Sunday, June 30, 2013

Yahweh, The God of Segregation, vs. Satan, the god of Integration

Yahweh, The God of Segregation, vs. Satan, the god of Integration


By Clifton A. Emahiser
As the title suggests, we are going to address today’s greatest source of dismay causing untold strife and heartache. I was seeking a way to impress on the reader’s mind just how debauched our society has become. I also thought to describe Satan as a “demagogue”, but it is stated at 2 Cor. 4:4: “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of Yahweh, should shine unto them.” Thus, we have two gods here; a True One and a would-be counterfeit. As the above title indicates, these two gods have two opposing agendas. And from the title, one need not be left in doubt which god one is following. By-and-large, today, churchianity is following Satan, the god of integration. Not only that, but better than 90% of the pastors in Israel Identity teach universalism, catering to the non-white races. Oh, churchianity gives lip service to a god with no name, while at the same time supporting missionary endeavors to alien enosh. Ted R. Weiland even admitted to sending some Bibles to Nigeria. Such endeavors are Satan’s agenda, not Yahweh’s!
I don’t want to leave the impression that all churchgoers are intentionally promoting Satan’s agenda of multiculturalism, but rather many are doing it ignorantly. Nevertheless, wittingly or unwittingly, the results are just as evil. I have to admit that, before I learned the truth of the Israel Message, at the solicitation of a church member whose daughter had gone to seminary and was stationed in Africa, my late wife and I bought several boxes of prepared cake mix to send there to help the mission Christianize the natives. This we came to regret for we did it in total ignorance.
When all of this happened back in the mid-1950’s, money was rather scarce, and had I the opportunity to do it all over again, my wife and I would have had several cakes on our own table! At that time, we belonged to the Bethel Evangelical Church in Fostoria, Ohio at the corner of Union and Liberty streets. About this same time, the United Brethren merged with the Evangelical and adopted the name Evangelical United Brethren. A short time later, the Evangelical United Brethren united with the Methodist, calling the affiliation the United Methodist church, dropping entirely the name Evangelical.

