Author Topic: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus (Read 56621 times)

Cera · « **Reply #30 on:** December 09, 2024, 05:21:28 PM »

Quote from: josh987654321 on December 09, 2024, 07:48:07 AM

I suspected the opposite and for that I apologize too. I don't know who is on a crusade to give me all the thumbs down, not that I am superficial or care at all about that kind of thing (I hardly ever use it myself, I don't even use it for posts I dislike), but I do think I'm being setup a bit there, it'd be interesting to see whose doing it IMO, just so I'm aware when responding to various posters, I dislike the whole anonymous attack aspect of it. Thank you and God Bless.

I suspect that a disgruntled former member of CI, an expert on IT, had the foresight to set up several dummy accounts and uses them to give thumbs up or thumbs down cloaked by anonymity.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 09, 2024, 06:39:46 PM »

Quote from: josh987654321 on December 09, 2024, 04:57:43 AM

Mark 79 …promotes Nαzιsm and the US Slave Trade (CNN's dream adversary)... it's all sabotage and entrapment.

Cite a verbatim quote wherein I "promote[s] Nαzιsm and the US Slave Trade." You cannot. You are a serial liar.

I understand why Germans were defending themselves against the same type of Jєωιѕн perversion, economic crimes against humanity, and warmongering and war profiteering that we experience today. World Jєωry declared war on Germany in 1936. Germany saw the millions murdered by Jєωs in neighboring countries and even had their own problems with the deadly Jєω revolutions in Germany (the 1918-1919 Berlin Spartacist and Bavarian Socialist Republic revolutions). That I understand is not an endorsement!

I am a sinner, but still a practicing Catholic. I am bound to oppose ALL socialism, so I oppose national socialism and I oppose Jєωιѕн international socialism. Just as I opposed BOTH Trump and hαɾɾιs, I oppose BOTH national socialism AND Jєωιѕн international socialism. Here's as meme against socialism that I made in 2021, long before your subversive self invaded CathInfo.

Further, this is an excerpt from my website on Catholic teaching on slavery:

Quote

“Romanus Pontifex” on slavery

In a rabid froth, many Protestants will claim that the Church promoted slavery. Usually they offer no evidence, but occasionally some will cite “Romanus Pontifex” or “Dum Diversas,” supposedly authored by Pope Nicholas V. Both of the alleged “papal bulls” are fictitious propaganda concocted by English and Dutch Protestants.

The Vatican has always been meticulous in its record-keeping, especially for docuмents of global importance, yet there is no Catholic source for a Papal Bull “Romanus Pontifex” written by Pope Nicholas V (originally known as the physician Tommaso Parentucelli). The Protestant propagandists who claim the existence of the alleged bull did not and could not provide proof of any valid Catholic source to indicate the actual existence of such a bull. The only legitimate and verifiable reference to Romanus Pontifex is from the Bull Romanus Pontifex of April 25, 1506, approved by Julius II regarding the Shroud of Turin. Another mention is the Constitution Romanus Pontifex of August 23, 1873. Similarly, there is no “Dum Diversas” by Pope Nicholas V or any other Pope.

An important distinction must be made. Chattel slavery is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is the property of an owner, a thing not a person. Such slavery is intrinsically evil and has been opposed by the Church from its beginning. That said, there are legitimate, though unhappy, types of involuntary servitude: prisoners of war, incarcerated criminals, and even persons who sell their labor for a contracted period of time, called “indentured servitude.”

A small tangent—even though the supposed “Romanus Pontifex” of Pope Nicholas V is fabricated. The text in the phony docuмent actually concerns prudential matters of war and imprisonment, not chattel slavery. So, even the phony docuмent does not impugn the Church on chattel slavery.

Contrary to foaming Protestant propaganda, there are numerous papal bulls and encyclicals against chattel slavery.

The Church Against Chattel Slavery

Sicut Dudum given by His Holiness Pope Eugene IV (predecessor of Nicholas V), 1435:
“...We order and command all and each of the faithful... within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person... who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery.”

