempter of course does not give up just yet, as temptation typically puts up a fight. The next place Yesho is taken to is the pinnacle of the place of assembly. The tempter asks Yesho to throw himself off and to ask the angels to save him. Yesho’s response is that no one should tempt the Father, for the Father certainly kept his Son safe for the appointed time. I hope it is not lost on the reader what I am referring to. Yesho quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 Ye shall not tempt Yeue your Alahyim, as ye tempted him in Massah. This is of course referring to when the Israelites tempted the Father, Exodus 17:2 when they claimed that Yeue was with them. It’s sort of a challenge to God, to keep his word. And this is evil! For the Father is trustworthy and how dare we ever pin him in a corner for our own glory! Lastly, the tempter takes Yesho to a high mountain. Keep in mind that in Palestine, the highest point above sea level is approximately 760 feet. I suspect the true location our Messiah was taken was Mt Meru, but regardless of which high peak in the North American continent, it was certainly NOT in Palestine as they have no mountains. Matthew 4:8-9 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Now clearly this tempter indeed had the power to offer the world, as Adamites sin, they give up their rightful dominion. When Adam and Eve fell, dominion over the earth fell to another, whether that was a race, or a few individuals, certainly the order of which the Father created was disrupted due to the disobedience of Adamites. Yesho’s response is amazing! Not for a moment, could our Messiah be bought! Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. We are to worship only the Father. Not Messiah, not man, not the tempter. Only the Father is to be worshiped! He after all is one, Deuteronomy 6:4! Yesho is quoting Deuteronomy 6:13 Fear Yeue your Alahyim, serve Him only, and take your oaths in His name. I want to show how abundantly clear Matthew is, that the Son points only to the Father here! We serve the Father! Not man! Mark 1:12-13 speak of the temptation of Yesho, completely leaving out the scripture Yesho speaks to the tempter. Now we continue where Yesho learns that John the Baptist is cast into prison. He then travels back to Galilee [we do not know where this is, it is certainly not taking place in Palestine and that term is six times in the Old Testament, associated with the land, or within the territory of Naphtali], going into a town called Capernaum. I would like to point out that the Old Testament states that both Zebulun and Naphtali have sea coasts as their borders-impossible in the spec of Palestine. The modern town of Capernaum is not on a coast in Palestine. Would anyone call Chicago near a coast? No. Now there is an interesting verse quoted in verses 14 and 15 of Isaiah. Isaiah 9:1-2 "Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those in distress. In the past He humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future, He will honor the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations: The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned." This is an incredible passage! And the tragedy is that hardly anyone has the understanding to ascertain its importance. Of course, if we knew the Old Testament books and the significance of 1 Kings chapter 11 and 12, we understand that the kingdom of 12 tribes as one, were split in two. Yeuda and Benjamin in the south, with the remaining 10 in the north. Levi does not count as they did not have a land grant and were in both the north and south to take care of the places of assembly-the two main ones were in Jerusalem and one in Samaria. These were the two capitals. Isaiah, in chapter 9, is prophesying the redemption of the northern sheep of Yshral being given the light of salvation and we know that Messiah only came for the lost sheep of the house of Yshral, Matthew 15:24. No longer will there be darkness for the northern tribes, which Naphtali and Zebulun are indeed a part of, but they will be given the light. How absolutely marvelous. Praise be to the Father! And what does our beloved Messiah do? He begins preaching repentance and the kingdom to his lost sheep, as the good shepherd! This really pricks my heart, as I know, my people are those lost sheep. The Germanic Nordic Celtic people of the world. And it truly breaks my heart they are so destroyed today, for lack of this knowledge. They do not even know who they are! They actually believe Edom [Jews, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Canaanite Samaritan non-Adamic mixture] are the chosen people and that the desert of Palestine is the land of milk and honey. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now this passage Yesho quotes from Isaiah 9:1-2, is to be found nowhere else in any of the other gospels. It makes sense however, because none of the other gospels were penned by Yshralites. And as far as the account of Matthew we have access today, it has been seriously altered. And yet it is the one that aligns with the Old Testament the most. The apostle Matthew would be the only one of the four writers, who would truly appreciate Isaiah chapter 9. So, Messiah is with his sheep, ministering to them and teaching them that they have a way back to the Father, when he chooses his first apostles along the coast. Again, this is not a dead little lake in the middle of the most inhospitable place on earth. Messiah is by an ocean, and the Greek translation calls it Galilee. It was a large and vast place and wrought with storms. There has never been a storm in the modern ‘sea’ of Galilee in recorded human history. And to call that place a sea is an insult to any Adamic's intelligence. That location simply does not fit the descriptions of the true location of this sea. The Great Lakes are over 100 times the size of the pond Galilee, and they are not called seas. Only in Palestine it seems, is a millpond called an ocean, a wadi considered a river, and an ant hill called a mountain. Furthermore the six places where the term Galilee is found in the Old Testament, it suggests a geographical location, not a sea. I digress. What is never mentioned in the whitewashed NT we are given, is that the apostles, at least the majority of them, were the full-blooded brothers of Yesho. Matthew 4:18 "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two [brethren], Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 And they straightway left their nets and followed him. 21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them." According to all of the gospels, the first four Apostles were Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John. What is not told, or intentionally left out, is that all of these men were Yesho's brothers. We are not told the order of their births either. And it is absolutely possible that Yesho was not the first born. Could he be? Yes, he could. But there is nothing requiring him to be the first born. Both Yosef and David, his ancestors, were also not the first born. Both of them were actually the youngest brother. They were also a foreshadowing of Yesho to come. In short, Yesho is the genetic full-blooded son of Yosef, and full-blooded brothers of at least the first four apostles. He is not Yeue the Father. Mark 1:16-19 does line up with Matthew 4:18-21 Matthew 4:18-21 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. All of the deeds and words of Yesho at that time in the land of the northern kingdom, was spreading. He was becoming well-known among the people. Many decided to follow him and learn from his teachings. Many were getting healing from their sickness. I did want to point out one passage in particular, describing a geographical location. Matthew 4:25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. This was a massive multitude of people. No wonder the Pharisees and false prophets living among the people, were concerned. The Messiah for all intents and purposes has a great army of people. They must have seen this as a threat to their power-hold over the people. Of course, we can only imagine the great population of this area. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that a place with virtually no water supply, no grazing lands, no farmlands, could support this massive amount of people. We are talking about a huge continent. The northern kingdom alone was massive, with mountains, rivers, plains, lakes, and coasts just as described in scripture. It was larger than the size of New Jersey certainly, which today in terms of size is comparable to Palestine. Our minds have been twisted and warped to suspend logic and reason. But what if we applied them. What geographical picture comes to mind if Palestine did not exist? I will leave that to the dear reader. The sermon on the Mount was indeed on a tall mountain. Of course, I cannot prove that this mountain was Mt. Horeb; the mountain of Yeue, but it is possible. I suspect it to be the case. There are no such mountains in Palestine. Elijah hides at this mountain if we recall, in 1 Kings 19. Elijah was preaching against the Northern kingdom. How then can the Mountain be southeast and outside the territory of Palestine? Did he cross back over the Yardan to get there? The alleged location of the real Mt Sinai in Arabia is nowhere near the Northern kingdom. There are many problems that reveal themselves when looking at a map of Palestine and comparing that to the scripture. Matthew Chapter 5 Let's take a look at the sermon. Yesho is teaching the northern house of Yshral how to keep the law. He is giving comfort and love to his sheep that they so desperately needed. It was spoken to Yshral. Not to the Arabs, nor the Asiatic mongoloids, nor the Indians, nor the negroid races. It was for the people of Yoqb [Jacob]. And we are to share that truth and spread it to the world like savory salt. Many love to quote John 3:16, but I ask you, what proof exists that this text was penned by the apostle? And by what authority is it called scripture? I will touch briefly on Luke here and there in this blog but will go into much more detail of Luke chapter 6 in a later study. Matthew 5:2-12 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. For hundreds of years after the exile of the ten northern tribes, 1 Chronicles 5:26, Yeue’s sheep had no shepherd. They had lost their way. Now, the good shepherd has come to take them home. To care for them, not as a hireling, but as a true shepherd with no conflict of interest. Yesho calls Israel as a whole, the salt of the earth. Matthew 5:13 Ye are the [salt] of the earth: but if the salt has lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. What does the Scripture tell us about salt? How is salt related to the people of Israel? Salt 2 Chronicles 13:4-5 Then Abijah stood on Mount Zemaraim, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, and said, “Listen to me, Jeroboam and all Israel: Do you not know that the Lord God of Israel gave the rule over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of SALT? Leviticus 2:13 Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt, so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer SALT. Numbers 18:17-19 But the firstborn of an ox or the firstborn of a sheep or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and shall offer up their fat in smoke as an offering by fire, for a soothing aroma to the Lord. Their meat shall be yours; it shall be yours like the breast of a wave offering and like the right thigh. All the offerings of the holy gifts, which the sons of Israel offer to the Lord, I have given to you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a perpetual allotment. It is an everlasting covenant of SALT before the Lord to you and your descendants with you.” In short, salt is both a metaphor and synonym for Yshral. When Yesho referred to salt, the Yshralites listening knew immediately who he was referring to. The Law, the covenant Yshral made with the Father at Mt Horeb. This realization has amazed my family as well as myself. So much of the scripture begins to become abundantly clear. All it takes is for Yshral today [no association whatsoever of Palestine or it’s depraved inhabitants] to study and begin to follow the Law, study the Word, and learn from the Son of David (Yesho). It takes a desire to learn the truth. Sadly, I do not see this in the Christian community nor the Hebrew roots Judaic cult. Light Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. The light of the world. Who does Yesho call the light of the world? This may begin to sound like a broken record, but for some, that is what it takes for the truth to sink in. Certainly, no other race of people, not the Arabs, the Indians, the negroids, are this light. Many find their behavior repugnant, as if they are beasts. Not all, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. If