I don’t want to leave the impression that Satan is a god that can create something, but rather he can only corrupt that which Yahweh has already created. And the way in which Satan corrupts is through hybridization: whether crops, animals or people. Satan’s first effort with Adam-man was to seduce Eve and produce the hybrid, racially-altered Cain. Thus, Satan is the god of multiculturalism. At John 1:1-3 it is clear that there is but one creator God: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
By the way, the elohim of Genesis chapter 1 is singular in every case, not plural as most presume. And although the name of Yahweh is not used in Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6-9 places Him there saying: 6 By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear Yahweh: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” From this it would appear we are either following the One who created everything after its kind, or we are following Satan the god of racial integration.
From a new 1999 translation published by Kregel entitled The New Complete Works Of Josephus by Paul L. Maier, at Antiquities book 1, chap. 2, we read: “But Cain was not only wicked in other respects, but was wholly intent on getting; and he first contrived to plough the ground. He killed his brother on the occasion following: They had resolved to sacrifice to God. Now Cain brought the fruits of the earth, and of his husbandry; but Abel brought milk, and the firstfruit of his flocks. But God was more delighted with the latter sacrifice, when he was honored with what grew naturally of its own accord, than He was with what was the invention of a covetous man, and gotten by forcing the ground.” [emphasis mine]
If this Josephus translation is correct, Cain may have been hybridizing the plants that he grew. If such is the case, we have in Cain a hybridized person growing hybridized crops! Again, if such is true, no wonder Yahweh was displeased with BOTH Cain and his sacrifice! What could have been more wicked on Cain’s part? This could conceivably be why the bad-fig-jews of today (the lineal descendants of Cain) have an agenda to hybridize the entire White Israel race with the non-whites. If so, no wonder Jude, at verse 11, puts Cain in the same category with Balaam!
Not only is it “the way of Cain”, as Jude informs us, but it is identical to the “doctrine of Balaam”. Rev. 2:14 says: “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” The word “fornication” in this verse means race-mixing! So whatever the place and whatever the event, if it’s multicultural in any way, shape, or form, it’s “the way of Cain” and known in Scripture as the “doctrine of Balaam”. Balaamism is a bastard doctrine taught by bastard-minded, so-called pastors, whether in nominal churchianity or Israel Identity, for it encourages multiculturalism among the ekklesia. It was a “stumblingblock” at the time of Balak, and at Pergamos at the time John wrote Revelation, and it is still a stumbling-block to this very day! Balaamism is multiculturalism, pure and simple, and anyone who teaches it is a bastard-monger. It is usually espoused in the name of “universalism”, a doctrine which embraces all races. To include “whomsoever” with the house of Israel and the house of Judah is out-and-out fraud, and anyone doing so is a criminal worthy of death!
Yahshua Christ Himself pointed to Cain as being the ancestor of the bad-fig-jews at Matt. 23:35: “That upon you [bad-fig-jew scribes and Pharisees] may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Question: Who else killed Abel other than Cain? If these words by our Redeemer were not literally true, it would have made Him a false witness in a murder case, a criminal who should die according to the law in like manner as the one falsely accused. Since Christ was Yahweh the Creator in the flesh, who are we to contradict His words? Yet many do! The same people who deny this passage also deny John 8:44, where Yahshua Christ tells us that the bad-fig-jews’ ancestral father were both literally “the devil” and “a murderer from the beginning”. By denying the truth of these passages, they aid and abet Satan in his plot for racial integration, while at the same time implying that our Messiah is a liar. This would include all of the anti-two-seedliners, as well as all of the universalists! But some will say that some of the universalists have some positive things to say. Well, the serpent had some positive things mixed with lies to say to Eve, and look what happened. One can have more respect for an habitual liar than one who speaks only half-truths. And universalism, one-seedline and no-Satan doctrines mixed with the truth of Israel Identity are despicable, malignant, repugnant lies! Those who teach such half-truths follow Satan, the god of integration!