Sublimus Dei given by His Holiness Pope Paul III, 1537:
“The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction... inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South... should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith... We... consider, however, that the Indians are truly men... We define and declare by these Our letters... that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty... and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”

In Supremo Apostolatus given by His Holiness Gregory XVI, 1839:
“But as the law of the Gospel universally and earnestly enjoined a sincere charity towards all... not only that Christians should regard as their brothers their slaves... but that they should... set free those who merited it; which it was the custom to do chiefly upon the occasion of the Easter Feast as Gregory of Nyssa tells us... It is at these practices [of slavery] that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III... and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII... to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare ‘to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,’ to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated... Benedict XIV...and Pius II address grave warnings [AD 1741 and 1462] with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery. In our time Pius VII... intervened zealously with those in possession of power to secure that the slave trade should at least cease amongst the Christians... We warn... that no one in the future dare to... reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.”

Neither were these commands belated afterthoughts. Pope Leo XII, 1888, chronicled the Church’s history of desiring freedom and brotherhood for all persons. In Plurimis given by Pope Leo XII, 1888:
“‘For you are all the children of God by faith, in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jєω, nor Greek; there is neither bond, nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Galatians 3:26-28)
“...the Church, like a tender mother, went on to try to find some alleviation for the sorrows and the disgrace of the life of the slave; with this end in view she clearly defined and strongly enforced the rights and mutual duties of masters and slaves as they are laid down in the letters of the Apostles... (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5-8; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10)
“Whoever compare the pagan and the Christian attitude toward slavery will easily come to the conclusion that the one was marked by great cruelty and wickedness, and the other by great gentleness and humanity, nor will it be possible to deprive the Church of the credit due to her as the instrument of this happy change...
“Lactantius [AD 240-320] could not have maintained it so confidently, as though a witness of it. ‘Should any one say: Are there not among you some poor, some rich, some slaves, some who are masters; is there no difference between different persons? I answer: There is none, nor is there any other cause why we call each other by the name of brother than that we consider ourselves to be equals...’
“The care of the Church extended to the protection of slaves, and without interruption tended carefully to one object, that they should finally be restored to freedom... That the event happily responded to these efforts, the annals of sacred antiquity afford abundant proof. Noble matrons, rendered illustrious by the praises of St. Jerome [AD 340-420] themselves afforded great aid in carrying this matter into effect; so that as Salvian relates, in Christian families, even though not very rich, it often happened that the slaves were freed by a generous manumission. Wherefore, in addition to the fact that the act of manumission began to take place in churches as an act of piety, the Church ordered it to be proposed to the faithful when about to make their wills, as a work very pleasing to God and of great merit and value with Him... Neither was anything grudged as the price of the captives, gifts dedicated to God were sold, consecrated gold and silver melted down, the ornaments and gifts of the basilicas alienated, as, indeed, was done more than once by Ambrose [374 to 397], Augustine [AD 354-430], Hilary [AD 368-?], Eligius, Patrick [AD 387-493], and many other holy men.
“Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, who have always acted, as history truly relates, as the protectors of the weak and helpers of the oppressed, have done their best for slaves. St. Gregory himself set at liberty as many as possible...
“Hadrian I maintained that slaves could freely enter into matrimony even without their masters’ consent. It was clearly ordered by Alexander III in the year 1167 to the Moorish King of Valencia that he should not make a slave of any Christian...
“Innocent III [1190] ... approved and established the Order of the Most Holy Trinity for Redeeming Christians who had fallen into the power of the Turks... Honorius III [AD 1227], and, afterwards, Gregory IX [AD 1145-1241], duly approved the Order of St. Mary of Help, founded for a similar purpose... St. Gregory passed a decree... that it was unlawful to sell slaves to the Church, and he further added an exhortation to the faithful that, as a punishment for their faults, they should give their slaves to God and His saints as an act of expiation...”

A thoughtful and well referenced essay:
Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery
by Mark Brumley
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/let-my-people-go-the-catholic-church-and-slavery.html

St. John Chrysostom on slavery
https://web.archive.org/web/20220702114135/http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2016/02/st-john-chrysostom-on-slavery.html …

I embrace and submit to the Church's Magisterium on slavery. You are a liar to say otherwise.

