Christianity vs Atheism vs Spirituality

[Pixel--Dude]

@Outcast9428
@Mrman

I wanted to analyse the significance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and ask what you guys think to the reflection.

Sacrifice of animals was common before the times of Jesus Christ, because as Paul said "The wages of sin are death!" People today value different things, but back then people would have valued animals for their food, clothing and financial security. So someone committing a sin would sacrifice one of their valued animals to God to atone for their sin.

The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore is because of the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Both were means to the same end, which was accounting for sin. Here are 5 distinctions between the two forms of sacrifice:

1. The first important distinction is that when an animal is sacrificed it does not come back to life. It is a permanent loss. If among your flock you had an animal that could bring itself back from the dead, how meaningful would it be to sacrifice that particular animal? How would that even be a loss or a sacrifice if the animal just came back to you after you lost it?

2. The second distinction is that animal sacrifice was not retroactive like the sacrifice of Jesus. First came sin and then the sacrifice followed. This is true for everyone before the sacrifice of Jesus Christ but not after. It would be shallow and insincere to kill an animal as an insurance policy just in case you sin in the future, or preemptively performing a sacrifice today so you can sin tomorrow. The sacrifice loses its meaning when you can sin with the knowledge that a sacrifice has already been made on your behalf. With the knowledge of the sacrifice of Jesus people know their sacrifice was already made and this can become a consideration for pretty much any sin.

3. Animals do not choose to be sacrificed is another distinction. They were chosen by their owners. How would the meaning of the sacrifice change if it were the animal that volunteered to be sacrificed? Thusly taking away responsibility from their owners? The focus would shift from it being the owners act to the animals act. This would fundamentally changing the dynamic for atonement, yet this is exactly what can be observed with Christianity. Jesus, unlike the animal, was a willing participant in his own sacrifice.

4. A fourth distinction is that people killed animals they valued, that is why the sacrifice is supposed to have meaning. But the people who killed Jesus did not value him. For whom was Jesus truly sacrificed?

5. Finally, animals were sacrificed to atone for the sin of the person who killed them. A sacrifice must be an intentional act for it to be considered a sacrifice, yet the people who killed Jesus didn't kill him for him to be offered as a sacrifice. When someone offered an animal as a sacrifice they intended that animal to be a sacrifice for their sin, in Christianity however it was God who valued Jesus and God who intentionally offered Jesus as a sacrifice. Given what we know about sacrifice this tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was because God did something wrong and God offered a valued sacrifice to atone for God's wrongdoing. Because sacrificing Jesus would not be a logical way for humans to atone for their sin, but it would be a logical way for God to atone. Jesus never belonged to us, he belonged to God and therefore wasn't ours to sacrifice.

What if Christianity makes more sense if it is God who is asking humanity for forgiveness? And what if that is why the teachings of Jesus were mostly about the value of forgiveness? Yahweh trying to win over humanity with a sacrifice which loses its meaning when that which he offered as a sacrifice would just come back to him.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the foundational principle on which the entire religion is built. But what do the previous considerations tell us about its true meaning?

[Cornfed]

The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore is because of the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What are you basing that on? On the face of it, sacrificing and incarnation of God to God doesn't make any sense.

[Pixel--Dude]

The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore is because of the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What are you basing that on? On the face of it, sacrificing and incarnation of God to God doesn't make any sense.

In the old testament animal sacrifice was used as an atonement of sin. This was before the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the New Testament which paints God as a loving father rather than the homicidal maniac he shows himself to truly be in the old testament.

I am suggesting that Yahweh sacrificed Jesus Christ to humanity. His true son. Who he valued and offered in order to atone for his own sins and to win the favour of humanity. That Jesus being a sacrifice for humanity isn't logical and doesn't make sense for reasons specified in my post.

[Cornfed]

I am suggesting that Yahweh sacrificed Jesus Christ to humanity. His true son. Who he valued and offered in order to atone for his own sins and to win the favour of humanity.

Unless the Church Fathers specifically said that, there is no reason to assume it.

[Pixel--Dude]

I am suggesting that Yahweh sacrificed Jesus Christ to humanity. His true son. Who he valued and offered in order to atone for his own sins and to win the favour of humanity.

Unless the Church Fathers specifically said that, there is no reason to assume it.

Yet it makes more sense.

[Cornfed]

Yet it makes more sense.

More sense than what? You seem to be just making up a straw man and arguing against it.

[MrMan]

@Tsar
I recently saw a video about an archeologist who found an altar at Mt. Ebal. Arechologists had tried in vain to find it between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim, assuming it was between the two mountains. But he found evidence for it on the other side of the mountain along with inscriptions that aligned with the story in Joshua.

Israel had wondered for 40 years. Moses died, and Joshua led them into the promised land. Some tribes were to stand on Mt. Gerizim and some were to stand on Mt. Ebal. Blessings and curses for keeping the law were to be recited. Animals were sacrificed. Well, an archeologist found the altar with the animal bones and very ancient inscription referencing Yahweh that aligned with the Biblical event.