From Cain being fathered by Satan, Cain was the first half-breed in Satan’s program for racial integration. I know that some will try to quote Gen. 4:1, claiming that Cain was Adam’s son, but Gen. 4:1 has been proven to be corrupt by Hebrew scholars. Satan’s program continued up until the time of Noah and the flood when only eight could be found with a pure Adamic family-tree. Where Gen. 6:9 says of Noah in the A.V., “perfect in his generations” it would have been better rendered “perfect in his genealogy”. All one need do today is to look around and it is quite evident that Satan’s agenda of racial integration is alive and well and going full speed ahead. What it all amounts to is: we are in a war with Satan for the survival of the White Adamic race, and we are taking casualties in unprecedented numbers on every hand! It’s not like a war with explosives and flying bullets, for in Satan’s war of integration the fatalities are not evident until nine months later, when a half-breed is born, and all mamzers are born void of Spirit.
From the time of Noah’s flood until Abraham is a large period of time for which little is recorded in our Bible, outside of the table of nations and the tower of Babel. But once we arrive at the time of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the language of Scripture is such as to indicate that Satan’s agenda in his war of integration had not ceased in its intensity. This is evident in Rebekah’s statement to Isaac at Gen. 27:46: “And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?” If Rebekah were living in today’s society, she would be charged with racism and a demand would be made for her to become politically correct and apologize to Esau’s Hittite wives and attend some sensitivity training classes.
Then Isaac concurred with Rebekah at Gen. 28: 1-2: 1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother.” Likewise, if Isaac were living in today’s society, he would be charged with racism and a demand would be made for him to become politically correct and apologize to Esau’s Hittite wives and attend some sensitivity training classes with Rebekah. If Isaac and Rebekah were living today, they would not only be called racists but bigots, extremists, right-wingers and Nazis! Not only that, but today’s satanic, liberal, integrated churches would excommunicate Isaac and Rebekah, along with Yahshua Christ Himself from their fellowship. It is simply repulsive when one turns on the TV to a so-called Christian channel and a denominational preacher says, “Come to our church next Sunday where we welcome diversity, and see what god is doing at our church.” Well, god is doing something at his church all right, but his god isn’t Yahweh the Creator, his god is Satan the integrator!
In a reply letter from William Finck to Dave Barley, (and Barley is supportive for bringing arabs into Israel Identity), Finck wrote as follows: “It was Balaam who counseled Balak (Numbers chapters 22 through 25) to have his Canaanite-Moabite subjects seduce the men of Israel ‘and fell in one day three and twenty thousand’ (1 Cor. 10:8). For more evidence of this see Micah 6:5, and Josephus’ Antiquities 4:6:6 (4:126-130), where this is explained explicitly. Now Mr. Barley, since these Arabs (mixed) people are the products of fornication (race-mixing), who are ‘trees whose fruit is withered’ for whom ‘is reserved the blackness of darkness forever’, how do YOU suppose that they can be ‘saved’? And if they are ‘broken cisterns that can hold no water’, how do YOU suppose that the Spirit of Yahweh could or even would inhabit them? How do you suppose that the Holy Spirit would touch the unclean thing? What is a cloud without water? Dust. And what was Adam before Yahweh added His Spirit? Dust. See Genesis 2:7. A cloud without water is equivalent to a ‘man’ without the Spirit of Yahweh, which bastards are!
“Then Mr. Barley lies: ‘In your open letter ... you also make the false assumption that many people make. Most of us were taught in the Judeo-Christian world that whoever becomes a Christian becomes a spiritual Israelite’...” To see the entire story on this, see William Finck Challenges Dave Barley Concerning Arabs And Universalism (And Other Sins).
While we are on the subject of Balaamism, we can see clearly from Jude 7 & 11 that Cain was indeed a half-breed: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication [homosexuality & race-mixing], and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire ... Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.”
The “they” of Jude 11 is not only referring to the Baal-Peor incident, where Balaam advised Balak to have his non-Israel women sexually seduce and fornicate (race-mix) with the Israel men, but also refers to Sodom and Gomorrah, who were “going after strange flesh”, which is also race-mixing. Jude compares or parallels this as being identical to “the way of Cain”. Thus, (1) Sodom and Gomorrha, (2) the advice of Balaam, and (3) the way of Cain all have race-mixing connotations. Thus, Jude makes it clear that Cain was a product of miscegenation, and not the son of Adam. Josephus describes the incident at Baal-Peor more graphically than anyone else, and that is why we desperately need his greatly detailed version of that race-mixing episode.