You epitomize the deceits and conceits of the "Jєωιѕн understanding" that you promote. Despite all your phony pious pretensions, you are an anti-Catholic and a serial liar.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #32 on:** December 09, 2024, 06:50:48 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 09, 2024, 08:19:14 AM

Yeah, Mark takes notes of people he doesn't like and follows them around like a scorned, ex-girlfriend.

While I do agree that Mark spends too much of his precious time with this kind of thing, this fellow josh83472893478597 is very irritating. He says a lot of rubbish as if he is very knowledgeable about everything. I have the impression that he is 15 and thinks that he will rule the world once he turns 30.

I was pretty stupid when I was a teenager, but I regret it. That's why I thumb down some of his posts. I still have hope that he might wake up someday and develop some humilty. Then he could actually learn something here, instead of saying stupid things.

That being said, I am not responsible for all his downthumbs. I will sometimes press the red arrow when I strongly disagree with something that he said, but usually I will let go and close the tab instead. Life is short, you know?

Mark 79 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 09, 2024, 06:51:49 PM »

Quote from: Cera on December 09, 2024, 05:21:28 PM

I suspect that a disgruntled former member of CI, an expert on IT, had the foresight to set up several dummy accounts and uses them to give thumbs up or thumbs down cloaked by anonymity.

I suspect that there are plenty of quiet Catholics who oppose the Judaizing subversion of josh987654321. It's foolish to speculate that josh987654321 has only one opponent here or even one opponent who cleverly thwarts Matthew's thumb system.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 09, 2024, 06:58:11 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 09, 2024, 06:50:48 PM

While I do agree that Mark spends too much of his precious time with this kind of thing, this fellow josh83472893478597 is very irritating. He says a lot of rubbish as if he is very knowledgeable about everything. I have the impression that he is 15 and thinks that he will rule the world once he turns 30.

I was pretty stupid when I was a teenager, but I regret it. That's why I thumb down some of his posts. I still have hope that he might wake up someday and develop some humilty. Then he could actually learn something here, instead of saying stupid things.

That being said, I am not responsible for all his downthumbs. I will sometimes press the red arrow when I strongly disagree with something that he said, but usually I will let go and close the tab instead. Life is short, you know?

I do spend too much time on this troll. I share your impression of his immaturity. As my meme suggests, I also have the impression that he is a pansy, "identifies as a male."

If he was only an effeminate clown posing as a historian, I"d guffaw and then ignore him, but he touched "the third rail" with his Judaizing… and then his lying and feigned victimhood <<< behaving like a damned Jєω! …in fact, like a damned mentally ill Jєω with his manic posting, non-responsive word salad, and all the rest I have previously indicted. "Pope Pius XI was Hitler's Pope" indeed! What a (((joke))). So much for him being some kind of insightful scholar of history.

Yeah, he got my attention.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 09, 2024, 07:27:23 PM »

Quote from: josh987654321 on December 09, 2024, 04:57:43 AM

Mark 79 ... promotes Nαzιsm and the US Slave Trade (CNN's dream adversary)... it's all sabotage and entrapment.

Further, you josh987654321 are one who insists that Catholics should adopt the "Jєωιѕн understanding" of Scripture.

Well… the Catholic understanding of Scripture opposes chattel slavery. Meanwhile the Jєωιѕн understanding of Scripture embraces slavery (and also encourages genocide, looting, deceit, paganism, and perversion including transsɛҳuąƖism, pedophilia, executing child victims of Jeiwish rape, sodomy, and copulating with a female demon "goddess).

Here is my archive of the Jєωιѕн understanding of Scripture that embraces slavery: https://archive.is/njZEq

I will post the complete contents in The Library section here: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/jews-and-blacks-the-'Jєωιѕн-understanding'/

josh987654321 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 09, 2024, 08:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on December 09, 2024, 07:27:23 PM

Further, you josh987654321 are one who insists that Catholics should adopt the "Jєωιѕн understanding" of Scripture.

