Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Jewish’ Category

What is Christianity? Where did it originate? Is there a difference between Christianity, The Church, and the true “Body of Christ”?

The first believers in Yeshua, today more commonly known as Jesus, were called “Followers of the Way”; and they were Jews living in Judea. In other nations, variations of the Babylonian religion of the sun god had for centuries become established as the foundation of belief. It was upon the foundation of Babylonian religion that virtually all nations and people would build their beliefs and systems. In different cultures and among different peoples and nations, this ancient religion would evolve, mutating into various versions, adding, subtracting, and interjecting different ideas, often substituting different names for the same deities, idols, and gods. In Rome up until the time Christianity became the official state religion, “Sol Invictus Mithras” — “The Unconquered Sun Mithra” was worshiped. This religion disappears around the 4th Century A.D. Is this time frame coincidental? Or, did the practice of idolatry even disappear? Contrary to common belief, Rome did not convert to Christianity. It would be more correct to say it was Christianity that was converted into being Roman. By incorporation of the Gospel with existing beliefs and practices, Roman idolatry was given a face lift, maybe more like a face transplant. Thousands of Christians whose Christianity was at odds with Rome’s version were put to death by Constantine. Was that very Christian? This would become the rule for hundreds of years to follow.

It was a brilliant plan by Satan to incorporate the truth of Yeshua into his lie. It would become the lie whereby Christianity would become characterized for hundreds of years, even until today. But Satan made one fatal mistake. By incorporating some truth into his idolatrous Babylonian religion, he provided for its demise. Indeed, for there is something within the truth that is so powerful, it fights to restore itself to the fullness of truth. Even in the midst of lies, truth cries aloud to be heard and to come out. There are those who hear truth’s voice for it tugs at their hearts and they cannot escape its pull. Truth draws these people continually unto the fullness thereof. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, truth is restored. This is how we have come to arrive where we are today. And the restoration of Truth is not finished. The Truth was spread around the whole world within a lie and has been fighting its way out of that lie ever since — often at the price of the lives of those who dared declare it. No, the restorationists were not perfect, but they were moved by the Spirit, and those who would follow after would bring truth, each one, little by little, closer to home. As it was foretold by the prophet Joel:

Tell ye your children of it,
And let your children tell their children,
And their children another generation.

That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten; And that which the locust hath left hath the canker-worm eaten; And that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten.

Awake, ye drunkards, and weep,
And wail, all ye drinkers of wine,
Because of the sweet wine,
For it is cut off from your mouth.

But in chapter 2, Joel proclaims the restoration of the truth.

“And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, The canker-worm, and the caterpillar, and the palmer-worm. . .”

The Bible is a Jewish book, both parts. It must be restored and understood in its Jewish context if it is to be understood by anyone. There are over 40,000 different Christian denominations and sects. What has not been corrupted or devoured, all or in part, by 40,000 armies of palmer-worms, locust, canker-worms, and caterpillars? Doctrines left in tact by one have been perverted by another. Yet, even within those institutions there have been those who came to know Him through faith in Him, in spite of many false doctrines — to whom He says, “Come out from among them my people. . . “

Read Full Post »

Christianity and Judaism in juxtaposition of Islam

Is there the possibility that Islam will go through a reformation such as the Reformation of Christianity which took place in Europe transforming the religion? To answer this we must first understand the nature of the religions.

The Bible can be made to say almost anything if you pick and choose from it. Such was the case with Christianity, for it was the absence of scriptural information which contributed to the manipulation and persecution of the people by the Church in the Dark Ages. The violence perpetrated by Christianity for the most part came at a time when it was unlawful to posses copies the holy scriptures unless you were a member of Church hierarchy.

The Church changed only because the people became more informed. For beginning from the time that the full text of the Bible became available to the common people, there started a movement which first lead to Protestantism and has resulted in the Evangelical movement today. This transformation did not happen over night and there still exists today remnants of the old totalitarian Romanistic Christianity of yesteryear. Notwithstanding, at present, many Christians now hold Israel and the Jewish people in high esteem; and this favor comes NOT in spite of Christian scriptures, but because of them, for it was disclosure of the full text which turned the tide against anti-Semitism in Christianity.