this is offensive to some, then I simply ask you; what is more important? Truth? Or feelings. The truth is that no other race but the Adamic peoples, have blessed the world. No other race even attempts to spread the truth of scripture than the Germanic Celtic Nordic peoples. This began and will end with the Aryan peoples. Please do not misunderstand; not all Aryans are created equal either. For the worst Aryans do control the world. These are not the Western European peoples. We will know them by their fruit. Isaiah chapter 49 is one of the greatest chapters of all the prophets. I encourage the reader to look at it in it’s entirely, but I wanted to highlight one section pertaining to this light Yesho speaks of in Matthew 5:14. Isaiah 49:6 Yeue said to me, “I have a greater task for you, my servant. Not only will you restore to greatness the people of Yshral who have survived, but I will also make you a LIGHT to the nations—so that all the [erets (land)] may be saved.” This whole chapter is speaking of the light unto the nations-Yshral. The prophet also speaks of this light in Isaiah 42:6 "I, Yeue, have called you for a righteous purpose, and I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations." A covenant people is a direct reference to the Law by which Yshral promised to keep at Mt. Horeb. Both salt and light are metaphors for the covenant people-Yshral. Is it any wonder then, that none of the other gospels, penned by non-Yshralites record this sermon? It was not for them, and they resented it, or did not understand it. How else can we explain the sermon's absence from these other gospels? So, after Yesho establishes just who he came for and just who his audience was to be-genetic Yshral, he then establishes the fact that he came to fulfill the Law of the Most High-Yeue. Matthew 5:17-19 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Can it be any more clear, dear Christians? Can we find this passage in any other gospel? Verse 20 seems a bit odd considering that the Pharisees were not righteous at all. I really do not know what to make of it and will let the reader test it for themselves. Some may say, well what about Luke 16? Luke records some of the Sermon on the Mount, right? Let’s take a look at what this character called Luke writes: Luke 16:14-17 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but Yeue knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of Yeue. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of Yeue is preached, and every man presses into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. A bit different? I’d say that it is entirely different. First, Luke records Yesho speaking to the Pharisees, so this is not the Sermon on the Mount. Luke claims that Yesho said the law and prophets were until John the Baptist. Is that true? Matthew says that the law shall not pass away until earth passes away. Luke then claims in verse 17, that it is easier for earth to pass away than for the law to fail. While this may be true, it is not the same as what Yesho says at his sermon to Israel. Failing and doing away with, are not the same concepts and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Yesho then teaches on murder. Yes, murder, not kill. For the law allows killing. Murder and kill are two extremely different things. We seem to forget this today. The law says thou shalt not murder in Exodus 20:13. So what is this passage in Matthew 5 really talking about? Premeditation and hatred in the heart for one’s own kinfolk. I apologize for once again stepping on sacred cows, but this passage is not talking about the hatred of another race or people unlike oneself. This is talking about how Yshralites are to treat each other’s genetic tribe in the community and kingdom of Yshral. Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shalt not murder; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: Yesho is dealing with a heart issue, for if the heart is healthy and whole, he would never even go so far as to murder. Matthew 5:27 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This explanation of the law us fairly straightforward. One would never commit adultery if they first had not looked upon a woman first. In the next passage, Yesho is fully upholding the law. Divorce has no place in society whatsoever, unless the woman has committed adultery. And the only time a man can commit adultery, is when he sleeps with a woman who has done so. Adultery is specifically for woman, not men. Sorry ladies, men have a higher status and a different role than we do. If you question this, please read Genesis 3. Matthew 5:33-37 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto Yeue thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is Yeue's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Much evil has come from swearing oaths, Judges11 and 21, to name two examples. At first glance, it seems as if Yesho changing the Law, but look closely. There is no command to swear oaths in the Law. We are not required to swear oaths at all, and in fact Yesho is saying is it is better not do so. Simply let your yes be yes and your no, to be no. Of course, the wording could very well have been changed over time, to put the idea that the law was changed. The next passages does make it sound as if the law was changed. Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." This does appear to indicate that we are to simply be doormats. For in Ecclesiastes 3 “To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted; A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up; A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing; A time to gain, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to throw away; A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace.” I do not know what to make of this passage in Matthew 5 as it does contradict all common sense and the law. For we have a right to justice and lawful living. We are indeed to resist evil! James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the tempter, and he will flee from you. I will need to continue to test this passage and openly admit I do not have all the answers. If anyone reading this has a better understanding of the passage in question, I would love any feedback. In the last portion of Matthew 5, we are told to love our enemies. Perhaps we do not understand the true definition of love. Love does not mean condone. Love does not mean allowing someone to commit sin against. Love does not mean do not tell someone the truth. Love means that we keep the law, despite our enemies wanting anything but for us to keep it. We study and learn the law and walk it out. Be perfect means to resist sin. And it is possible! Matthew Chapter 6 Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. The above passage tells us to not share our giving to the needy, with others or to brag openly. But there is more to it. It also teaches us to not even document it. Many Christians today do not even know they are breaking this command. They write off donations from their taxes don’t they? Would that defy this command from Yesho? Oh yes, yes it would. When you write it off, you are possibly receiving some of it back. You give, and yet it comes back to you later. You have received your reward and your gift was not even recognized by the Father. Luke is quite different, which will be dissected in more detail in future studies. But I wanted to touch on one verse that differs quite a lot from the account of Matthew. Luke 6:25 "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." Woe to the rich? Why. For what sin have they committed? Simply because they are rich. Name a single patriarch who was not rich. They were all very wealthy. Certainly, Solomon was the wealthiest man that ever lived. But what was his downfall? The wealth? No. Sin. Marrying women who worshipped false Alayim. There is no law against being wealthy. Whoever penned Luke certainly had an evil Judaic communistic slant. Yes, communism has been around a very long time. Much longer than we are led to believe. For communism stems from the Talmud written by masoretic Jews. Proverbs15:27 He who is greedy for unjust gain brings trouble on his household, but he who hates bribes will live. Yeue’s prayer is recorded in Matthew 6:5-15 and Luke 11:1-13. We will compare them here: Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prays, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the assemblies and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward." Luke utterly skips this part about Yesho exposing the hypocrites. Luke also records that John taught the disciples how to pray but this is not recorded anywhere else. Luke 11:2 "And he said unto them, when ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. The next two verse in Luke simply says: Luke 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. This is very different, and the rest of Matthew’s prayer says the following: Matthew 6:7-15 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Quite a contrast when looked at side-by-side. Why does Luke exclude so much of the prayer? Luke then spends the next several verses speaking about giving to anyone who asks regardless of how much and with no boundaries or conditions set upon the gifts! This is utter nonsense. Let’s take a look: Luke 11:5 "And he said unto them, which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? 7 And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. 8 I say unto you, though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth. 9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? " Luke paints a picture that we are to be weak and helpless. We are to be nothing but slaves to the whims of others. Is this really what the Father wants for his people? To be nothing more than slaves? Owning and having nothing? As if owning wealth is selfishness. It almost sounds like what is going on in the world today. With this lockdown nonsense. It has become selfish to want to work and provide for your family. Not giving into corporate demands is now seen as crimes against humanity. Its as if this author, was a Herodian Jew of the New York Times attempting to twist the Messiah’s words and commands. And Christians believe this is scripture? O Father in heaven! Are bums on the street supposed to beg their whole lives even though they have the ability to work? Are criminals to knock on doors demanding whatever they need until they get what they want, and that individual has no choice but to give them whatever they ask for? What if it is a foreigner from Somalia on drugs and demands 10,000 dollars? Is the homeowner who has been blessed with this depraved individual’s presence, then required to simply hand it over to this negroid? Is that how society is supposed to work? I don’t think so ladies and gentlemen! The author seems to use this as an analogy that if you continually bother God with prayer, that eventually he will give you what you want. I had to laugh writing this. What absolute cock and bull! There is no mention anywhere in Luke 11 of repentance or doing what the Father asks of us. The door will not be opened to just anyone. Read the story of the ten virgins in Matthew 25, if that is what you believe, dear reader. Luke has some serious problems. It has been casting stumbling blocks at the true Yshralite assembly for far too long. I believe it is time we see this text for what it is, Judaic leaven of the Pharisees. Yesho next discusses how one should fast. It is quite telling as he describes how the Pharisees fast. They make sure everyone around them knows that they suffer, and that they do it for Yeue, when in reality they do it for recognition of man, as Yesho tells us. Matthew 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. If we fast, we do not show it off to others. We do it for the Father. Luke does not mention this command regarding fasting, nor do the other gospels. It is very strange. Fasting may well be how we give offerings of fat to the Father and in prayer commune with Him, if done the correct way. Why did the other gospels not mention this most effective treatment of healing, by fasting and having a deeper connection with the Father? Perhaps this was not their purpose, to truly give correct council to their unwitting readers? I suspect something to that effect. Matthew 6:19 "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: Indeed, for our heart is where our treasure lies." Do the other gospels attest to this? Well, we will look at Luke 12:13-21. It is antinomian and communistic as one can get and it is verses like this that expose their true origins, for communism is about taking everyone’s possession and enslaving humanity: Luke 12:13-21 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses. And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But Yeue said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward Yeue. This passage is also a direct attack upon farmers, for the Pharisees and Canaanites and Edomites loathed them as well. Why? Because they were the descendants of Cain and were cursed from ever farming again, for Cain murdered Abel. Was not Yosef an incredible farmer? Did he not store up food to feed millions of people? Storing up food for oneself and one’s family, is not treasure. It is essential for existing. Clearly the author of Luke is either confused or intentionally trying to deceive its readers. Now, notice what verse 14 says. Luke wishes us to believe that Yesho has not been made a judge over the people of Yshral! That most certainly contradicts Matthew 28:18 "And Yesho came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." And if a farmer has worked year after year and has been blessed with good crops, then yes, he has every right to enjoy the fruits of his labor! Those who have never farmed or are not of families who are or were farmers, may not understand this. I do. I come from a long line of farming families. This has never been described as storying up treasure in the Scripture! Never! And yet Luke spats on the Yshralites by spewing this filth. Farming is one of the most incredible gifts given to Yshral. Edomite Jews have always been jealous of this gift as well. In short, there exists no other passage in the other gospels discussing laying up treasures in heaven. We live not on bread alone, not that we do not store food. That is simply a requirement of being human. I hope this is quite clear to the reader. Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve Yeue and mammon. Luke does record this in 16:13, but in front of Pharisees and not Yshralites-for Luke does not record the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 6:25-34 discuss how we are not to be anxious about our needs, for our Father in heaven knows we are in need of them. We are to trust him to care for us as he is the good shepherd. Note that shepherds are ranchers. It seems that ranching and farming are in Western Europeans' blood. Matthew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." We are to remember our first love, all else comes second. This is once again, a heart issue. Not that we are not to farm or forgo storing food. We need to be a bit more practical in our thinking. The Father never once accuses the rich for being evil simply for being rich! Matthew Chapter 7 Matthew chapter 7 begins speaking on judging others. Most like to stop at Matthew 7:1 and call it good. But are we to judge others? Most certainly, but we are to use righteous judging, for verse 2 says just that; Matthew 7:1-2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. If we judge wrongly, then we will be judged as a hypocrite. Many Christians love to through verse 7:1 out whenever someone comes along and calls out their sinful acts, as if we are not to correct evil and sin as messengers of Yesho. It’s ludicrous. But in case we do not understand Matthew, let’s look at what he was referring to in the law: Leviticus 19:15 ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. Deuteronomy 1:16 “Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him. Deuteronomy 16:18 “You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which Yeue your Alayim is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. Even John states this in his gospel; John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” So, if we know the Law, there is no confusion. It is only if we try and live by the New Testament alone, that things become abstract. Today biblical concepts are allowed to be interpreted apart from their original intent. Why? Why does Yshral today, not appoint righteous judges in the community to rid it of sinful behavior? Because Yshral for one, is occupied by a foreign power. We ae not living under righteous leadership and pastors are nothing but hirelings. What do the other gospels say about judging others? Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you." This is once again, different than what we see in Matthew. There is a stark pattern isn't there dear reader? I hope with comparing the gospels; their subtle differences, that Yshral will begin to shed false dogma and begin to be shown the truth. Matthew 7:3 "And why behold thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considers not the beam that is in thine own eye?" We are called to be perfect. In other words, we are to keep the laws and statutes of the Father. This is what perfection is defines as in the Old Testament. If we go and try to correct a kinsman, we are not to be suffering from that same problem, while trying to correct then. We are to keep our house in order. Only then can we help our fellow kinsfolk. Let us not be as the hypocrites, for hypocrites are identified as the Pharisees. Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. " Now, this verse is quite fascinating to me. For so long, Christianity has been attempting, to no avail I might add, to convert non-Adamic peoples to believe in Yesho and follow biblical teachings. Negroids from Africa. Asiatics in China. Arabs in the Middle East. Even Jews. Has it worked? Has adopting the negroid child over your own kinsfolk made you feel better about yourselves, dear Christian? I will invite my fellow believers to look at the state of affairs of the Aryan South Africans being exterminated by negroids. Why have our efforts as Christians not worked for these people? Or Arabs? Or Indians? Or China? Why are the bases of Christianity only in Western countries? Really think about it. How long will we cast our pearls to dogs? The Sermon on the Mount builds upon itself. It began with Yesho confirming the Law of Yeue and that it was for Yshral, and Yshral alone. So, in Matthew 7:7, when Yesho tells the people ask and it shall be given to you, he is speaking of those Yshralites keeping the law and serving the Father. He is not speaking to everyone. Luke seems to simply pick and choose what he likes from Matthew-no matter what context is lost in the process! This is the sense I get when reading Luke. Matthew 7:8 For everyone that ask receiveth; and he that seek finds; and to him that knock it shall be opened." Again, this is everyone who is born of Yoqb and following the Father’s Law. How can we be sure? Christians ask for many things and they do not receive the things they ask for. This happens year after year, decade after decade, century after century. Could it be because they are either not following the law, or not genetic Yshral, or both? Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Now, there is a lot in the scripture about how to live and how to treat others. It is certainly a huge part of the law. But the essence of the Law is to glorify the Father. Many things in the New Testament have been watered down. We have forgotten our first love, and in so doing, the whole point of the Law in the first place. We keep the Law to please the Father, and in so doing we treat our kinsfolk and other non-Adamites, as the Father would have us do. We do not treat witches, murderers, or pedophiles the same as other law-abiding Yshralites, however. We treat people the way the Father commands us to. We judge people depending upon what they do according to the Law, not our whimsical feelings. No, not everyone is created equal. That is another lie we are forced to accept. Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. What is the straight gate? John 10:7 "So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." If Yesho is the door or gate for the sheep, then the law are the walls of protection. We must learn from Yesho the law and through him we are taught how to keep it. Sadly, much of what was once known about Yesho, and his teachings have been lost. This watered-down version of the New Testament is all we have access to now. Fortunately, we have the Law and the prophets. It is going to take a large amount of study and dedication, but the Father has preserved His word, but not necessarily in English and not necessarily in the way we expect. Many have a desire for the Father. We must endure until the end. Isaiah 35:8 And there will be a highway called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not travel it--only those who walk in the Way--and fools will not stray onto it. The straight and narrow path has always been walking in the ways of the Father-keeping the law. The next passage is a very important warning for Christians today, who for the most part do not heed even in the least. Matthew 7:15-19 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. I have written extensively on the topic of Saul of Tarsus Introduction, Saul of Tarsus Part 1 and Dissecting Romans 3, which I recommend reading. In short, Saul of Tarsus and his followers which branched out in many directions, much like leaven in dough, are the false prophets spoken of here in Matthew 7. Ravenous wolves of course, takes us back to Genesis 49:27 and Saul himself provides us with the link to the puzzle in Philippians 3:5. I find it incredibly interesting that Luke leaves out this section from his scatter-brained volume. I have suspected for a long time that Saul himself had something to do with the creation of the book of Luke, though I cannot prove it. Nor do I wish to. Some of the language however, I simply find eerily similar to the stench of Saul’s own letters. The reader can do what they will with this theory. I certainly am not claiming this to be the case, only that is one conclusion I have considered in my own study. But let’s look at the fruit, for we can glean quite a bit from this. What is the fruit of rejecting the Law of Yeue in mainstream Christianity? Divorce, atheism, homosexuality, lawlessness, Sunday worship, Pagan idolatry [Christmas, Halloween, and Ishtar days], and hatred towards the books of what we call the Old Testament. The fruits of following Saul not of Yshral, are they not? Eating meat sacrificed to idols-it matters not. Or does it? Revelations 2 anyone? Why did Yesho curse the fig tree in Matthew 21:19? It was good for nothing because it bare no fruit. James 2:18 "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." Matthew 7:21-23 Not everyone that saith unto me, Master, Master, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Master, Master, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. So, after Yesho explains that you will know someone by their fruit he now tells his people that not everyone who call upon him will enter into the kingdom [gate]. So clearly, we have a problem because John claims that anyone who calls upon him with be saved, the famous John 3:16. Which is true? Those who bear the fruit, or works, of the law of course. Matthew and John are quite different. John will also be discussed at length in a future blog. We know from verse 21, that not everyone will enter into the kingdom of the Son of David. Why? Because they did not do the will of the Father. What is the will of the Father? Exodus 20 gives a summary. What is the requirement for entering into the kingdom? Keeping the law. I find it incredible that even with warning given to us in the following verse, someone who does not belong to the Messiah or his kingdom, can perform miracles, that Christianity was fooled by Saul just the same. Acts 19? We do not judge someone by their miracle performances or charismatic speeches, but by their fruit. We know Saul was antinomian, and so he bore bad fruit. Now we come to perhaps one of the most important passages to finish out this great sermon on the Mountain, not in Palestine. Those who claimed to do such great miracles and wonders, were never even part of Yesho to begin with! They were never qualified for salvation. Were never going to enter into the kingdom. What did Yesho call them? Workers of iniquity! What is iniquity? Wickedness, sin, lawlessness [without law]. Those who did not keep the law! Is it no wonder that the people came away from this incredible teaching, amazed? For how many pieces of the puzzle began to be filled in for them? How many verses from the Law and the Prophets started to make sense to these Yshralites who had been divorced? How many cried in agony and repentance? What a site that must have been! I ask the reader to go read all of Luke six and compare it to the sermon on the Mount. See how different they truly are. Like I have said prior, we will dig into that problem in a later teaching. Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Now, we can truly understand the wise and foolish man. The house built on a rock instead of the sand. The wise and foolish virgins? Those who have oil in their lamps. Those who keep the Law. For atheists and unbelievers do not wait for their bridegroom, do they? Until next time ladies and gentlemen, wish you many blessings dear kinsfolk of Yshral.