Jesus was a Jєω, all His 12 disciples were Jєωs for the 12 tribes, St Paul was a Jєω and did so well when converting precisely because of his background and understanding... the New Testament is built off the Old Testament... Christ did not come to do away with or destroy the Law and the Prophets... but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Your prejudice blinds you.

It's this lack of understanding that has resulted in so many errors and divisions among Christendom, one cannot understand the Papacy without Aaron, one cannot understand Mary without the Ark of the Covenant and Eve, one cannot properly understand Christ without Moses and Adam and there is so much more.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

Mark 79 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 09, 2024, 08:46:47 PM »

You abuse the ambiguity of the English word "Jew."

Mark 79 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 09, 2024, 08:47:39 PM »

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #39 on:** December 09, 2024, 08:50:13 PM »

Quote from: josh987654321 on December 09, 2024, 08:32:45 PM

Jesus was a Jєω, all His 12 disciples were Jєωs for the 12 tribes, St Paul was a Jєω and did so well when converting precisely because of his background and understanding... the New Testament is built off the Old Testament... Christ did not come to do away with or destroy the Law and the Prophets... but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Your prejudice blinds you.

It's this lack of understanding that has resulted in so many errors and divisions among Christendom, one cannot understand the Papacy without Aaron, one cannot understand Mary without the Ark of the Covenant and Eve, one cannot properly understand Christ without Moses and Adam and there is so much more.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

This flag is so red that it glows.

Josh3428098340980 now sounds more like an agent of the ѕуηαgσgυє disguised as a foolish teenager.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #40 on:** December 09, 2024, 08:55:56 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 09, 2024, 08:50:13 PM

This flag is so red that it glows.

Josh3428098340980 now sounds more like an agent of the ѕуηαgσgυє disguised as a foolish teenager.

Yes, "Jesus was a Jєω" is a prime deceit of the ѕуηαgσgυє. The decit is meant to conflate Jesus with the тαℓмυdic Jєωs, the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.

“Jesus was a Jєω” …or Essene • used as a deception to pretend that Jesus was a тαℓмυdic Jєω https://archive.is/XefAD

Jesus was not a Pharisee or тαℓмυdic Jєω; He damned them… repeatedly!

axe laid to the root Matthew 3:10
broken off Romans 11:17-20
cast into the fire Matthew 3:10; 7:19; Luke 3:9
condemned Mark 16:16
cut down Matthew 3:10
in vain do they worship me Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7
judgment of Hell Matthew 23:33
shall be broken Matthew 21:44
shall be ground into powder Matthew 21:44
the kingdom of God shall be taken from them Matthew 21:43
woe Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27; Luke 11:42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52
wrath Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; 21:23; John 3:36; Romans 2:5; I Thessalonians 2:16
their house shall be left desolate Matthew 23:38
they do not enter the kingdom of Heaven Matthew 23:13

accused by Moses John 5:45-47
adversaries to all men I Thessalonians 2:14
agents of the devil John 8:44
blind Matthew 23:26
blind guides Matthew 23:16, 17, 19, 24
children of Hell Matthew 23:15
children of the devil John 8:44
crucifiers Matthew 23:34
dangerous leaven Matthew 16:6-12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1
defectors Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:9, 13; John 5:45, 46, 47
deicides I Thessalonians 2:14-15
disobedient Titus 1:10
dogs Matthew 7:6; Apocalypse 22:16
enemies of the Gospel Romans 11:28
foolish Matthew 23:17
full of dead men’s bones Matthew 23:27
haters of God John 15:24,25
hypocrites Matthew 6:2, 5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29; Mark 7:6; Luke 13:15
idolaters Apocalypse 22:16
iniquitous Matthew 23:28
killers of the just Matthew 23:35

killers of the prophets Matthew 23:37; Luke 11:47;
I Thessalonians 2:14-15
liars John 8:44, 55; Apocalypse 3:9, 22:16
murderers Matthew 23:31; Apocalypse 22:15
offspring of vipers Luke 3:7
purveyors of fables Titus 1:13-14
reject the Word of God Acts 13:46
seducers Titus 1:10
serpents Matthew 23:33
sorcerers Apocalypse 22:16
swine Matthew 7:6
ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan Apocalypse 2:9, 3:9
transgress the commandment of God for their own tradition Matthew 15:3
unchaste Apocalypse 22:16
unclean Matthew 23:25
vain talkers Titus 1:10
vipers Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33
void the commandments of God for the traditions of men Mark 7:8-13, Matthew 15:6
whited sepulchers Matthew 23:27