A paper on this subject of Yahweh, The God Of Segregation, vs. Satan, The god Of Integration would not be complete without a look at Daniel’s prophecy on the racial matter. For that we must look into Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-image. It is generally understood by most that the four world empires predicted by Daniel were the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires. These four empires were once largely peopled by Whites, but the people occupying those same geographic areas today have changed considerably. For our purpose here, we need to focus our attention on the Roman empire which was represented by iron, and especially the toes of iron mixed with clay. The ten toes of the image depicted the ten provinces of Rome, not some future revived Roman empire as most surmise! Rome would then follow the same fate that befell Egypt before Jeremiah’s day when they absorbed non-Adamic blood! That is the precisely reason that Jeremiah warned the Judaeans not to go to Egypt !
Daniel 2:43 is the answer to the mystery of the iron mixed with clay: “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” The word for “men” in this case is #606 and means enawsh in Chaldee (same as #582 in Hebrew, enowsh; in other words, non-Adamite.). We see then, within the confines of the provinces of Rome, they had their own version of multiculturalism (race mixing). It didn’t work then, and it is still just as destructive today!
In the earlier periods of Rome, interracial marriages were, as a rule, not legal. In Sheldon’s General History, page 157 (speaking of the incorporation of the Macedonians about 172 to 168 B.C.) it says this: “Laws are given them by the Romans, and they are divided into four districts, between which there is to be no intermarriage, no free trade in land.”
As time went on, and Rome came under hard financial times, she decided to offer citizenship to more peoples in order to gain additional taxpayers. In the book The Romans by R. H. Barrow, it says this on page 52: “... Her near neighbours were incorporated as citizens into her body politic, to others she extended a limited citizenship which conferred rights of trade, together with enforcement of those rights at law, the freedom of intermarriage with Roman citizens ...”
In order to fathom Daniel’s prophecy, it is important to understand Roman history. In order to grasp the toes of Daniel, it is necessary to have some knowledge of the slave traffic during those years. I will now quote some passages concerning slavery during the Roman epoch.
From The Story Of Civilization: Part 3, “Caesar And Christ” by Will Durant, we read the following: Page 22: “... In the sixth century B.C., when Rome began her career of conquest, war captives were sold in rising number to the aristocracy, the business classes, and even to plebeians; and the status of the slave sank.”
Page 112: “Every week slave dealers brought their human prey from Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany, the Danube, Russia, Asia, and Greece to the ports of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was not unusual for 10,000 slaves to be auctioned off at Delos in a single day. In 177 [B.C.], 40,000 Sardinians, in 167 [B.C.], 150,000 Epirotes, were captured by Roman armies and sold as slaves, in the latter case at approximately a dollar a head. In the city the lot of the slave was mitigated by humanizing contacts with his master and by hope of emancipation; but on the large farms no human relation interfered with exploitation ... The wages of the slave on the great estates were as much food and clothing as would enable him to toil from sunrise to sunset every day ...”
Page 81 speaks of the “ethnic changes” brought about by all this: “... Immigration, the absorption of conquered peoples, the influx, emancipation, and enfranchisement of slaves, were already beginning the ethnic changes that by Nero’s time would make Rome the New York of antiquity, half native and half everything.” [Today New York City is more like 10% White and 90% everything else.]
Upon critiquing this paper, the reader should have a better idea of what is going on in this world. We, the United States, like the Roman empire, are by-and-large following Satan, the god of integration. And as Rome weakened and finally fell because of race-mixing and became chaff driven by the wind never to rise again (Dan. 2:35), so too will America and other Israel countries if Yahweh does not intervene. In short, the White race is being flushed down the toilet into the sewer of multiculturalism – a rotting genetic cesspool!
We have been lied to and told that “diversity will elevate our society”, while the truth is, diversity will debase true civilization and bring it down to a third-world status. Ever since the seduction of Eve in the garden of Eden, integration has been Satan’s plan. The object of this paper is to unmask this satanic subterfuge in such a way that anyone can quickly spot it when the media praises multiculturalism via movies, magazines, newspapers, radio, Internet and television. But especially from the pulpits of the churches. Our churches were infiltrated long ago in the 1930’s by “Christian” socialists holding communistic ideologies, such as Harry Ward and Reinhold Niebuhr at Union Theological Seminary (The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling, p.31). All of this compliments of the bad-fig-jew Karl Marx, promoting the agenda of Satan, the god of integration, and all 10 planks of his communist manifesto are alive and well and working throughout America today