  • Dissecting Romans 3

    I would first like to give a little introduction for the readers. Romans is no doubt one of the single most popular book for the Torah Hebrew roots crowd as well as for Christians. I find it repugnant that the Torah community hates their own kind, the Christians. From my experience with these people, they attack Christians and believe themselves to be better. I also find it bizarre that many Christians still have no idea the law is for them. By them, I mean Aryan Adamic Germanic Celtic Nordic tribes. Not all so-called White people, for we are not homogenous. The idea that Negroids could ever be Christian, is most ridiculous and that goes for any other non-White aborigal. Christian carries a genetic Aryan connotation, and it is impossible for all races to be Christian. I am a Christian by ethnicity and believe in following the law of the All-Father (Yeue the creator) specifically of the Germanic Celtic Nordic tribes. If Yesho did indeed live, he was a genetic son of David, hence the title. Furthermore, John contradicts Matthew in many ways, but the following example is most unveiling: "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Yshral." Matthew 15:24 I also acknowledge that the Law of Yeue is for us today and has NEVER nor will EVER pass away, Matthew 5:17. I believe that we are to keep the commandments based on the entire law and prophets! The Jews [who are mostly Edomite, Samaritan and Canaanite mixture] have rejected the law of the Father-the most obvious example of this would be their incessant parasitically feeding from usruy against my Germanic Aryan people. The Christians reject the Law of the Father and so suffer slavery and cursings as a result. Do not thing that the influx of negroids, arabs, cancer, child slaughter is anything but cursea from Duteronomy 28. Note Jews do not suffer curses, but flourish with ever more sinful behavior. If the Jews were truly the chosen people, they would suffer curses, but they do not. For those who believe and claim all have sinned and that it is impossible to keep the law, then please read Matthew 5:48. I also wish to make this abundantly clear for those who seem to be in this ever-expanding Jew fog, JEWS CANNOT BE SAVED! They have rejected the law and do not fear or honor the Father, and so just as the Law does not call for rehabilitation, neither should we continue to kid ourselves. ANYONE who aligns themselves with the enemies of Yshral and wars against the Father by breaking and rewriting the laws, will be cut off forever. Prophecy states they will not, for Jews are a vast mixture of the enemies of Yshral, particularly the Samaritan, which is why we see such a Samaritan friendly NT, for they are the authros of it. Obadiah is quite clear as well regarding Edom. They cannot be redeemed. Malachi is most emphatic for the Father's hatred for Edom. If anyone is unfamiliar with this truth, I suggest the reader attempt to show the Jew as the chosen people by using scripture-for you will find they fit not a single prophecy of the Yshralites scattered. Yshral were never to be wanderers. Cain was however, to wander. That should tell us something of the ever wandering Ashkenazi-Gyptie-Jew. True Yshral would be great seafarers, MANY nations and as the sand of the sea, and would bless the world. Jews have not done ANY of these and I am not prepared to call Yeue our creator a liar! The only answer is that, as Ezekiel clearly points to, they are a counterfeit deception. They cast a stumbling block of Baal to the Children of Yshral and bring nothing but curses upon every host nation (only Aryan peoples have nations-for China, India, and Africa are not nations-only proped up aboriginals to decieve Yshralites-or more commonly called; Christians) they parasitically feed from. I am neither part of the Talmudic led Jewish Hebrew Roots cult, nor am I part of any Christian denomination. I reject the pagan traditions of Christian tradition handed down to us by Saul of Tarsus, the wolf in sheep's clothing and other Jews far older. This was done. We as Christians have chose someone other than the Father to follow. Saul of Tarsus, the ravenous wolf spoken of in Genesis 49:27 Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Of which seems to be referred to in Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Yesho associates ravenous wolves with false prophets. Those who would pretend and look like men of Yeue, but they would not be genuine. Did not Saul of Tarsus brag about being of the tribe of Benjamin on several occasions in Romans 11:1 and Philippians 3:5? I recommend the reader look at Judges 20-21, to gain a deeper understanding of just how evil the tribe of Benjamin was replenished after a great battle. Chapter 21 shows how Benjamin was sustained from dying off. Men of Yshral slaughtered many of their own kin who did not take an oath against giving their women to Benjamin. So, the wives of those men who were murdered, were given to what was left of the Benjamite tribe. All of their women were destroyed. It seems quite harsh; however, they defied the law and so they were judged. Over time, these Benjaminite's simply became part of the tribe of Yeuda [Judah]. The tribe of Benjamine was certainly not a distinct tribe by the time of our Messiah Yesho. And with so much mixing in with their brothers, it is quite difficult to pinpoint a Benjamite from that time period. However, the fact that Saul states this is most likely prophetic in nature and was meant to be said so those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear, could be wise and understand who this man truly was. The fact that Saul claims to be of Benjamin, should alert true believers to his true nature. They would inevitably come across Judges chapter 21. Saul unwittingly gave himself away by his boasting. Unfortunately, Christians today are not familiar with two thirds of the book they claim to believe in. Now let us move onto dissecting Romans 3. We will go line by line testing Saul’s words against the law and prophets to discover if what he claimed is really true. To the Torah Hebrew roots folk, who claim that Saul really taught and followed the law, this claim will be tested. To the Christian, if the Messiah did indeed come to do the will of the Father, John 6:38, you must ask yourself; is it really the Father’s will that you continue to reject the Law? Is it acceptable to the Father that you continue to defy Jeremiah 11:16, clinging so desperately to your antinomianism? These are some very important and significant contradictions in the NT ladies and gentlemen regardless of which side of the fence you adhere to. In short, is Saul the stumbling block of Baal dear Christians. Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Yeuda? or what profit is there of circumcision? Here we see Saul asking a question. This requires us to review chapter two for a moment. I will use the KJV for the simple reason that I can see what was added by translators. These parts of the text are found in parenthesis. This may seem harmless, but they bring their bias with them.. It causes much confusion especially when trying to understand Saul. So, I will be omitting the translator's commentary they added to the text. Itt was never there when the texts were first penned and causes much confusion when we desire clarity. Now chapter two mostly speaks of the law and how Saul sees it. But we MUST address that verses 2:13-15 were never in the original manuscripts. In other words, Saul never wrote those verses. In Romans 2:16 Saul calls what he is preaching HIS gospel. Many skip over this detail believing that his gospel was the same as Messiah’s. I have one simple question for you folks, why then, does Saul not simply say Yesho’s gospel? Especially when we consider that there were many false prophets running around with their own gospels and doctrines, Matthew 24:11? No! I am afraid that we cannot assume anything. We must test Saul according to the law. We cannot assume what he refers to as his gospel is the same as our Messiah’s gospel. It is also quite important to understand who Saul’s audience is. Who is Saul speaking to in Romans chapter 2? Now based on the language, he is speaking to those not of the southern kingdom, our Yahuda, Benjamin, and some Levites. The NT is quite frustrating in that everyone is grouped under one term in English-Jew. Well, I am forced to define this for the sake of understanding the text accurately. The letter J was not even being used as part of the common language until 1634. We must have an understanding of the history of English, a basic understanding of linguistics, and realize that the NT that we have was written in Koene Greek, or Modern Greek. In other words, the NT texts we have today were written well after the events it describes. What does that tell us if it’s antiquity? At best, the original texts were destroyed, and we only have copies of Catholic approved versions. This is undeniable folks. With that said, I am not saying we cannot glean knowledge from them, only that they are not scripture. I know this may offend the reader. I only ask that you test this out for yourselves. We must remember that Esau married into the Canaanites and then became known as Edom, which was a Canaanite tribe-fully evil. Amalek was the worst of the Edomites, Genesis 36:12. So modern Jewry is an amalgamation of many races, the two most dominant are Esau, and Canaanite. That is why Jewry is today, hates the Law and hates its Messiah. Many people without this understanding, automatically assume these modern Jews, are the same genetics as the apostles and Messiah. But our bibles have been altered. Jew in the NT does not mean those of the fourth born son of Jacob. First, during the time of Messiah, there were those who had returned with Nehemiah to the southern kingdom. Some Levites, some Yehudim, and some of Benjamin. Later, we learn Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean, defied Yeue, allowed Edomites to become citizens in the southern kingdom. People at that time had citizenship and so they were, according to our Modern Greek, Ioudaios. That is the term we see various peoples called. Not Jew. Remember the letter J was only in common use in 1634. The term Jew was never denoting ethnicity. It was given this definition in modern times by Jews themselves who had an agenda. For if they were truly being consistent, they would have named the modern state of Israel, Judea. For that is what it is. Using the term Jew in its proper context, is like using the term Roman or American. There is no ethnic connotation to them. But because we have a false idea of just who the Israelites were and their separation in 1 Kings 11, we are easily deceived. Now, these Edomites began to take over the priesthood due to the sin of Hyrcanus, who was of the line of Aaron. Hyrcanus was a Levite, not a Jew [remember, Jews are Edomite Canaanites]. Herod was the most popular of these Edomites. And he appointed his kin to the highest offices within the priesthood. Ananias was related to Herod, a Herodian Edomite, who was responsible for sentencing Yesho to death, with Pilates' cowardly consent. I would like the reader to consider how much power these Edomites had to scare a Roman governor into submission. I digress. There is a single passage that gives the Edomites away. This unwitting exposure shows these people were not of any tribe of Israel: They answered him, we are Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” John 8:33. This is utterly overlooked by both Christianity and Hebrew rooters because they do not truly know the front of the book. The Yehudim, or genetic southern kingdom, would