You might also be interested in this book through Oxford University Press that I found a link for online that gives Egyptian evidence for the story of the Exodus. The reviews contain a number of quotes to give you a feel for it.https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... 0195130881

[Tsar]

A more rational explanation of the events of the Jews in Ancient Egypt by applying empirical and observable evidence of Jews across history:

1. Jews weren't all slaves. Maybe some Jewish people were enslaved. Slavery was common for human history. Jews owned Jewish slaves. Egyptians commonly owned Egyptian slaves. There were Jews who owned Egyptian slaves. If Jews built any part of cities, maybe they loaned money for construction, or they used their money to have their homes built. Jews were a nomadic people who tried to insert themselves into host civilizations, especially whatever was the dominant host civilization of the era.
2. The Jews were engaging in degeneracy and subversion like they always do.
3. The Pharaoh, tired of his Kingdom being subjected to such degeneracy, subversion, and seeing his power undermined by outsiders expelled the Jews and ordered his army to chase them out of Egypt under threats of death
4. Jews abruptly left Egypt and were forced to wander until they gained enough strength to conquer and genocide some groups like the Canaanites.
5. While wandering, they decided to decide they were slaves and built Egypt because they lost their properties and anything they couldn't carry. They also use their perpetual victim status to say that the Pharaoh wanted to enslave them to bring them back to Egypt.

That must be considered as a plausible alternative.

Considering Jews were expelled over 100+ times throughout history, why would Jews leaving Egypt be any different. Jews claim it's antisemitism but anyone knows, of some group gets expelled more than 3 times throughout history, they must really begin to look at their own behavior. 100+ times means the problem is entirely with them and they refuse to change or can't change.

[WilliamSmith]

A more rational explanation of the events of the Jews in Ancient Egypt by applying empirical and observable evidence of Jews across history:

1. Jews weren't all slaves. Maybe some Jewish people were enslaved. Slavery was common for human history. Jews owned Jewish slaves. Egyptians commonly owned Egyptian slaves. There were Jews who owned Egyptian slaves. If Jews built any part of cities, maybe they loaned money for construction, or they used their money to have their homes built. Jews were a nomadic people who tried to insert themselves into host civilizations, especially whatever was the dominant host civilization of the era.
2. The Jews were engaging in degeneracy and subversion like they always do.
3. The Pharaoh, tired of his Kingdom being subjected to such degeneracy, subversion, and seeing his power undermined by outsiders expelled the Jews and ordered his army to chase them out of Egypt under threats of death
4. Jews abruptly left Egypt and were forced to wander until they gained enough strength to conquer and genocide some groups like the Canaanites.
5. While wandering, they decided to decide they were slaves and built Egypt because they lost their properties and anything they couldn't carry. They also use their perpetual victim status to say that the Pharaoh wanted to enslave them to bring them back to Egypt.

That must be considered as a plausible alternative.

Considering Jews were expelled over 100+ times throughout history, why would Jews leaving Egypt be any different. Jews claim it's antisemitism but anyone knows, of some group gets expelled more than 3 times throughout history, they must really begin to look at their own behavior. 100+ times means the problem is entirely with them and they refuse to change or can't change.

Good post @Tsar: We need to try to get to the bottom of this, because what went on back in Egypt is a trigger point I've noticed some jews flipping out about because they don't want goys to find out about it or look into it.
There's also the issue of how a lot of people (including some jews who reject the usual "narratives" of the synagogue of satan types) don't believe what we call jews today are the actual "Children of Israel" at all...
I have a pile of articles about this that I saved in case jews succeeded in censoring the internet and removing them, but I never dug into them yet (just skimmed them), but I'll come back here and post them in this thread soon.
An anti-zionist jew who also strongly dislikes the rest of the tribe's abusive behavior and what they do to gentiles was telling me that a lot of their abusive behavior is rooted in beliefs with Old Testament and Talmudic origins, so the importance of studying the religious history and untangling truthful evidence vs the endless lies of the more typical jews is worth some research time...

In the old days, a lot of us who just wanted to get along with other people tended to dismiss a lot of biblical material as a bunch of incoherent syncretism that gets subjectively interpreted by zillions of sects and individuals, since it was frankly cobbled together from ancient Pagan Astro theological materials from ancient Pagan and pre-Christian cultures. However, that doesn't mean there aren't necessarily some deep truths in some Biblical prophecies, in theory...
I noticed @Lucas88 and @Pixel--Dude have posted on quite a few times in various threads, and I'd better get in on this.

As I said before though, I want to get along with all the other Christians and Muslims who know the SOS is the world's #1 problem. Leaders like Farrakhan have also reached out for decades to give non-satanic jews their fair say (and some of them have taken them up on that, and there's a lot of holocaust denying rabbis and other 'jewish defectors'), but the majority of their tribe just demonizes Farrakhan and similar leaders anyway because they prefer going all-in on lies and wickedness, making it no surprise why the tribe as a whole has been thrown out of something like 109 countries and is going to get thrown out of a whole lot more.