Thursday, June 6, 2013

"There Is No Pacifism In The Bible" by Bertrand Comparet

 
THERE IS NO PACIFISM IN THE BIBLE
by Bertrand L. Comparet
 
It is reported that a Hindu recently undertook to rebuke all the Christian nations, by asking "How can you reconcile Jesus doctrine of non-resistance with your military armament, and with the wars you fight from time to time? Which of you will return good for evil?" In speaking thus, the Hindu smugly gloated over what he thought was an inconsistency between our religion and our national conduct. Unfortunately, there are even some Christians who are so ignorant of their own religion that they become embarrassed at such accusations, and feel that we must be guilty of inconsistency, even of wrongdoing. The Hindu's ignorance we can forgive, as he knows nothing of our religion beyond a few phrases quoted out of context; but it is time for Christians to learn more about what they claim as their own religion. We could ask the Hindu, in return, how he can reconcile Premier Nehru's aggressive attack upon Portuguese Goa, which Portugal has held since the year 1510 --- how can he reconcile this aggressive warfare with Nehru's lofty proclamations of his devotion to peace ---that is, whenever "peace" consists of leaving White Men in slavery.

But we shall not be content to point out inconsistencies in the attitude of the Hindus. I want to prove to you today that our own conduct Is not Inconsistent with our religion. In the first place, it is false to speak of Jesus 'doctrine of non-resistance.' In John 2:13-16, the Beloved Disciple reports that the first act of Jesus Christ's ministry in the city of Jerusalem was to make a whip of ropes and flog the money­changers out of the court of the Temple. Does this look like nonresistance, cringing submission to the triumph of evil? Indeed not! Nor was this all: Matthew 21:12-13 and Mark 11:15-17 both record that He repeated this cleansing of the Temple of the evil anti-Christians who infested it, during the last week before His crucifixion. Jesus Christ, Himself, never tolerated evil, never consented that it should be allowed to remain triumphant rather than to resist it. Only in His crucifixion did He allow the forces of evil to have their way: and this was not through any doctrine of non-resistance to evil, but only to fulfill the purpose for which He had assumed a human body. He came here for the express purpose of meeting death to pay the penalty for our sins, in order to save us; if He had not submitted to crucifixion, His purpose to save us would not have been accomplished. For this reason only did He submit, and not because He ever believed in letting evil triumph without resistance.

But someone will say, "What about Matthew 5:38-39? 'Ye have heard that It was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.'" No, there is no inconsistency here, either. This advice was never given to the nation, that we should surrender to China and leave the world in slavery. It was given only to individuals --- and to particular individuals, at that. Jesus was preaching to bring His truths before all who had the qualities to respond to Him and would become His disciples: these would be that first generation of Christians whose responsibility above all else was to spread His word, without being distracted by petty quarrels with other people.

They were to face ridicule, contempt and hatred; every day they would be given provocation by insults and injuries. If they let themselves react with natural anger, they would be in constant quarrels and fights; they would be constantly arrested and in jail, not as noble martyrs to a great cause, but as brawlers constantly fighting in the streets over personal quarrels --- which would not be a good recommendation for the new religion

of Christianity. Even if they did not fight, but looked to the law to vindicate their rights, this would make them spend all their time and energy in lawsuits instead of their missionary work. This was not the duty of the early Christians. But that He did not intend that they should tamely let themselves be slaughtered by ruffians is clear: In Luke 22:36, He told His disciples that he that had no sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

So many erroneous religious doctrines come from the mistake of taking out of context words spoken for a certain time and place, and trying to make universal, eternal rules of them. In Matthew 14:19 and Mark 6:39, when Jesus Christ was about to feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes, we read that "He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass." This certainly doesn't mean that it Is a Christian's duty to go around making people sit down on the grass: it was spoken only to meet the special circumstances of a particular time and place and no-one should try to make a doctrine of it. So also with Jesus Christ's instructions to the early Christians to stick to the job for which He had chosen them, and not waste time quarrelling with the wicked. But don't ever think that, if you see some ruffian trying to rape your wife or daughter you should merely stand around murmuring pious platitudes about the desirability of good conduct. Your duty ---and I do mean DUTY---as a good Christian is to stop him, if you have to kill him to do it.

So much for the individual. But this Hindu was trying to place Christian nations (not Nehru's India, nor China) under the individual's restrictions. God always distinguished between the rules for the individ­ual and the rules for the nation. Particularly is this true of the Laws of War. It is only when we have been guilty of evil conduct and disloyalty to our God that He has allowed wicked nations to oppress us until we repented of our evil ways; then He has Himself used us as His own servant and agent to make war against those wicked nations. He began our training In this early: when our ancestors came out of Egypt in the Exodus, they were attacked by the Amalekites. For this, God said that He would have war with Amalek from generation to generation until He had utterly blotted out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; and this duty He command­ed His people Israel to perform, as we read In Exodus 17:14-16 and Deuteron­omy 25:17-19. But that is only the beginning: in Jeremiah 51:20, God Himsel said to our ancestors and to us, their deseendants, "Thou art My battleaxe and weapons of war: and with thee will I break in pieces the nations; and with thee will I destroy kingdoms." Is there anything pacif­istic about that? Evil must not be allowed to rule the earth in triumph. To those who are good, you can speak in a language they understand, the language of peace and reason. But to those who are utterly evil, you must also speak in the only language they understand. Russia and China can't understand platitudes; they can understand superior force.