never have made such a statement. We know full well that the tribes of Israel, not Edom, were enslaved in bondage. A detailed study of 1 Kings will make quite plain why there are two sticks in Ezekiel 37. Israel and Yehudim were two different kingdoms. And only the southern kingdom returned with Nehemiah to rebuild. The ten northern tribes were never in Yehudim in the NT, and yet we see some VERY key statements in both Matthew 15:24 and 10:6. A detailed study of the Old Testament will define just who the lost sheep are and were in Yesho’s time. They were never the southern kingdom of two tribes. Levites were among both kingdoms and never had a land grant from Joshua. This is paramount! The reader must understand that many Edomites took over as priests of Levi. However, If these Pharisees conversing with Yesho in the NT, were truly of Levi, and NO OTHER TRIBE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE PRIESTS ACCORDING TO THE LAW, AND if these Jews today are truly of those Pharisees, THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM ON THE LAND. And they would not have said they were not in bondage in Mizraim. And if the Pharisees were neither Levite nor Yehudim, and if they are not of the fourth born son of Jacob's lineage, then they had no right to be priests and their claim is null and void per the law Of Moses! Jews today claim to be of those Pharisees and brag they murdered Messiah. In no scenario are the Jews claims on the land [wherever that may be] legitimate. In short, these Pharisees claimed they were never in bondage, because they were never in bondage. They were not Israelites. Lastly, which hammers the last nail in the coffin for these dead Sepulchers, is the fact that not a single Jew alive today can trace their line back to Yehudim, let alone Abraham! And if you do not believe me, I simply ask for proof that validates the Jews’ claim. It’s as simple as that. I would be happy to take a look at such an elusive family tree. Jews reject the Messiah. So, in any case, they are dead and cut off regardless of bloodline. But even if they do have a genetic connection to Levi, he had no land grant to begin with. Obadiah is the only Book in the Bible solely dedicated to Esau; his modern offspring mixed in with these Jews. For the inevitable Christian who will make the unbiblical statement, ‘well yes but they are still the chosen people even if they reject Messiah.’ I will kindly ask you to prove this using scripture according to Matthew 18. The term Jew is a word that has no linguistical meaning whatsoever. Many claim it comes from the word Judea, however that word also was not in use until 1634, and so it also has no linguistical meaning. The ten tribes that never returned are Ephraim and they were seafarers, would bless the world, and become many nations. The Jews fit none of these prophecies and so their claim is null and void. Why is this important in understanding Romans chapter 2? Well, because of who Saul is speaking against. He is not speaking against the Herodian Pharisees, his own people. He is speaking against those of the Southern kingdom keeping the law. Saul is attacking those who are keeping the law. Just as Revelation 12:17 states Satan would attack the elect for holding to the testimony of Yesho and for keeping the commandments. Circumcision is a commandment and that’s that! No if ands or buts about it. But just in case there are those who claim everything is all spiritual now, I recommend reading Ezekiel 44:9. Back to Romans 3. Saul asks what profit is there in being a Jew? He is asking what profit is there being of the southern kingdom of Yehudim which comprised some of the tribe of Yahuda, Benjamin, and some Levites. They practiced circumcision, INCLUDING the 12 apostles. Because the 12 apostles were not Jewish, as Jews today are not of any tribe of Israel. They were Israelites, some of the southern kingdom, some of the northern kingdom, but Israelites, nonetheless. These terms, Jew and Israel, are NOT mutually exclusive. Saul is asking, what is the benefit of being one of the children of Yehudim or southern kingdom, or simply any one of the 12 tribes. And what is the benefit of being circumcised? Well Saul, let's quote Moses shall we: Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. When the Most High divided to the nations into their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. What is the benefit of circumcision? Deuteronomy 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he swore unto thy fathers: 13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. Let us see if Saul quotes the Word of Yeue in the next verse? Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of Yeue. Now Saul does acknowledge that it is indeed a benefit to be of the allotment of Yeue, and the reason he gives, seems sufficient. What is Saul referring to here regarding the oracles of Yeue? All 12 tribes were entrusted with the Word of God, but so was Adam. Adam was not an Israelite. But he fell and so Abraham and then Jacob is given the commandments of Yeue. And the Israelites were commanded to keep the law at Mt Sinai. Is this what Saul is referring to? Most likely. It states in Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is great enough to have righteous statutes and ordinances like this entire law I set before you today? I will state that the law is for all Adamites per Exodus 12:49. Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Now this verse is a bit confusing. Is Saul saying that if there are some that disbelieve, Yeue will keep his covenant anyway with them that did not believe? Or that His will be done regardless of those that disbelieve? Let us give Saul the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter for now. Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let Yeue be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Saul now begins using scripture to validate his point. Christians fail to cross reference the quotes Saul uses from the Old Testament, and therefore miss the subtle lies. Saul is quoting David in Psalms 51. This Psalm is about receiving a clean heart from Yeue. David is acknowledging his sin and repenting of it, asking the Father to cleanse him of his sin. First of all, this Psalms has NOTHING to do with circumcision! It is David asking for forgiveness after he committed adultery with Bathsheba. So, the first thing to acknowledge, is that Saul is using David’s words out of context. Psalms 51:4 states Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. David repents and admits his sin before the Father. And knows that Yeue will be just in the judgement, or punishment given to David for his adultery. Saul, in Romans 3:4 alleges every man is a liar. This is not true of course! Not every man is a liar. Saul begins chapter 3 speaking of those that do not believe, then claims every man is a liar quoting David who is repenting of adultery? This is laughable! What exactly is Saul even trying to say here? I am sure many Christians' love to commit eisegesis upon the text, but I ask the reader to forgive me if I do no such thing. I am trying to understand just what Saul claimed apart from subjective assumptions. Let’s continue. Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? Now this is very interesting. Saul switches tenses here. In verse 3, he says what if some did not believe? Now here in verse 5, he is referring to himself and others’ unrighteousness, by using the word ‘our!’ Incredible! Why have others not taken the time to do this before? It baffles me. It seems that Saul is admitting, possibly indirectly, that he is being unrighteous. Could this be true? Of course, I will let the reader study this further. I am simply pointing out these rather odd inconsistencies. Romans 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? Indeed! For if there be no law, there is no forfeiture. Romans 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? My first question would be how can we prove the truth abounded from a lie? Lies hide the truth. Yeue shares his truth in spite of lies and sin, but not because of them. Saul’s assertion is utter nonsense. It is interesting is it not, that Saul goes from ‘some who did not believe’ [I surmise either in the law or in Messiah, which is by default not believing the law] in verse 3, to ‘our unrighteousness’ in verse 5, to now ‘my lie’ in verse 7! Just what is Saul’s lie? Let us at least look at what happens to liars from an authoritative text shall we! Revelation 21:8 But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Israel and Yehudim were two different kingdoms. And only the southern kingdom returned with Nehemiah to rebuild. The ten northern tribes were never in Yehudim in the NT, and yet we see some VERY key statements in both Matthew 15:24 and 10:6. A detailed study of the Old Testament will define just who the lost sheep are and were in Yesho’s time. They were never the southern kingdom of two tribes. Levites were among both kingdoms and never had a land grant from Joshua. This is paramount! The reader must understand that many Edomites took over as priests of Levi. However, if these Pharisees conversing with Yesho in the NT, were truly of Levi, and NO OTHER TRIBE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE PRIESTS ACCORDING TO THE LAW, AND if these Jews today are truly of those Pharisees, THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM ON THE LAND. And they would not have said they were not in bondage in Mizraim. Romans 3:8 And not rather, Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. I want to reemphasize that any text in parenthesis was not penned by the author, and so I reject it on the grounds that it was added much later. The text reads the way it should above. Study it carefully. Saul is calling for his listeners to do evil, claiming that God uses everything for good. That is what Saul is saying here and the reader cannot get around it. If you wish to be a defender of a lawless man your whole entire life, be my guest, but you are by default breaking the law and will be judged for condoning a sinner yourself. Do you really want to take part in the sin of another, when you have plenty to atone for yourself? I’d consider that very carefully if it were me. Of course, I could find no other references of any prophet making this claim. On the contrary, they testify the exact opposite. Psalm 34:14 Depart from evil and do good; Seek peace and pursue it. We are to run as far away from doing evil as possible! James 4:7 “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” Our Messiah states this quite plainly in Matthew 6:13 “And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” I ask the reader to provide a verse where a prophet of Yeue commands us to do evil! A single one! Saul is correct, that if one does evil, his damnation is truly just. Let’s continue. Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; First of all, we do not know how Saul has proven that every single individual who is of the 12 tribes of Israel, or all of the Adamites who were not Israelites were guilty of sin. Is Saul a judge? He has provided no credentials whatsoever to be considered a judge of Israel. It is true that all have sinned, however, there are righteous men in the world and those who are not under sin. There is a difference. Saul claims that all are under sin. Does this include the 12 lambs whose names will be written on the foundations of New Jerusalem, Rev 21:14? Does this include James the Just? Now one point needs to be made abundantly clear. That of the meaning of the term gentile. This word is absolutely misunderstood. The fact that Saul differentiates here, [Jew] and gentile, shows his Talmudic mindset. For it is the Canaanite Edomite, or modern Jews who created the false meaning of that term gentile. Let us look at the first use of that term which has been transliterated into Gentile. The Old Testament translates the Masoretic word goy, or gentile, into nations. Genesis 12:2 is the first time that word, Strong’s H1471, is used; And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: Now, that word nation, is what the Jews today call goyim or gentile. But the text is clear! Abraham was a nation of gentiles. Abraham was a gentile. Jacob was a gentile. The 12 tribes were gentiles. Even Esau were gentiles. The fact that Saul is differentiating Jew and gentile here, and the fact that this is a consistent theme through the NT, shows its lack of antiquity, or at the very least, that it has been whitewashed. We have a strong case of the NT being an overwrite of the original. It shows that the Jews altered the NT, and that Saul was one of their progenitors. Saul doesn’t know the Old Testament that well or he would know that Jews, as he calls them, are gentiles! Scripture does not call the Israelites non-gentiles. Israel gentiles are the Father’s inheritance and they are set apart from the other Adamic nations or gentiles. The word nation in every instance in scripture would be goyim, or gentile. Israel is special and not everyone is or can be Israel. Just go read Ezra 4:3. There is a specific purpose for Israel! Only the Levites could be priests. Only Yahuda could hold the kingship. Only Dan was the Judge among Israel. There are certain duties and yes-the scripture differentiates people and they are not all equal. The bible does not teach equality. The NT narrative, pioneered by this false prophet Saul, wants the reader to believe that everyone is equal and that we are all the same. This is a lie! There were only 12 apostles and Saul was not one of them. Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And they will have a very special and specific purpose; Matthew 19:28 And Yesho said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Can the reader honestly say now that there are 13 apostles? Messiah handpicked 12 and I am going to submit to his word alone! What will you do dear reader? Lastly, let us address the allegation that all are under sin. If Messiah came to set Israel free from sin, so that we are no longer slaves to it, paying the ransom, and knowing he taught us to keep righteous law which brings us blessings, then how can all be under sin? The fact is, that claim made by Saul in Romans 3:9, is not true. Saul is attempting to justify his sin, by lying. And we call this book scripture? I ask the reader plainly, though we all have sinned, are we all under sin. In other words, are we all under the power of sin? Knowingly practicing sin and being cursed by it? Were the 12 apostles practicing sin? Considering that the names of the 12 are written on the foundations of New Jerusalem, and that they will be sitting on thrones, righteously judging the 12 tribes, I am going to conclude that they were not under sin. Being righteous does not mean we have never sinned; it means we choose to keep the law and flee from sin and not partake in it! Do we make mistakes? Yes, we do. But we repent and turn back to Yeue and ask for guidance and wisdom. Saul would know this, if he truly knew the Old Testament. Perhaps he did, and intentionally rejected it, which is why he would be judged as a sinner by the Most High. Romans 3:10 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; It will be shown that Saul is desperately grasping at straws here and taking another quote from scripture completely out of context. Saul is attempting to validate his claim by quoting Psalms 14. This section is about the fool who denies there is a God. It reads; Psalms 14:1-3 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no Aleym. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Yeue looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. David is saying that for those who deny the fact that there is a God who created all things, that there is not one good one among them [them that deny God]. Not all men living! Saul also attempts to quote Psalms 53, which is about the fool who claims that there is no God. It reads; To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God. We have a problem. Either Saul is ignorant of the scripture [in which case, why is he even teaching anyone?], or he is intentionally taking verses out of context to support his false gospel, which evidently contains doing evil and validating it! It’s not looking good for our self-appointed apostle. Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. These are some serious allegations! And one which directly defies the words of our Messiah. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: Yes! Messiah just said that his words were not for everyone. And the disciples did not ask what the parables meant, they asked why he was speaking to them in parables, in verse 10. But he also affirms that these 12 DO understand and that they were seeking after the things of the kingdom, the things of the Father. Was this allegation written by Saul a slight against the true assembly? Because clearly, he was not among them at any time learning from them the parables of Yesho nor of the true assembly of the 12 apostles, Galatians 1:12, 2:6. The assembly was slaughtered brutally for the true gospel! Is Saul claiming they all died in vain? Having no understanding and that none of them were seeking the Father? It is ludicrous to suggest such a ridiculous notion. And yet Saul is claiming exactly that! Let us read what john wrote, 1 john 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. Let us also read what Yahuda [or Jude the brother of Yesho our Messiah] wrote; Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our Aleym into lasciviousness, and denying the only Yeue Alayim, and our Messiah Yesho. Why is Saul claiming that no one had understanding or that no one was seeking Yeue? Considering how critical he wrote of the assembly Messiah started, in Galatians, it seems that Saul is trying to cast a stumbling block at people to doubt the anointed 12 apostles. Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Saul is repeating his assertion that they have turned away from, according to the context of this chapter, Saul’s gospel. Who are they? The seven churches that rejected Saul? 2 Timothy 1:15. Or are the 'they' the 12 apostles with the true assembly? Who else could they be? Romans 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Again, who is the 'their,' Saul is talking about? This can be a matter of perspective, and this can really only be fully understood by knowing just who Saul is referring to here. Unfortunately, we cannot know for sure. However, based on what we have gone over thus far, does this Saul character seem to be a trustworthy man? Let us look at the verses Saul is quoting. Psalms 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. This is a description of wicked men. Messiah used the metaphor of a whitewashed sepulchre to describe the Edomite Pharisees, did he not? Matthew 23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like tombs having been whitewashed, which indeed outwardly appear beautiful, but inside they are full of bones of the dead, and of all impurity. Now let us consider some things; Messiah is calling Pharisee's hypocrites, and that on the outside they seem to be upright men but are dead inside. Was Saul a Pharisee? Philippians 3:5 and Acts 23:6. Yes he was. Let us also acknowledge Saul being caught in his own lie in Act 23, for he was not placed before the council because of a disagreement over the resurrection, but because Saul was speaking against the law and polluting the temple, Acts 21:28. Saul is a Pharisee and proud of it, using it to gain credibility in front of the council. Were any of the 12 apostles, Pharisees? What does Messiah call Pharisees? Hypocrites! That they have an appearance of beauty, but full of impurity! Messiah gives us two specific warnings against Pharisees; Mark 8:15, Matthew 16:6. Now the other warning is coupled with a command to keep the law. During the time of Messiah, each Sabbath day, a section of the Law would be read in front of the people. A weekly bible reading if you will. Now read what Messiah says about this; Matthew 23:2-3 Saying, the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. This is perhaps one of the most important verses to understand, concerning what and who we are to follow! Read the passage one more time ladies and gentlemen. The Pharisees are reading the law and telling the people to keep that law. The Messiah tells them to do what is in the law! He also says something of extreme importance regarding the Pharisees' trustworthiness. The Pharisees pretend to be righteous, but they do not practice what they preach! They may say something that is true, but are they actually following it themselves? The Messiah tells us they do not. This is why Christians are so deceived and then begin to worship Saul’s letters. Because the Christain believes that he is a trustworthy individual, when in fact our Savior warns us against the leaven of the Pharisees. Christians do not heed his warning. Yesho commands us to do all that is in the Law of Moses. We are simply not to follow the example of the Pharisees because they do not actually follow it. Understand dear Chrisitan what the Messiah is telling us here! There is not a single case in the gospels where the Pharisees are shown doing the right thing! They always do the wrong and evil thing! This is a consistent theme all throughout the gospels! Messiah warns us over and over about these people called Pharisees. Messiah exposes them as not part of the chosen people of Yoqb. Messiah exposes them as traitors and usurpers. So why then, do we trust one? To the Hebrew rooters, if he is just teaching the law, well isn't that what Messiahs tells us that is the very thing they do not do? The fruit of the Pharisees were rotten because they did not follow what they were teaching! So, I will be quite blunt to my fellow Hebrew rooters; who cares if Saul taught the Law? He did not practice the law even if he was teaching it! Circumcised or not. To the Christian, why are you choosing Saul over Messiah? For he prophesied that you would do this; John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. He is using a singular pronoun in this sentence. He is speaking of a single individual. We have absolutely NO pretense or example of listening to a Pharisee! We do what the Law says per Matthew 23. Saul also quotes Psalms 140:3 in Romans 3:13. Let’s read it in context and see who whose lips are really full of poison; Psalms 140:2 They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah. So they in Psalms 140, are EVIL MEN! What is Saul doing quoting all of these verses for? He is trying to justify that no matter who we are, we do evil and that it is ok since God’s righteousness is shown despite evil. And that even though he lied, verse 7, it's ok because we all have sinned. Saul claims there is no one righteous cherry picking from Psalms to justify this notion. The problem is that ONLY WICKED AND EVIL MEN are sinners. Righteous men do not fall under sin! Noah, Job, Enoch, Abraham and Daniel are some examples of men who were not under sin! They were righteous; not evil or wicked men! Romans 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Again, the Psalmist is speaking of evil men. Not all men! Consider David’s friend Nathan. Was David lumping everyone, including Nathan here in Psalms? God forbid! Psalms chapter 10 is about wicked men. Saul is jumping all over the book of Psalms cherry picking verses that sound good which he can pull out to create his own dogma! But it’s not sincere or trustworthy to do so! Read the entire chapter of Psalms 10 and show me where it speaks of ALL men! And yes, Saul is trying to say that ALL men are under sin here, Romans 3:9. Romans 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: Saul moves away from Psalms at this point, and he now is quoting a passage from Proverbs 1:16. Let’s take a look; Proverbs 1:1-7 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; 2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; 4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. 