[Tsar]

Good post @Tsar: We need to try to get to the bottom of this, because what went on back in Egypt is a trigger point I've noticed some jews flipping out about because they don't want goys to find out about it or look into it.
There's also the issue of how a lot of people (including some jews who reject the usual "narratives" of the synagogue of satan types) don't believe what we call jews today are the actual "Children of Israel" at all...
I have a pile of articles about this that I saved in case jews succeeded in censoring the internet and removing them, but I never dug into them yet (just skimmed them), but I'll come back here and post them in this thread soon.
An anti-zionist jew who also strongly dislikes the rest of the tribe's abusive behavior and what they do to gentiles was telling me that a lot of their abusive behavior is rooted in beliefs with Old Testament and Talmudic origins, so the importance of studying the religious history and untangling truthful evidence vs the endless lies of the more typical jews is worth some research time...

In the old days, a lot of us who just wanted to get along with other people tended to dismiss a lot of biblical material as a bunch of incoherent syncretism that gets subjectively interpreted by zillions of sects and individuals, since it was frankly cobbled together from ancient Pagan Astro theological materials from ancient Pagan and pre-Christian cultures. However, that doesn't mean there aren't necessarily some deep truths in some Biblical prophecies, in theory...
I noticed @Lucas88 and @Pixel--Dude have posted on quite a few times in various threads, and I'd better get in on this.

As I said before though, I want to get along with all the other Christians and Muslims who know the SOS is the world's #1 problem. Leaders like Farrakhan have also reached out for decades to give non-satanic jews their fair say (and some of them have taken them up on that, and there's a lot of holocaust denying rabbis and other 'jewish defectors'), but the majority of their tribe just demonizes Farrakhan and similar leaders anyway because they prefer going all-in on lies and wickedness, making it no surprise why the tribe as a whole has been thrown out of something like 109 countries and is going to get thrown out of a whole lot more.

Also, we need to consider some other elements:
1. Hitler is demonized and portrayed as the ultimate evil of our time. Before Hitler and Nazi Germany was Imperial Russia. Before Russia was other nations. In ancient times, it varies between the Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, and others. Whoever wanted to keep the Jews out, in check, controlled, and limit what they could was demonized.
2. How many times in history have we seen Jews become victims because they were attacked without provoking the attack? Everytime anyone tried to befriend the Jews, the Jews backstabbed them or undermined them. We can easily see Jews are the enemy to all Goyim.
3. Every other race has built lasting civilizations which even survived attacks from others. Jews are the outlier. Scattered relics isn't the same thing as the lasting cities of all other civilizations. Every race except the Jews has an example of a city that stood the test of time. Jews don't build civilizations, Jews destroy them!

The Talmudists during the war in Iraq had the US intentionally launch a missile and it destroyed an ancient tower that likely stood since the times of Babylon.

Jews have constantly erased everything and seeks to destroy everything!

Whites built civilizations. Asians built civilizations. Indians built civilizations. While it's not as common, Africans have built great civilizations such as Timbuktu was the site of one of Africa's greatest civilizations. Persians built great civilizations. Araba built great civilizations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas and the South Pacific built great civilizations.

The outlier is the Jews!

They constantly genocide people to take homes. They insert themselves into host civilizations. They haven't built anything that has survived time.

They converted a kingdom of Khazaria and it crumbled.

The ancient Rus were the ones who brought Khazaria down. I think this might have some element to why the Jews have endless hatred and why the Jews always desire to destroy Russia. Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union which they lost control of because Stalin outsmarted the Jewish Bolshevik leadership, and now the Russian Federation because Putin seeks to restore Russia and prevented the Jewish Oligarchs from destroying Russia and prevented the Talmudist West from destroying his great nation.

The Israelis are engaging a new overt genocide of the Palestinians and they have been rapidly increasing their covert genocide of Europeans.

Jews have genocide the most people throughout but it's erased from the Jewish written textbooks! It's because Jews are the victimizers, not the victims!

[Pixel--Dude]

Yet it makes more sense.

More sense than what? You seem to be just making up a straw man and arguing against it.

The Bible makes more sense if God sacrificed Jesus to atone for his wrong. For reasons I pointed out in my previous post, which if you bothered to read properly you would see there is a clear problem with the biblical narrative and its interpretation that Jesus died for our sins. You didn't even address the post and instead started accusing it of being a strawman argument.

It is a genuine observation given what we know about sacrifice, it only has meaning if some kind of loss is incurred. Plus Jesus wasn't ours to sacrifice. This is, as I said before, the foundational principle of your jew religion.

[Cornfed]

Yet it makes more sense.

More sense than what? You seem to be just making up a straw man and arguing against it.

The Bible makes more sense if God sacrificed Jesus to atone for his wrong.

Jesus was incarnation of God, so you are saying that God sacrificed himself to atone to himself for the sins of humans. This makes no sense and is not stated in the Bible. It is just something you have made up.

[WilliamSmith]

I'm taking the liberty of expanding the topic into not just Christianity, but also the Abrahamic religions overall, including Islam and judaism, the religion of humanity's supreme mortal biological and spiritual enemies: the jews.
For what it's worth, I reiterate my own position that the #1 thing of importance is getting along with Christians and Muslims who also realize the synagogue of satan is the world's #1 problem. We need to be either friends, or at least diplomatic allies until we get the satanic jews off our backs.