Recall especially that today’s “Jєωs” boast that they follow the Pharisees…

“The Jєωιѕн religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.” Universal Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474

“Pharisaism became тαℓмυdism, тαℓмυdism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.”
Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, The Jєωιѕн Publication Society of America (1946) p. xxi

“The тαℓмυd is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” *
Michael L. Rodkinson, The History of the тαℓмυd: From The Time Of Its Formation About 200 B. C. Up To The Present Time, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (June 8, 2006), ISBN-13: 978-1428631366, p.70
* “Allusions”? Yes, Jesus damned those man-made traditions for voiding the commandment of God. Mark 7:8-9

“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jєωs as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.”
Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159

…and that Jesus singled out the followers of the Pharisees as twofold children of Hell more than the Pharisees themselves.

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Matthew 23:15

The word “Jєω” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jєω”
and He certainly isn’t a bastard of a whore boiling in feces as Jєωs insist.

In his book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed drills that point home most eloquently;

What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jєω”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith'” audiences that Jesus was a Jєω are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jєωs and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jєωιѕн listeners, for political reasons). *

This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jєω”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jєω, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jєωs. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jєωs, is most frequently made by non-Jєωιѕн politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jєωιѕн favour.

The English abbreviation, “Jєω” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jєω” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).

If the statement, “Jesus was a Jєω”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jєω” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.

Race, residence, religion, then.

This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus's racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.

The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.

As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah's prophecy that “a ruler” would come out of Bethlehem”.

The Jєωιѕн Encylopaedia insists that Nazareth as Jesus's native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.

Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans.

Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jєω”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the ѕуηαgσgυє.

It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jєωιѕн” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.

If today the Zionists are “the Jєωs” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes. but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foes of God and man and that he used an especial, scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today's Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jєωs, Jєωιѕнness and Judaism.

Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jєω today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.

None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jєωιѕн politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jєωιѕн ghettoes.

*Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jєωιѕн hearers. Speaking to such an “inter-faith” meeting at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he stated “Jesus was a Jєω, not a Christian” (Christianity was born with the death of Jesus).
For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United States, but a Christian Ministers Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi Wise adds the characteristic comment: “I know not which was more hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the rabbis”.

The Controversy of Zion

by Douglas Reed, First Printing 1956, p. 59 ff.

download here

Even through the Gospel of St. John you can appreciate how the meaning of “the Jєωs” changed from meaning the whole of the people to meaning those who conspired against Jesus, murdered Him, and now defame Him and persecute His Church and His new Chosen people, His Believers.

Geographically, Jesus of Nazareth was a Galilean, not a Judean.

Liturgically, some claim Jesus celebrated a “seder.” Can you really see Jesus Christ of the Beatitudes calling down the тαℓмυdic hate feast’s liturgical “Passover” curse on Gentiles—“Pour Out Thy Wrath…” (Shefokh hamatkha)?

Doctrinally, Jesus of Nazareth and His Holy Family practiced God’s commandments as delivered by Moses. Jesus of Nazareth and His Holy Family did not follow the Pharisees or others that Jesus damned for making void the commandments of God for the traditions of men. Mark 7:6-9 & Matthew 15:9

Judaism boasts that it follows the Pharisees and Jesus Himself damned the followers, “proselytes,” of the Pharisees as “two fold children of Hell” more than the Pharisees themselves. Matthew 23:15

Jesus emphatically repudiated Pharisaical/тαℓмυdic Judaism. Jesus did not turn His back on His people, but many of them turned their backs on Him!

If anyone insists that “Jesus was a Jєω,” it is likely they are either (1) ignorant or (2) trying to elevate a lying, murderous Master Race creed that Jesus Christ Himself damned.

Definitely not one of them!