5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and INSTRUCTION. So, we have here a passage written from the most wise man that ever lived, Solomon. We see that he is speaking about a wise man who fears Yeue. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Yeue. What an incredible passage! Oh, but we see a problem right off the bat with Saul’s statement don’t we! Solomon says that fools despise wisdom and instruction! Did Saul seek the wisdom of the men who were hand chosen by Messiah? Did he seek the council of the wise and Just brother of Yesho, James? Let’s let Saul answer; Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it…..17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. So, Saul rejected the teaching of the set apart ones, the apostles. Did the Messiah command the apostles to go and teach? Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: The role of the apostles was to teach the true gospel to others, because they understood what that was. They were personally under the Messiah’s leadership! Anyone who did not want to learn from those 12 men; those who truly knew what Messiah taught, those who understood all his sayings and parables, must surely have been a fool indeed! Proverbs 1:7 applies to Saul! How ironic. Now, let’s look at the context of the verse Saul quotes, since we have established the context of the beginning of Proverbs 1. Proverbs 1:8-16 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 9 For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. 11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: 12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: 13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: 14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: 15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: 16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Who is it that makes haste to shed blood and run to do evil? Sinners! We have Josephus recording in [allegedly] 62 AD, that Saul is doing just that! Shedding innocent blood and running to do evil; Josephus 20:9:4 "Costobarus also, and SAULUS, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. " So, even if Acts 8 is allegedly in the early 40’s, he is still murdering and pillaging the Assembly after the death of James the Just, which was in 62 AD. Please see my blog 'Who Murdered James?' Saul himself is the very many that Solomon describes as being a sinner in Proverbs chapter 1. This is in part why both Christians and Hebrew rooters both reject the account of Josephus; it exposed their false god Saul of Tarsus. Romans 3:16-17 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: Saul has now jumped to Isaiah 59:7. It would be prudent to start at the beginning of the chapter to gain some context on just who Isaiah is talking about; Isaiah 59:1-2 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. So, iniquity is what has separated these people from Yeue. Their evil and sin has done this! Not Satan. NOT other people! By THEIR OWN ACTIONS, as sinners! Isaiah 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. Whose hands are defined with blood? THE SINNERS! Isaiah 59:6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. They are workers of iniquity! Now to the verse Saul cherry picks; Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. Who are they? THOSE WHO COMMIT INIQUITY! Is Isaiah speaking of ALL men? NO! Only those who do evil! Like Saul for example. Roman 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Saul now quotes ONLY part of Psalms 36:1. Here is the full verse; Psalms 36:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David the servant of the LORD. The transgression of the WICKED saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. Do we see a pattern forming? Saul is completely ignoring the fact that each and every verse he is choosing from the prophets, are those describing WICKED MEN! NOT ALL MEN! Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. This is a blasphemous statement to say the very least. Let’s find out just why! I am not sure that Saul is quoting a verse here, because I cannot find any scripture which states that the Law stops the mouth from speaking. Saul claims that the law stops men from speaking, AND ALL the world became guilty before Yeue. Let’s see what the Scripture says, as it is our litmus test to discover false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing! Psalms states the following: Psalms 63:11 But the king will rejoice in God; all who swear by Him will exult, for the mouths of liars will be shut. We clearly see that the liars will be stopped, and their mouths’ shut. Does Saul differentiate the righteous from the liars? No, no he doesn’t. Interesting. It’s almost as if Saul is not distinguishing the clean from the unclean, or right from wrong. He is lumping everyone in together and applying scripture describing wicked me, and claiming they are speaking about ALL men. Psalms 107:42 The upright see and rejoice, and all iniquity shuts its mouth. We are all certainly accountable to Yeue. We are all under the judgement of Yeue. When looking at different translations, they differ somewhat. Essentially what Saul claims is that we are only accountable to Yeue if we are under the law. I want to make a point here and say that coming under the judgement of Yeue is not a bad thing. Yeue judges what is good and what is evil. Simply making a judgement on something does not mean guilt necessarily! Like when Moses made a judgement for neighbors who have a dispute and are seeking council to determine what the best course of action is. The world being accountable to Yeue, does not mean all are sinful, though often times it does. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Saul is teaching that Yesho’s purpose was to free us from the law. Saul hates the law. Is it any wonder why Christians also hate it? Saul has become their god. Well James calls the Law freedom and those who do it shall be blessed! James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. The word translated liberty, literally means freedom from slavery. Wisdom comes from the Law; Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Yeue HIMSELF commands us to follow them; Deuteronomy 4:6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. Whose will did Yesho come to fulfill? John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Who sent Yesho? John 7:28-29 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. Take note that Yesho was speaking to Pharisees who studied the Word every day. And Yesho says that the Father does not know them. They were not following what they preached. Does Yeue the Father change? Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Was Abraham justified by faith alone? Is there even a valid example in scripture of someone having faith without works? Or was he justified BECAUSE HE WAS A DOER OF THE LAW? Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham OBEYED my voice, and KEPT my charge, MY commandments, MY statutes, and MY laws. What are the many blessings of Yeue a result of? Genesis 22:18 And through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice. Blessings are a direct result of KEEPING the Law! Abraham was justified because he kept the law. Let’s define the word righteous; it is Strong’s H6662, which means just and LAWFUL. Everyone in the Scripture described as being righteous, kept the Law of Yeue. Think about that. Everyone described as wicked or evil, broke the Law. I ask the reader to find a single person in Scripture, the Law and the Prophets, who was saved from just a belief or thought? No deeds required? Can the reader provide a single example? If the law was nailed to the cross [there exists no single verse that says this by the way] then how does Yeue judge the wicked and the sinner in Revelation? How is Satan evil, if that which defines evil is gone? How is murder still wrong? The Law is more than eating correctly and resting on the Sabbath. It is how we are to live, how we are to treat people, and how to prevent sin from festering in a society. It is perfect governing. Righteousness is doing what is right and living rightly according to the Father’s definition and statutes. Murder is wrong, because Yeue says it is. The Law of Moses protects families from robbers. It protects women and makes sure they are cared for. The Law protects people from being accused falsely. The law teaches us how we are to treat our spouse and how to properly raise our children. The law teaches us how to make sure no one goes hungry and sees that everyone’s needs are met. It is a life of overabundance and peace. If there were no robbery, usury, adultery, murder, how can Christians today claim that would be a burden or evil? We are indeed justified under the protection of the law. Which makes Saul’s claim blasphemous and lawless. The word translated justified that Saul uses, means to render just or be righteous. Isaiah 2:3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” FOR THE LAW WILL GO FORTH FROM ZION. And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. What are the deeds of the law? Let us show what these truly are, to see if one is indeed justified by them-by doing them: Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. The first five show us what we are to do; worship the One True Alahyim, have no idols, not take his name in vain, keep the Sabbath, and honor our parents. Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not MURDER. Today people confuse murder with kill. They are as different as night and day. We are commanded to murder. But we have the right under the law to kill animals and execute sinners. Make no mistake! Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. This includes fornication and homosexuality. Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. The remaining five show us what we are NOT to do. Now these are a summarization of the full law. To understand just how to carry these ten out in our daily lives and live by them, we study the Law. This was the role of the Levites; to teach us the ways of the Law. Of course, they failed. The Law was not to blame. Yeue did not break his promise. It was Jacob’s sons who failed. And they were divorced because they broke the Law time and time again. Yesho our Savior came to mend that covenant between Israel and the Father. For he even said so; Matthew 15:24 I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. These ten laws are the foundation of righteous living and goodness! These DEFINE what good and evil are. They are not arbitrary as so many Christians believe today. They are literally set in stone and concrete. They are absolute! So, if these are the deeds of the law, then are we justified in DOING and KEEPING them? The answer is in the very definitions of law, righteous, justified, and holy. For in the last days, after the return of our King, the nations will go to be taught of the ways of Yeue; Micah 4:2 Many nations will come and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord And to the house of the God of Jacob, That He may teach us about His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For from Zion will go forth the Law, Even the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Now the following passage is a real-life example of the deeds of the law justifying a man. A man by the same name as our Savior. Yesho the high priest in Zechariah chapter 3. This is a perfect example of what the Savior has done for all of Israel. So that we can come back to the Father. Come back into covenant with him: Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. 