But on the overall topic of Abrahamic religions, let me contribute a thing or two via other sources who have studied the Abrahamic religions in-depth for many generations, and see what you guys have to say in response (other than the obvious of self-indulgently cherry-picking points in the entire history of regions impacted by Christianity and highlighting the specific parts you think supposedly sounded the best under real or imagined theocracy, which I understand from an emotional point of view, but isn't especially convincing on an actual free-speech platform like this one):

https://russia-insider.com/en/israels-a ... le/ri22632

The Bible: Blueprint for Jewish Atrocities and Genocide


The Biblical Mind of Israel’s Founding Fathers

THE HEBREW BIBLE (Tanakh) is for the committed Jew as much a record of his ancient origins, the prism through which all Jewish history is interpreted (is not the “Holocaust” a biblical term?), and the unalterable pattern of Israel’s promising future. That is why the Bible, once the “portable fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews as Heinrich Heine put it, remains at the core of the national narrative of the Jewish State, whose founding fathers did not give it any other Constitution.

It is true that the earliest prophets of political Zionism — Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem, 1862), Leon Pinsker (Auto-Emancipation, 1882) and Theodor Herzl (The Jewish State, 1896) — did not draw their inspiration from the Bible, but rather from the great nationalist spirit that swept through Europe at the end of the 19th century. Pinsker and Herzl actually cared little whether the Jews colonized Palestine or any other region of the globe; the first thought about some land in North America, while the second contemplated Argentina and later Uganda. More important still than nationalism, what drove these intellectual pioneers was the persistence of Judeophobia or “anti-Semitism.”

Nevertheless, by naming his movement “Zionism,” Herzl himself was plugging it into biblical mythology: Zion is a name used for Jerusalem by biblical prophets. And after Herzl, the founders of the Yishuv (Jewish communities settled in Palestine before 1947) and later of the Jewish State were steeped in the Bible. From their point of view, Zionism was the logical and necessary end of biblical Yahwism.

“The Bible is our mandate,” Chaim Weizmann declared at the Peace Conference in Versailles in 1920, and David Ben-Gurion has made clear that he only accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan as a temporary step toward the goal of biblical borders. In Ben-Gurion, Prophet of fire(1983), the biography of the man described as “the personification of the Zionist dream,” Dan Kurzman entitles each chapter with a Bible quote. The preface begins like this:

“The life of David Ben-Gurion is more than the story of an extraordinary man. It is the story of a Biblical prophecy, an eternal dream. […] Ben-Gurion was, in a modern sense, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, a messiah who felt he was destined to create an exemplary Jewish state, a ‘light unto the nations’ that would help to redeem all mankind.”

For Ben-Gurion, Kurzman writes, the rebirth of Israel in 1948 “paralleled the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the land by Joshua, the Maccabean revolt.” Yet Ben-Gurion had never been to the synagogue, and ate pork for breakfast.

According to the rabbi leading the Bible study group that he attended, Ben-Gurion

“unconsciously believed he was blessed with a spark from Joshua’s soul.” “There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible,” he used to say.

He wrote in his diary in 1948, ten days after declaring independence,

“We will break Transjordan [Jordan], bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight — we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo,” then he adds: “This will be in revenge for what they did to our forefathers during biblical times.”[2] Three days after the Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1956, he declared before the Knesset that what was at stake was “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon.”

Ben-Gurion’s attachment to the Bible was shared by almost every Zionist leader of his generation and the next. Moshe Dayan, the military hero of the 1967 Six Day War, wrote a book entitled Living with the Bible (1978) in which he justified the annexation of new territory by the Bible. More recently, Israeli Education minister Naftali Bennett, a proponent of full-scale annexation of the West Bank, did the same.

Zionism is biblical by ideology, but also in practice. As Avigail Abarbanel wrote, the Zionist conquerors of Palestine

“have been following quite closely the biblical dictate to Joshua to just walk in and take everything. […] For a supposedly non-religious movement it’s extraordinary how closely Zionism […] has followed the Bible.”

The paradox is only apparent, because for Zionists, the Bible is not a religious text, but a textbook of history. And so it should be obvious to anybody paying attention that Israel’s behavior on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying ideology.

Prophecies and Geopolitics

Only by taking account of the biblical roots of Zionism can one understand why Zionism has never been a nationalist movement like others. It could not be, as Gilad Atzmon remarked, from the moment it defined itself as a Jewish movement, aimed at creating a “Jewish state”. Jewish exceptionalism is a biblical concept that has no equivalent in any other ethnic or religious culture.

Neither can Zionism be correctly assessed as a form of colonialism, despite Jabotinsky’s effort to do so. For colonialism seeks not to expel the natives, but to exploit them. If Zionism is colonialism, it can only be in the sense of the colonization of the world by Israel, according to the program laid out by Isaiah:

“The riches of the sea will flow to you, the wealth of the nations come to you” (60:5);

“You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16);

“You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:5-6);

“For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly destroyed” (60:12)

Christians have been led to believe there is hope in Isaiah that, some day, all peoples “will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles. Nations will not lift sword against nation, no longer will they learn how to make war” (Isaiah 2:4).

But more important to Zionists are the previous verses, which describe these messianic times as a Pax Judaica, when “all the nations” will pay tribute “to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the god of Jacob,” when “the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem,” so that Yahweh will “judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples.”