It is diabolical indeed that the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan pretends that Jesus was one of them. Now, to give themselves cover, they now use the Holy Name of Jesus, the One they hate most, the One whose blood they called down on themselves and all their generations, the One they say was an idolater [Sanhedrin 43a, 107b], the One they say was a mamzer (bastard) conceived adulterously in niddah (menstrual filth) by a Roman soldier named Pandera [Kallah 51a] of a whore [Sanhedrin 106a] and that He is now in Hell boiling in feces and, in some editions because Jesus is accused of sɛҳuąƖ perversion, semen [Gittin 57a].

Do not be suckered by those that God warned are “the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who say they are Jєωs, and are not, but do lie.” Apocalypse 3:9

Jesus and the Holy Family were most emphatically not one of them.

As for the foolish Essene claim:

Essenes were forbidden to make animal sacrifice. Not only did Jesus’ Holy Family offer the sacrifice of turtledoves (Luke 2:24), but Jesus Himself commanded the healed leper to make the animal sacrifice (Mark 1:44) required by Mosaic Law (Leviticus 14:30).

the etymology of “Jєω” relates to the tribes of Israel

A caveat: Consulting Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible regarding the word “Jєω” is problematic because Strong’s Concordance was compiled for the “King James Version” of the Bible (KJV). The KJV is itself based on the fraudulent post-Christian and anti-Christian Masoretic texts. The KJV and the derivative Strong’s Concordance are thus heavily invested in mistranslations and misdirections.

The Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English usages for “Judean” and “Jєω” are rooted in the name of Judah (יְהוּדָ֑ה‎, Yehudah), the fourth son of Jacob through Leah (Genesis 29:35), c. 16th century B.C. Judah is derived from is the noun form of the root for “to praise,” Yod (י)-Dalet (דּ)-He (ה) right-to-left in Hebrew, hence יְהוּדָה‎ .

The tribe of Judah settled towards the South.

Eventually the Kingdom of Judah (יְהוּדָ֑ה‎, Yehudah) resulted from the break-up of the United Kingdom of Israel (c. 1020-930 B.C.) after the northern tribes refused to accept Roboam (Rehoboam), the son of Solomon, as their king. The split is recounted in 3 Kings (1 Kings) Chapter 12.

At first, only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the House of David, but the tribe of Benjamin soon joined Judah. Both kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split until the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel by Assyria in approximately 722 B.C., noted in 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 5:26.

The Kingdom of Judah existed until repeatedly besieged and eventually conquered by Babylon (the Babylonian Captivities, c. 597 B.C., 587-586 B.C., and 582-581 B.C.).

Though the initial references were specific to Judah, the Kingdom of Judah, and later Judea, the term eventually became conflated with all Israelites, no matter their tribe or location.

“Jєω,” יְהוּדִ֔י (yehudi) appears in Esther 2:5 and is a reference specifically to the Judean from the tribe of Benjamin named Mordechai. The word is derived patronymically from יְהוּדָה (yehudah); a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite, Judean, or Jєω), or descendant of Yehudah (i.e. Judah).

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/3/3064.html [note: uses Masorete numbering]

Esther 2:5

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/esther/2-5.htm

There was a man in the city of Susan, a Jєω, named Mardochai, the son of Jair, the son of Semei, the son of Cis, of the race of Jemini, Who had been carried away from Jerusalem at the time that Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon carried away Jechonias king of Juda…
Esther 2:5-6 Douay-Rheims-Challoner

There was a man in the city of Susan, a Iew, named Mardocheus, the son of Iair, the son of Semei, the son of Cis, of the flocke of Iemini, who had been transported from Jerusalem the same time that Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon transported Iechonias king of Iuda…
Esther 2:5-6 1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament

4 Kings 16:6

An earlier verse, 4 Kings (2 Kings) 16:6, uses הַיְהוּדִ֖ים (hayudim) a plural cognate of יְהוּדִ֔י (yehudi) for “men of Judah,” but appears in some English translations as “Jєω.” The 1749-1752 A,D. Douay-Rheims-Challoner edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible translates the verse with “men of Juda”:

At that time Rasin king of Syria restored Aila to Syria, and drove the men of Juda out of Aila: and the Edomites came into Aila, and dwelt there unto this day.