This change is impossible within Islam for there are no undisclosed versus in the Koran that are being withheld. Therefore, it is not possible that by releasing more information a context of goodwill and peace will emerge.  In fact, for Islam the opposite is true; for the reverse must be done and Koranic scripture must be taken away or annulled rather than revealed to make Islam a religion of peace.

Judaism on the other hand never preached world conquest or the coercion of all of mankind by the sword. There was a commandment for the conquest of Canaan but it was limited to a specific area and directed at 7 specific groups in those areas; also it was limited to the time it took to subdue the land, after which Israel would exist in peace among the nations to become an example to the nations.

Israel was told that they could make peace with all nations which offered peace except those seven which were appointed to destruction. Why were they appointed to destruction? – According to scripture they were murderous people who were sacrificing their children in burnt offerings and were beyond reform.

How many people today would object to a UN resolution empowering civilized nations to go against a blood thirsty nation that was burning their first born children on alters and threatening the world? (However, the UN would not do that nor would nations follow, for it is happening today in the sense that Islam is sacrificing its children even unto the death by teaching its new generations to become martyrs – first born, second born, third born, all of them)

To sum it all up, Islam will not reform, it is the antithesis of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The conflict between Christianity and Judaism is theological more than political, we can live with differences, but Islam is political and totalitarian. In the end it will defeat all or will be defeated.

Read Full Post »

Nations work towards what they perceive to be their best interest, however, as globalization takes place, in many instances,  self-interests are becoming  intermingled and becoming collective-interest; for nations’ economies  have become interdependent upon each other for food, resources, and even some services. Many corporations and institutions also now serve a global market which will naturally place their interest and loyalties in the context of a global society.

This emerging collective interest, which is actually the consolidation of self interest,  demands the creation of international laws to regulate and manage the global society we are creating. The more interdependent nations become the more necessary it will be to establish global controls, universal standards, and a degree of conformity – There must also be the establishment of a global enforcement mechanism to ensure conformity.

These things will take place to facilitate global economics, but the establishment of a global economic system will demand global  government to regulate it – a global economy is the gate  to international law and eventual global government.

So then, what has been loosely termed by some as an international conspiracy to create a New World Order is actually the waning power of the nation-state giving way to the collective power of international consensus on collective interest.

Much of the anti-Americanism around the world today is a direct result of US resistance to certain aspects of global control. Because the US is seen by others as a defiant world bully acting upon its own interest, to make nice, a number of US power brokers are willing to surrender some power and sovereignty. Some are also willing to capitulate to hostile and rogue countries in an attempt to either buy them out or buy them in.

The International Criminal Court which was established in 2002 is set to hold its first trail. Even thought has been opposed by the US 104 nations have signed on to it and support is growing. Because leftist politicians support the idea of the International Criminal Court (ICC) there is the possibility that as the they gain more power in the US the US will recognize the court in the not to distant future. When this happens it is but another step to the destruction of sovereignty of the nation-state in favor of international consensus. The result will be mob rule by the nations.

And what if global consensus is wrong? – Injustice becomes universal and inescapable.

It is not far fetched that as nations develop a collective interest and build an international consensus that smaller nations which resist, and nations in conflict such as Israel will be ostracized, as well as certain groups of people residing within all nations.

In the case of Israel consider for a moment one particular aspect common among internationalists: They see Israel as an obstacle to global harmony due to the conflict in the Middle-East. Never mind whose fault it is, the Arabs have the oil, the internationalist want to appease them in order to keep it flowing freely.

Thus, globalization of economics and resources has brought us to a point that elitists are trying to figure out how to consolidate the world’s people and resources for management. The Islamic states are more difficult than Israel for convergence into the international community, nevertheless, it has been determined that it must be done – But how would they attempt to do this?