No wonder Isaiah is the biblical prophet most often quoted by Zionists. In a statement published in the magazine Look on January 16, 1962, Ben-Gurion predicted for the next 25 years:

“All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”

The launching of the Iraq War was a decisive step toward that goal of a new world order headquartered in Jerusalem. It was the context for a “Jerusalem Summit” held in October 2003 in the highly symbolic King David Hotel, to seal an alliance between Jewish and Christian Zionists.

The “Jerusalem Declaration” signed by its participants declared Jerusalem “the key to the harmony of civilizations,” replacing the United Nations that had become “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”:

“Jerusalem’s spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world’s unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.”

Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry Scoop Jackson Award.

When Israeli leaders claim that their vision of the global future is based on the (Hebrew) Bible, we should take them seriously and study the Bible. It might help, for example, to know that according to Deuteronomy Yahweh plans to deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.

You shall not make marriages with them…” (7:1-2). As for the kings of these seven nations, “you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24). The destruction of the “Seven Nations,” also mentioned in Joshua 24:11, is considered a mitzvah in rabbinic Judaism, included by the great Maimonides in his Book of Commandments, and it has remained a popular motif in Jewish culture, known to every Israeli school child.

It is also part of the Neocon agenda for World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz names the current global conflict in World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, 2007). General Wesley Clark, former commandant of NATO in Europe, wrote in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003), and repeated in numerous occasions, that one month after September 11, 2001, as he was paying a visit to Paul Wolfowitz, a Pentagon general showed him a memo “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”

In his September 20, 2001 speech, President Bush also targeted seven “rogue states”, but included Cuba and North Korea instead of Lebanon and Somalia. The likely explanation to that discrepancy is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, as an encrypted signature.

Without question, the neocons who were writing Bush’s war agenda were Zionists of the most fanatical and Machiavellian kind. But the neocon viper’s nest is not the only place to look for crypto-Zionists infiltrated in the highest spheres of US foreign and military affairs. Consider, for example, that Wesley Clark is the son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and the proud descendant of a lineage of rabbis.

It is hard to believe that he never heard about the Bible’s “seven nations”? Is Clark himself, together with the Amy Goodmans who interviewed him, trying to write history in biblical terms, while blaming these wars on the Pentagon’s warmongers? What’s going on, here?

A Lesson From the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah

To understand how the crypto-Zionists have hijacked the Empire’s military power into proxy wars, a lesson can be learned from Book of Ezra and its sequel, the Book of Nehemiah. At the time of Ezra, the imperial power was Persia. After the Persians had conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, some of the exiles and their descendants (42,360 people with their 7,337 servants and 200 male and female singers, according to Ezra 2:64-67) returned to Jerusalem under the protection of King Cyrus, with the project of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus begins the Book of Ezra:

“Yahweh roused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia to issue a proclamation and to have it publicly displayed throughout his kingdom: ‘Cyrus king of Persia says this, Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build him a temple in Jerusalem, in Judah.’” (Ezra 1:1-2).

For acting on behalf of Yahweh, Cyrus is bestowed the title of God’s “Anointed” (Mashiah) in Isaiah 45:1.

“Thus says Yahweh to his anointed one, to Cyrus whom, he says, I have grasped by his right hand, to make the nations bow before him and to disarm kings: […] It is for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, that I have called you by your name, have given you a title though you do not know me. […] Though you do not know me, I have armed you.” (Isaiah 45:1-5)

A succeeding Persian emperor, Darius, confirmed Cyrus’ edict, authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple, and ordering gigantic burnt offerings financed by “the royal revenue.” Anyone resisting the new theocratic power backed by Persia, “a beam is to be torn from his house, he is to be impaled on it and his house is to be reduced to a rubbish-heap for his offense” (Ezra 6:11).

Then another Persian king, Artaxerxes, is supposed to have granted Ezra authority to lead “all members of the people of Israel in my kingdom, including their priests and Levites, who freely choose to go to Jerusalem,” and to rule over “the whole people of Trans-Euphrates [district encompassing all territories West to the Euphrates]” (7:11-26). In 458 BCE, the priest Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem, accompanied by some 1,500 followers.


Carrying with him the newly redacted Torah, Ezra called himself the “Secretary of the Law of the God of heaven” (7:21). He was soon joined by Nehemiah, a Persian court official of Judean origin.

The edicts of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes are fake. No historian believe them authentic. But the the tale of Persian kings granting to a clan of wealthy Levites legal authority for establishing a theocratic semi-autonomous state in Palestine sounds historical. What did these proto-Zionists give the Persian kings in return? The Bible does not say, but historians believe that the Judeans exiles in Babylon had won the favor of the Persians by conspiring to help them conquer the city.

What is of interest in this biblical narrative is the blueprint for the Zionist strategy of influencing the Empire’s foreign policy for its own advantage. In the late 19th century, the empire was British. Its foreign policy in the Middle East was largely shaped by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Born in a family of Marranos converted back to Judaism in Venice, Disraeli can be considered a forerunner of Zionism, since, well before Theodor Herzl, he tried to include the “restoration of Israel” in the Berlin Congress’ agenda, and hoped to convince the Ottoman Sultan to concede to Palestine as an autonomous Jewish province.