Again, we read in the 7th. chapter of Judges how God sent Gideon, with but 300 men, to deliver Israel from the huge army of the Midianites; and he routed the Midianites with the slaughter of 120,000 men. We are clearly told that this was by "the sword of the Lord and of Gideon."

Neither let yourself be misled by someone quoting, "they that take the sword shall perish by the sword." Note that this speaks to TWO swords: the sword of the aggressor, who shall perish by the sword of the defender.

Lest anyone should say that this is only a characteristic of earthly men, a relic of the past, and that we should look forward to a higher, nobler character to be attained in the future, let us examine the Book of Revelation, in its description of Jesus Christ when He returns to reign over all the world as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In Revelation 19:11, It says of Jesus Christ that "In righteousness He doth judge and MAKE WAR." Jesus Christ, Himself, recognizes that there can never be 11peaceful coexistence" between good and evil: one must certainly conquer, the other must certainly perish; if good has not the will and the courage to be the conqueror, then evil will rule supreme. So long as evil exists, there will be wars: the wars of evil's aggression against good, until good conquers and exterminates evil; and this last great war to wipe out evil will be led by no less a general than our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. When He comes, let Him find you, not hiding under the bed In abject terror, but marching resolutely in the ranks of His army.

The Bible Is Not a Jewish Book by Bertrand L. Comparet

THE BIBLE IS NOT A JEWISH BOOK
by Bertrand L. Comparet
The statement is commonly made, even by those who should know better, that we Christians owe a debt to the Jews, for we got our Bible and our religion from them. While many people have been deceived into believing this, it is completely false. Part of the mistake comes from the complete confusion in the minds of nearly all people as to just what they mean by Jew. Are they referring to people of a certain race, or referring to a people of a certain religion, for the two are not the same. There are in Africa today, some pure blooded negroes who are Jews by religion and there are in China today, some pure blooded Mongolians who are Jews by religion. Likewise, there are some people today who are racially of the stock we know as Jews, but who have been converted to other religions.
First let's consider the claim we got our Bible and our religion from the Jews, as meaning Jews by religion. It is certain we didn't get the New Testament from them, for it condemns the Jewish religion throughout all the New Testament. But did we get the Old Testament from them? No, for several reasons in the first place, no Jew by religion existed before the return from the Babylonian captivity, shortly after 536 B.C.. Their great historian Josephus writes, "So the Jews prepared the work. Jew is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon." The only books of the Old Testament that were written after the return from Babylon are, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (all of them historical, rather than doctrinal) Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. In none of these do the Jews receive anything but rebuke for their wickedness, for their apostasy from the religion of the Old Testament. The late Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, formerly the Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."
The learned Rabbi was correct in distinguishing the true religion of the Old Testament as Hebrewism for it was the religion of the real Hebrews, who were not Jews at all. Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is as the learned Rabbi says, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the supposed oral law. It was never reduced to writing as part of the Bible. This oral law gradually gained greater force among the Jews than the written law in the Bible, with which it often conflicted in Yahshua's day, the Babylonian Talmud was known as the Tradition of the Elders.
This is why Yahshua told the Jews:
"Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of Yahweh that ye may keep your own tradition, * * making the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered." Mark 7:6-13.
"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Yahweh." Matthew 22:29
"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye pay tithes of mint, anise and cumin and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith" Matthew 23:23
This was the religion of the Jews. As the learned Rabbi Stephen F Wise said, Judaism as distinguished from Hebrewism, the real religion of the Old Testament. Certainly Christianity took nothing from any Jewish religion for we have never taken any part of Christianity from the Talmud.