The 1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament translates the verse with “Iewes,” one of the many English variants*** of “Jєωs”:

At that time Rasin the King of Syria restored Aila to Syria, and threw out the Iewes out of Aila: and the Idumeians [Edomites] came into Aila, and dwelt there unto this day.

*** the many English forms, singular: Gyu, Giu, Iu, Iuu, Iuw, Ieuu, Ieuy, Iwe, Iow, Iewe, Ieue, Iue, Ive, Iew”
and plural: Giwis, Giws, Gyues, Gywes, Giwes, Geus, Iuys, Iows, Iouis, Iews,
and then, finally, in the 18th century, “Jєω” and “Jєωs.”

the Septuagint and Vulgate

A similar ambiguity arises in translations from the authentic Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate.

The Septuagint:

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=20&page=2

The Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Challoner interlinear:

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=19&ch=2&l=5-#x

The Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia opines:

The Latin form "Judæus" was derived from the Greek 'Iουδαĩοσ; and this in turn from the Aramaic [יהד], corresponding to the Hebrew יְהוּדִ֔י a gentilic adjective from the proper name "Judah," seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9). It appears to have been afterward extended to apply to Israelites (II Kings xvi. 3 [by Masorete numbering]) in the north. The English word is met with in the plural form as early as 1175, in the Lambert "Homilies"; in earlier English the form "Iudea," derived from the place-name "Iudea," is found in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels (John xviii. 35) of about the year 1000. Ormin, about 1200, uses the form "ʝʊdɛօw," derived from Old High German "ʝʊdɛօ," from which the modern German "Jude" is also derived.

In the Old Testament the term "Jєω" appears to be applied to adherents of the worship of Yhwh as conducted at Jerusalem after the Exile: it is thus used in the late Book of Esther. In more modern usage the word is often applied to any person of the Hebrew race, apart from his religious creed.…
https://www.Jєωιѕнencyclopedia.com/articles/8621-Jєω-the-word

From Benjamin Freedman, a famous convert:

The Historical Tracing of the Word "Jєω"
Authored by Benjamin H. Freedman

It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jєω" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jєω" did not exist in any language. The word "Jєω" was introduced into the English for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jєω". Prior to this use of the word "Jєω" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jєω" had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jєω" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jєω" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".

In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel of John reference to the inscription on the Cross, - "Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.

Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jєω" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jєω" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jєω" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jєω" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

The available manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jєω" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jєω" these English forms included successively: "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "leue", "Iue", "Ive", "lew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jєω". The many earlier English equivalents for "Jєωs" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jєωs".

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jєω" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jєω" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all elections of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jєω" thus was stabilized.
https://zionismunveiled.blogspot.com/2009/08/historical-origins-of-word-Jєω.html

“a land without a people for a people without a land”

The biblical land of the Philistines, Philistia, came to be known as Palestine.

In Genesis 15:18-21, the Philistines are absent from the ten nations Abraham's descendants will displace and absent from the list of nations Moses tells the people they will conquer. In Exodus 13:17 God directed the Israelites away from the Philistines. In Genesis 21:22-17, Abraham agreed to a covenant of kindness with Abimelech, the Philistine king, and his descendants. Abraham's son Isaac made peace with them in Genesis 26:31.

Palestine is now occupied and ethnically cleansed by European and American Jєωιѕн Supremacists who have replaced the Word of God with their satanic тαℓмυd.

Dishonorable mentions for тαℓмυdic portrayals of Jesus Christ:

“Pope” Francis’ Favorite Painting Contains the Rabbinic Acronym, YESHU, “May his [Jesus’] name be blotted out”
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2014/05/pope-francis-favorite-painting-contains.html

Update on the White Crucifixion
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2014/05/update-on-white-crucifixion.html

The тαℓмυdic ghettofication of St. Joseph and Child Jesus
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-тαℓмυdic-ghettofication-of-st.html

Mark 79 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 09, 2024, 09:18:21 PM »

Quote from: josh987654321 on December 09, 2024, 08:32:45 PM

…the New Testament is built off the Old Testament... Christ did not come to do away with or destroy the Law and the Prophets... but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Your prejudice blinds you.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

Your half-truth is a complete lie, an utter reversal of the Truth.