He failed, but succeeded in putting the Suez Canal under British control, through funding from his friend Lionel Rothschild (an operation which also consolidated the Rothschilds’ control over the Bank of England). That was the first step in binding British interest and fate to the Middle-East. In short, Disraeli was a modern-day Ezra or Nehemiah, capable of steering the Empire’s policy according to the Jewish agenda of the conquest of Palestine, a dream he had cherished ever since his first trip to Palestine in 1830, at the age of 26, and which he had expressed through the hero of his first novel, The Wondrous Tale of Alroy:

“My wish is a national existence which we have not. My wish is the Land of Promise and Jerusalem and the Temple, all we forfeited, all we have yearned after, all for which we have fought, our beauteous country, our holy creed, our simple manners, and our ancient customs.”

A quarter of a century after Disraeli, Theodor Herzl also failed to convince the Sultan. It therefore became necessary that the Ottoman Empire disappear and the cards be redistributed. Zionists then played the British against the Ottomans and, by means now well-documented, obtained from the former the Balfour Declaration (in fact a mere letter addressed by Secretary of State Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild).

But when the British started to limit Jewish immigration in Palestine in the 1930s, the Zionists turned to the rising new Imperial power: the United States. Today, the stranglehold of Zionists on US imperial policy is such that a few Jewish neocons can pull the US into a series of wars against Israel’s enemies with a single false flag attack.

The capacity of Israel to hijack the Empire’s foreign and military policy requires that a substantial Jewish elite remain in the US. Even Israel’s survival is entirely dependent on the influence of the Zionist power complex in the United States (euphemistically called the “pro-Israel lobby”). That is also a lesson learnt from Ezra and Nehemiah’s time: Nehemiah himself retained his principal residence in Babylone and, for centuries after, the kingdom of Israel was virtually ruled by the Babylonian exiles.

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Babylon remained the center of universal Judaism. The comparison was made by Jacob Neusner in A History of the Jews in Babylonia(1965), and by Max Dimont in Jews, God and History (1962). The American Jews who prefer to remain in the United States rather than emigrating to Israel are, Dimont argued, as essential to the community as the Babylonian Jews who declined the invitation to return to Palestine in the Persian era:

“Today, as once before, we have both an independent State of Israel and the Diaspora. But, as in the past, the State of Israel today is a citadel of Judaism, a haven of refuge, the center of Jewish nationalism where dwell only two million of the world’s twelve million Jews. The Diaspora, although it has shifted its center through the ages with the rise and fall of civilizations, still remains the universal soul of Judaism.”

Conclusion

In the words of the Zionists themselves, including Herzl himself, Zionism was supposed to be the “final solution” to the Jewish question. In 1947, the whole world hoped that it would be, except for Arab leaders who warned against it. But Israel’s existence has only resulted in changing the “Jewish question” into the “Zionist question”: the question about the true ambitions of Israel. Part of the answer is to be found in the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist question is the Biblical question. Zionists themselves tell us so. Their mouths are full of the Bible.

On March 3, 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dramatized in front of the American Congress his deep phobia of Iran by referring to the biblical Book of Esther (the only Bible story that makes no mention of God, incidently). It is worth quoting the heart of his rhetorical appeal to a US strike against Iran:

“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago.

But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”

Netanyahu managed to schedule his address to the Congress on the eve of Purim, which celebrates the happy end of the Book of Esther — the slaughter of 75,000 Persians, women and children included. This typical speech by the head of the State of Israel is clear indication that the behavior of that nation on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying ideology. Such is the main objective of my new book, From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, translated by Kevin Barrett.

May those who still want to believe that Zionism has nothing to do with the Bible think twice. Even the nuclear policy of Israel has a biblical name: the Samson Option. And let them read the Prophets:

“And this is the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the nations who have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet; their eyes will rot in their sockets; their tongues will rot in their mouths.” (Zechariah 14:12)

[WilliamSmith]

Here's an even better one: While I have no interest in "white nationalist" critiques of my own romantic and sexual behavior with "non-white" love goddesses, I nonetheless say that the National Vanguard is among the very !@#$#ing greatest for this kind of thing: I give them my earnest respect where it's due, same as for the Nation of Islam Research Group.

The Bible is a “We Wuz Kangz” Fantasy for Jews

, LOL, such an awesome article title.
(This is essentially what numerous anti-zionist jews have told me personally using more diplmatic and formal language when explaining the roots of "anti-gentilism," as well.)
Edit: The biologically jewish but not at all "anti-gentile" or judaic Ron Unz described the way the sociopathic jewish religious roots from the oldtime jewish religion spilled over to impact a much broader swathe of the tribe's population in this particularly good article: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... -religion/)

Back to "The Bible is a We Wuz Kangz Fantasy for jews," I believe this was something Vanguard republished from another blog that ended up getting shut down by kikes who infiltrated some other hosting platform like Wordpress, but the National Alliance / Vanguard crowd still deserves credit for posting it:

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/12/th ... -for-jews/

The Bible is a “We Wuz Kangz” Fantasy for Jews
Rosemary W. Pennington ROSEMARY W. PENNINGTON (EDITOR) · 2 DECEMBER, 2018

JEWS LIKE TO BOAST of their glorious forebears. Disraeli, for example, once retorted to the Irishman Daniel O’Connell: ‘Yes, I am a Jew, and while the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.’