Well then, can it be said we got our Bible or our religion of Christianity from men of the Jewish race? No, it cannot. I haven't the time in the remainder of this lesson to give the Bible evidence in detail. I will have to reserve that for a later lesson. It can be clearly proven, both out of the historical books of the Bible and out of the only thorough history of the times written bay one living when the facts were still well known. Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", tells that the Jews were a people distinct and separate from Yahweh's people Israel, although living among them. The Jew were the Canaanite people who lived in Palestine, before Israel entered the promised land and who were not driven out. These Canaanite people, and the mixed offspring from intermarriage with the Israelites, were allowed to remain in the land while paying heavy tribute taxes.
The prophets who wrote the books of the Old Testament, were all of pure Israelite stock, from one or another of the 12 tribes of Israel. Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Haggai anti Zechariah were of the tribe of Levi. Joshua and Samuel were of the tribe of Ephraim. Isaiah, Daniel and Zephaniah were of the house of David, Jonah was of the tribe of Zebulun. Hosea was of the tribe of Issachar.
When the Assyrians conquered and deported the people of the ten northern tribes, the Bible records that the Assyrians brought other people in from the Assyrian empire and settled them in Samaria, in place of the Israelites they had deported. Samaria is only the southern half of the territory occupied by these ten northern tribes. The northern half was Galilee and this was left vacant. When the kingdom of Judah was later deported to Babylon, for their seventy years captivity, their land was left with very little population. While they were gone, the Edomites who were descendants of Esau, mixed with Canaanite people, were forced out of their own land by pressure of invading Arab tribes, and moved westward into the vacant lands of Judah, occupying the southern half of the former kingdom of Judah.
Therefore, when a portion of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned from the Babylonian captivity, they were too few in numbers to drive out the warlike Edomites and had to try to squeeze into the very little territory they had left. It was too small for them, so what was left of the tribe of Judah took the little territory remaining around Jerusalem and Benjamin was pushed to the north. They could not move next door into Samaria, as this area was occupied by the people the Assyrians had settled there. Benjamin had to leapfrog over them into the vacant territory of Galilee.
That the apostles and the majority of Christian converts came from the Benjaminites should not surprise us. When the kingdom was split in two upon the death of Solomon, Yahweh said He would leave Benjamin with Judah so that the house of David should have a light before them. In Yahshua's time the people of Benjamin were still the light bearers. In the New Testament all of the apostles were of the tribe of Benjamin except Judas Escariot, the only Jew among them. Judas came from the village of Kerioth in southern Judea. Iscariot is a corruption of Ish Kerioth, man of Kerioth. Paul tells us that he (Paul) was of the tribe of Benjamin and at the other apostles except Judas Escargot were from Galilee where the tribe of Benjamin settled after the return from Babylon.
This is confirmed by Yahshua. In Matthew 15:24 He said, "I am not sent but unto the I sheep of the house of Israel", in John chapter 10 Yahshua tells the Jews, "I am the good Shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine. But ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me" From the Savior's own tips we have the proof that the Jews are not of the tribes of Israel. Note carefully that He does not say that their unbelief keeps them from being of His sheep. He says the exact opposite, that the reason why they do not believe is that they are not of His sheep, the house of Israel.
Christianity and Judaism are completely and irreconcilably inconsistent. Whichever one is right, the other must be wrong for they mutually repudiate each other. A great part of Yahshua's reported words are His denunciation of the Jews for their religion, which He tells them is not that of the Old Testament. In John 5:46 Yahshua told them, "Had ye believed in Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me." In Luke 16:31 Yahshua said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded through one rose from the dead." He was right, He did rise from the dead, but to this day they are not persuaded.
It is therefore clear, we did not get either our Bible or our Christian religion, either in whole or in part from those who were Jews, either by religion or by race. We owe them no debt, for they gave us nothing.