In the Old Testament at Jeremias 31:31-32 God warned the Israelites that the Mosaic Covenant would be replaced by a NEW Covenant that was UNLIKE the Mosaic Covenant.

excerpted from my Understand the Covenants page archived at: https://archive.is/vdJGV

God did not promise to reward disobedience with power, admiration, or a real estate deal in the Middle East; He promised dispersal and misery, even to vomit them out.

Keep ye my ordinances and my judgments, and do not any of these abominations: neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. For all these detestable things the inhabitants of the land have done, that; were before you, and have defiled it. Beware then, lest in like manner, it vomit you also out, if you do the like things, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people. Keep my commandments. Do not the things which they have done, that have been before you, and be not defiled therein. I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 18:26-30

To pretend that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked, Judaizers will quote half verses claiming that Jesus insisted He did not come to destroy the Law. Invariably the Judaizers omit the full quote, including: “…till all be fulfilled.”

“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:17-18

“Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.” John 19:28

And when He fulfilled “all things” from Scripture on Calvary, the temple veil was torn (Matthew 27:51), the Old Law was dead, “made void,” “blotted out,” “set aside,” “taken away”. The Old Law was replaced by the two greatest commandments:

“Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40

Note carefully: “On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets,” no longer dependent upon Moses, but upon Jesus Christ and His two greatest commandments!

God judged the nation of Israel (see the floating column at right of this page)

So, for their disobedience as a nation, as a people, the Bible says the Mosaic Covenant/Law has been replaced, annulled: “made void,” “blotted out,” “set aside,” “taken away”:

What part of replaced, annulled, “made void,” “blotted out,” “set aside,” “taken away” don’t “Bible Believers” understand?

Through His Angels and Prophets Jeremias and Moses, God judged that Israel, not He, had voided the Mosaic Covenant and so He warned that He would replace the Mosaic covenant:

Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord. Jeremias 31:31-32

They are returned to the former iniquities of their fathers, who refused to hear my words: so these likewise have gone after strange gods, to serve them: the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have made void my covenant, which I made with their fathers. Jeremias 11:10

And the Lord said to Moses: Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and this people rising up will go a fornicating after strange gods in the land, to which it goeth in to dwell: there will they forsake me, and will make void the covenant, which I have made with them. Deuteronomy 31:16

…and make void my covenant. Deuteronomy 31:20

And the wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he said: Behold this nation hath made void my covenant, which I had made with their fathers, and hath despised to hearken to my voice: Judges 2:20

Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. Now if the ministration of death, engraven with letters upon stones, was glorious; so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which is made void: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather in glory? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more the ministration of justice aboundeth in glory. For even that which was glorious in this part was not glorified, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is in glory. Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence: And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

2 Corinthians 3:6-15

Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself. Colossians 2:14-15

Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees; that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace… Ephesians 2:15

There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. Hebrews 7:18

Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens, A minister of the holies, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have some thing to offer. If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest: seeing that there would be others to offer gifts according to the law, Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shewn thee on the mount. But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. For if that former had been faultless, there should not

indeed a place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. Hebrews 8:1-13

Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. Hebrews 10:9

Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. Matthew 21:43

But you [speaking to the Christians] are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

As for the ѕуηαgσgυє’s supposed real estate deal in the Holy Land, the Bible says this:

When you shall have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your God, which he hath made with you, and shall have served strange gods, and adored them: then shall the indignation of the Lord rise up quickly and speedily against you, and you shall be taken away from this excellent land, which he hath delivered to you. Josue (Joshua) 23:16

Supersessionism, “replacement theology,”

is God’s theology.

Scripture trumps the Dual Covenant heresy.

Author Topic: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus (Read 56621 times)

Cera

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Giovanni Berto

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

josh987654321

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Giovanni Berto

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

josh987654321

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

josh987654321

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus

Mark 79

Re: Assad Flees- Rebels take Damacus