5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. 6 And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, 7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. 8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. 9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. 10 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree. Read very carefully. Yesho the high priest is made clean of his sins. But what comes after this? He must walk in the Law of Yeue! Salvation is the cleansing of our iniquity and sin, but we must from that point, walk in the ways of Yeue. We must walk as the Messiah did. Yesho did believe, but more than belief is required. And we know this passage is speaking of the Messiah, for we know the Branch is He! This is what the Messiah came to do. Cleanse us, so that we could be blameless before the Father from that point on by keeping His Law. Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; There would not be enough room in this section to quote every prophet's reference to the law; the many times the very reason given as to why Israel was scattered and divorced. Of course, this being a direct result of them breaking the law. Let us carefully inspect Saul's allegation. Saul most certainly claims to speak for Messiah, Acts 9, 22, 26. Does Saul also claim to speak for the Father? Saul is claiming to be a witness of God in Romans 1:9 and in many places in Romans chapter 2 as well. So yes. Saul claimed to speak on behalf of the Father. So let us test Saul by the law to see if he is indeed a false prophet or not. Deuteronomy 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. Did Saul claim to have a vision or dream? Oh most certainly. Did Saul claim to have a sign or wonder while on the Damascus road? Indeed he did. So this passage in Deuteronomy does apply to Saul. I hope the obvious has not escaped the reader. When the people seized Saul in Acts 6, they were indeed doing according to Deuteronomy. This fact escapes almost every bible student today because we do not even know the law ourselves. So, what makes us think we could spot a false prophet if the very criteria is not understood? Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: James certainly said there was a difference between simply believing something and showing that by what we do. James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. Our Messiah stated in Matthew 7:21 Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Is there a difference? Should we judge between clean and unclean? Between holy and unholy? Leviticus 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; If what Yesho said in Matthew 7 is correct, and I submit that it fits perfectly with the Old Testament, then there is a difference, Saul. Most certainly! Roman 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; I believe we have covered this in detail above. But I will simply quote the words of the incredibly righteous prophet Isaiah; the man Messiah quoted more than any other prophet, Isaiah 1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. What was the whole point of Messiah's return? To redeem Israel! To make her blameless by teaching her the ways of the Father. And if we are to believe in the Revelation of our Messiah, how can there be perfect and upright men of each tribe in Revelation 7, if all fall short? Who does the dragon make war against? It's not the Christians. It's not the Jews. It's the remnant of Israel who keep the law and who hold to the testimony of the Son of David. The woman in Revelation 12, is Israel and once you realize that the whole of the scripture narrative, begins to make sense. There is no third group called the church. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was angry with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her children keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus. And he stood upon the sand of the sea. Can it be any more clear ladies and gentlemen? Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: The redemption was freely given, but we are justified by keeping the law Messiah kept. Following Messiah’s example is keeping the will of the Father, as he did. Doing the will of the Father, is keeping the Law of the Father, for he never changes. Can the reader find an example where the Father changes? Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Was our Messiah righteous because he had faith? Or because he followed through and DID as the Father commanded of him? Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 7:21 What if our Messiah came and was born [for all of you who wrongly worship a birthday] but did not follow through with what the Father commanded him. Would the Messiah have been blameless then? I have a simple question for Saul; And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Luke 6:46 What does a true apostle say and teach the flock? Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves. James 1:22 Well now; I’d say we have a conflict between Saul and the apostles. Between Saul and the Messiah. Between Saul, and the truth. Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no righteousness without the Law. There is no one just apart from the law. There is no faith without works. There are too many verses to quote here that attest to the law blessing those who keep it, and life comes from its blessings. No one was ever blessed by committing adultery. The law still applied even if not a single Christian keeps it. Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Saul believes that those who keep the law boast about living life the correct way. The Just One puts it perfectly; James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James just called Saul a fool. Indeed, James is correct. Saul is a fool. Let me put it like this, without works, there is no fruit. And without fruit, that tree is worthless. A bad tree, or a person with no works, is cut down and burned in the fire. Matthew 7 is a very important chapter for study. I find it incredibly telling that in the same paragraph Yesho warns us of false prophets, he equates those with trees which bear bad fruit. False prophets can be known by their fruit. What is Saul’s fruit? Death, murder, rejection of the law, subversion, confusion, deception and lies. Ask yourselves, what would the Messiah do with a tree like that? Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Saul and his followers make this conclusion, but not from the study of scripture. But from a depraved mind. Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Here again we see this misnomer. The Jew and the gentile. I have previously shown that Abraham was a gentile and father of gentiles and that all his offspring were gentiles. This statement from Saul is the beginning of the ideas placed in the Talmud. Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Exodus 12:48-49 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. Ezekiel 44:7 This passage is describing the millennial reign of our King. And Yeue is quite clear about circumcision being of the utmost importance! Saul is claiming that uncircumcised will be justified by faith, however Ezekiel says the exact opposite. I do not recall Messiah calling out Ezekiel as a false prophet, do you? Therefore, it stands that we are to adhere to Ezekiel over Saul. Can any Christian deny this honestly? Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. And here lies the crux of the matter. This specific section is for the Hebrew rooters and those who teach and claim that Saul taught the Law and kept it. Saul is saying that faith is enough to fulfill the law. That those who only have faith are not breaking the law at all. In fact, they are establishing the law apart from works. Is that true? This is the passage Hebrew rooters use to say that Saul kept the Law. However, after studying the entire chapter in context, Saul is actually saying the opposite. Saul is teaching people they do not have to adhere to the perfect Law, Psalms 19:7. Simply that faith alone, no matter if they have repented or not, have fulfilled the law.

View All

Pages (9)

  • Home | War On Truth

    Omus (Amos) 8:11 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Yeue Adny , when I will send a famine on the land—not a famine of bread or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of Yeue .

  • About | War On Truth

    This site is dedicated to sharing and perpetuating the truth regarding the people of focus in the Old Testament. This kind or race of people were sculped and chosen to give the world righteous order and civilization to the world. These people, my people, are the stuff history is made of. They are none other than the Aryan races. The Old Testament was written with a very specific mindset and followed the Adamic kind and then later a very peculiar people He named Yshral . These people would be the Father's inheritance-the apple of His eye. My tribe, Yshral and Yeuda, or the Germanic Celtic Nordic peoples, which have blessed the world so much so that it could never be calculated. Unfortunately, the poor state of the world is of our doing because we have turned away from the Father and his perfect law . Our enemies are the very tribes which also came from Adam. They oppress us because we have rebelled against the Father. This will continue until we as a nation repent. ​ My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. I wish to share what I have learned about scripture and about our incredible, yet stiff-necked tribe. Much of what was once understood about the many races of the world, has been intentionally hidden to destroy Yshral specifically because of the covenants made with us. We are to give people moral righteous living and to cultivate knowledge, intelligence, ingenuity, understanding, true peace, and a love for Yeue and His creation. It's time to repent and turn to the Father so that we can relearn all that was taken from us due to our rebellion. To take back our inheritance in the land out our forefathers; to take up our birthright and take up the responsibility given to our tribe by Yeue our Creator and Father. We cannot continue in lawlessness, or we deserve to be ruled over by our Adamic enemies-which use non-Adamic Asiatics, Jews, and Negroids as jackals to consume and feed off of us. White Adamic moral heritage is the scripture. It is our history. It is not the history of Arabs in the Middle East. It is not for any other people than the Adamics. We, especially the Nordic Germanic Celtic peoples are Yshral and we must stop capitulating to this monstrosity that is the fourth beast system! Come out of her my people!

  • Library | War On Truth

    Welcome to Our Library It is the glory of Yeue to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2 We do not necessarily agree with every conclusion in these works. We feel that they are essential however, for washing away the indoctrination sickness so rampant in our society. Aryans Germany The Jew History

View All