Like most of the episodes in the vast saga that the Jews call their history, however, the period of Solomonic glory was a work of fiction, a literal “We Wuz Kangz” fantasy for Jews. In reality, David and Solomon, if they existed at all, were nothing but obscure chiefs of gangs of hill bandits and their supposedly majestic capital city, Jerusalem, was nothing but a small, unfortified and undistinguished hamlet.

The basic story of the Jews that the Bible tells is this:

After centuries of enforced servitude in Egypt, the proto-Jews invaded their “promised land”, Canaan, and exterminated most of the indigenous peoples. When most of the goyim (“the people of the land”) had been wiped out, the Jews enjoy a period of glorious success under King David and then Solomon. Solomon, although a great king, let the rot set in by marrying a foreign (non-Jewish) wife. After Solomon, the Jewish kingdom broke apart into a northern kingdom (Israel) and a southern kingdom (Judah). Judah remained true to the “faith” by suppressing and shunning non-Jewish religions and peoples. Israel, however, went multi-cultural. Foreign gods were worshipped or tolerated. Strict racial purity laws were not observed. God punished Israel for these transgressions by allowing it to be conquered and crushed by the Assyrians.

The Bible story, then, is basically a parable stressing the need for racial and religious purity. Jews should shun contact and intermixture with the lowly goyim. If they don’t, God will punish them.

Many conventional works of history accept the basic parameters of this Biblical narrative as valid. But the factual evidence doesn’t support it. As archaeological knowledge has deepened, it has become clear that much of Biblical history is pure fantasy. Earlier generations of archaeologists, whether Jews or Christians, often had an intense emotional investment in the Bible stories. Their professional work was a quest for validation of suppositions they already held. As such, any findings they made tended to be interpreted in ways that would support the Biblical framework.

As the book The Bible Unearthed (written by Jews Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman) makes clear, modern scholarship has refuted the historicity of the Old Testament and punctured the reputation of the the archaeologists who tried to uphold it.

What really happened was this:

There was no Exodus from Egypt or conquest of Canaan. (Incidentally, this means the line Jews like to quote to justify their pro-immigration stance “You were strangers in the land of Egypt” is nonsense.) Two kingdoms of proto-Jews formed in Palestine: one called Israel in the north, economically successful and interacting happily with its neighbours; and an unsuccessful, poverty-stricken backwater called Judah in the south, which strove to avoid contact with non-Jews. Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and Assyria then occupied most of Israel’s territory for a while. Israelite refugees flocked to Judah’s capital, Jerusalem. When Assyria withdrew from the Israelite lands, the southern kingdom, Judah, attempted to establish its primacy over them.

This was the time during which the core texts of the Old Testament were produced as propaganda with the following aims:

Bind the Israelites emotionally with the Judeans, convincing them that they were all one people.
Justify Israel’s destruction.
Make racial and religious exclusivism the foundational principle of Jewishness.
Establish Jerusalem as the spiritual home of the “Jewish people”.

The scribes of Judah invented an imaginary glorious past for themselves in which their great hero Joshua crushed the armies of the goyim and exterminated their civilian populations. But the powers, peoples and places described in the Biblical narrative make no sense in the context of the time in which the events described would have to have occurred, circa 1500-1300 BC. They make perfect sense, however, in relation to the 7th century BC. This was almost certainly the time at which the core texts of the Old Testament were compiled and written, during the reign of the Jewish king Josiah (the similarity of his name to that of the “hero” Joshua is unlikely to be coincidental.) Just as, say, the film 300, although depicting a struggle between the ancient Greeks and Persians, resonated with the then contemporary “War on Terror”, so the Biblical stories described conflicts that had supposedly occurred many centuries earlier but in fact reflected the challenges and antagonists faced by Judah in the 7th century B.C. The key difference, of course, was that 300 was recounting a real historical episode, while the Joshua stories were completely made up.

The plans of the Judeans did not quite reach their intended fruition. Not long after Israel’s destruction by the Assyrians, Assyria itself was destroyed by Babylon which also then attacked Judah, carting off its elites for a period of temporary exile lasting about 50 years. During this period of Babylonian exile, living among foreigners, the elite Jews refined an ideology of apartheid that required them to segregate themselves, genetically and culturally, from everyone else. New Biblical propaganda was produced to support this ideology and some of the pre-existing books were edited to reflect it. This was the true origin of Jewishness as we know it today.

The entire saga — the grandiose fake history and the much shabbier real history underlying it — is an extraordinary illustration of the power of Jewish lies. Jewish scribes talked up an insignificant hamlet into a fabulous city and minor gang leaders into glorious kings. And people, even in the far corners of the earth, believed these lies for thousands of years and many still believe them today.

We see the same tendencies still at work today. Jews are busy rewriting our history to support and justify our destruction. America, the nation of “free White persons” has been reframed as a receptacle for endless diversity. European national epics, too, are being recast in ways that justify the obliteration of the actual European peoples.

For themselves, the Jews created fake history to justify their racial exclusivism. For us, they create fake history to justify our racial annihilation.

* * *

Source: Diversity Macht Frei

[WilliamSmith]

This original article has a lot of links to the sources they name, so check it out:

I find this interesting even though I'm still 100% open to hearing alternative perspectives from the virtuous types of believers in the non-jewish biblical prophets. (For example, some Catholics are good as gold even though the Vatican itself is a flagrantly dead-obvious nest of blood-sucking child molesting "globalist" vipers, and is totally obviously controlled by satanic jews at this time. But better yet there's Farrakhan, a living legend!!! So I'm posting this stuff I think is thought provoking but am more than happy to hear from the other side if they can actually come up with anything with any substance or credibility for an alternative perspective.)

The Jewish Influence on Religion

https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/10/th ... -religion/

HOW HAS Jewish influence shaped religion in our civilization? Does it matter if such influence is deliberate or merely instinctive? If you want an informed answer to these questions, here are some resources to consider:

Sir Edward Gibbon on Christianity: The 18th-century author of the classic work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and one of the greatest authorities on Christianity in his age, came to the conclusion that Christianity did more to undermine Western civilization than help it. The more he studied Christianity, the more he came to disbelieve and dislike it. “In Gibbon’s view, Christianity made for the decline and fall of Rome by sapping the faith of the people in the official (pagan) religion, thereby undermining the state which that religion supported and blessed. To be sure, Gibbon is not blind to the fact that other cults and sects within the Empire were also competing with one another in their attempt to attract believers. As he admits, ‘Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country’ (Ibid., Ch. 2). However, Christianity was to be distinguished from the other flourishing sects in its claim to exclusivity, or in other words, in its claim that it alone held the key to ‘Truth’ and to Heaven, and that all its competitors were vicious and damned. Moreover, as the early Christians believed in the imminent end of this world, they all put their thoughts in the `next’ world. This other-worldly attitude proved most disastrous to the Empire during the barbarian invasions, since the Christians, instead of bearing arms to serve the state and the public good, diverted men from useful employments and encouraged them to concentrate on heavenly and private salvation. Needless to say, Gibbon’s anti-Christian position aroused the fury of his Christian contemporaries.”

“Commissary to the Gentiles: The First to See the Possibility of War By Propaganda” by Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jewish writer who was the Rothschilds’ (the Jewish bankers) approved biographer. It appeared in The Century Magazine, February 1928, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 476-483. Ravage explains the theory that Christianity was deliberately fabricated as a psychological warfare weapon by ancient Zionists in a deliberate effort to turn the Roman world on its head, in part motivated by a desire to revenge the Roman occupation of Palestine and the destruction of the Temple during the Jewish War. In other words, Christianity is the psychological equivalent of a “computer virus,” except it is designed to screw up Western societies rather than computer hardware.

“A Real Case Against the Jews” by Marcus Eli Ravage. A good supplement to “Commissary to the Gentiles” above.

“Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me” by Deitrich Eckart. Translated by Dr. William Pierce. The amazing thing about this article expounding the views of a well-known Jewish critic is how it’s conspiratorial view of life has similarities to the article listed above by the Jewish author Marcus Eli Ravage, yet Hitler claimed to espouse a thoroughly non-Jewish view of the world.

Complete Online Talmud at come-and-hear.com. Includes analyses by Carol Valentine and Elizabeth Dilling, to include such issues as handling harems, child-sex, child-sacrifice, and other curiosities of an exotic, anachronistic, and highly sociopathic people.

The Invention of the Jewish People by Dr. Shlomo Sand. According to Wikipedia, this Israeli scholar claims: “…most contemporary Jews don’t originate from the ancient Land of Israel. They never existed as a “nation-race” with a common origin. Most of them are descendants of European, Russian and African groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion, just like others adopted Christianity. He also argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, `the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking’. Sand’s argument is that the people who were the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to what is accepted history, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt. He has suggested that much of the present day world Jewish population are individuals, and groups, who converted to Judaism at later periods. Just like most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims: Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, Islam and Christianity, a converting religion. Additionally, he suggests that the story of the exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the new faith. They portrayed that event as a divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel. Sand writes that ‘Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God.‘ Sand argues that most of the Jews were not exiled by the Romans, and were permitted to remain in the country. He puts the number of those exiled at tens of thousands at most. This was, in fact, how the book was born. He started looking in studies about the exile from the land, which is a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. Sand claims that he could discover no literature about the Jewish expulsion from Israel. His explanation is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans sometimes committed ethnocide but they didn’t exile peoples. Sand claims that mass exile wasn’t logistically possible until the 20th century…”

Elizabeth Dilling, author of online work The Jewish Religion, Its Influence Today (formerly titled The Plot Against Christianity). Elizabeth Dilling, a pillar of the American Right in the 1930’s and 40’s, and was a defendant in the Great Sedition Show Trail of 1944 (see Mike Piper TBR article). She was also author of works such as The Roosevelt Red Record and its Background.

Jesus Seminar According to a Wikipedia article, this seminar consisted of “a controversial research team of about one hundred academic New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute” It determined “that of the various statements in the Gospels attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself.”

Talmud Unmasked at talmudunmasked.com carries the famous work of Father I. B. Pranaitis, 1892.

Read more at America First Books

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/