Ultimately the sacrifice of Israel will been seen as the most convenient and simple solution.

Today, the common people who love their freedoms and rights are being pressed upon from above and below, for elitists plan their enslavement and barbarians threaten them with destruction.

Moreover, many who can see the threat of radical Islam still deny that there are other powers working against them from above – Of them I would ask: If you believe the Islamic radicals when they say they want to eliminate Israel and bring down the Great Satan (USA), do you also believe the elitists who say openly that we need global government and it is coming?

I could quote them all day but here are some examples – do they mean anything to you?

“We must mobilize civil society in favor of international law and international institutions.” – George Soros

“In the next century[the current one], nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

“…This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of “one world government’….National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept…” Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.

“We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg

“The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.” – George Herbert Walker Bush

“Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

“A colossal event is upon us, the birth of a New World Order.” Brent Scowcroft

“We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms.” Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)

“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. ” Richard Gephardt

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an “extraterrestrial” invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” – Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.” CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs.

“My country’s history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.” Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations

“How I Learned to Love the New World Order” Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

“How to Achieve The New World Order” Title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

“NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order.” Henry Kissinger

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Read Full Post »

For centuries Western civilization was under the fist of Rome which from the beginning was the antithesis of Jerusalem. The Romans themselves were the antithesis of the Hebrews. As far as collectivism and fascism go, Rome was an author of both. On the other hand, the Hebrews authored individual rights, liberty, freedom and justice for all. This puts the two foundations of belief in direct opposition.

American Founders also attested to the Hebrew roots of liberty and justice, for example:

“The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” – John Adams

It was John Adams also along with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who recommended the first design for the official seal of the United States which depicted the Israelites crossing the Red Sea with the motto: “Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

This line of thought was common in America before and during that era, and in fact, the influence of the ancient Israelites was so great at the time that there were discussions in Congress on replacing English with Hebrew as the language of the United States.

In 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned Congress to authorize and endorse an edition of the Old and New Testaments in English for the use of citizens and for use in schools, which they did in 1782 stating:

[Congress] “….highly approve[s] the pious and laudable undertaking…,” “….. and “recommend[s] this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States,…” [Congress also] “…authorize[d] him to publish this Recommendation….”

On the other hand, the Roman system was based on the fasces (a symbol of many rods bound by cords to an ax) The bonds made them one but the ax was the superior and could chop the rods to pieces.) This symbolized a collective civilization made up of many people bound to the authority of Rome as one. Mussolini built his fascism on this concept and even revived the fasces for the symbol of his party. In Washington D.C. you can find the evidence of influences of both the ancient Romans and ancient Hebrews; today the US is becoming much more “Romanistic” and eliminating biblical influences in government.

Ancient Rome is an icon of collective power under human authority and Jerusalem is the icon of freedom and liberty under God. That was the conflict then between the Jews and the Romans when Judea was under Roman authority and it is the conflict we see in the world today. The whole world is presently in turmoil in the continuing ideological struggle between the Jewish model and the Roman model of thought.

Having been dispersed abroad for the last 2000 years many Jewish people, like the Gentiles they live among have come to embrace and cleave to the Roman model of thought. They are willing to entrust complete power in the hands of politicians to control our destiny and solve all of the world’s problems.

Today there exists basically two separate veins of “Christianity” (athough some Christians are influenced by both to varying degrees.) One vein stems from the roots of Rome, the Church or a man is the authority. This is the base of the large mainstream churches and from this vein antiSemitism flows. The other vein is based on the belief that God is judge and ruler of all men as recorded by the Hebrews. He is the author of rights and liberty and foremost we only need be concerned with answering to him.

When Christianity spread through Europe, it was based on Roman philosophies after having been adopted by the Roman Emperor who made it the official religion of Rome and used it to enhance political power. Rome was still Rome remaining and ruling an oppressive collectivist civilization, but now with dimensions of both political and religious power.

When biblical scripture started to become available the common people (many were executed for this) the reformation began to break the bonds of the Roman model and many Europeans slowly began to come to embrace the foundation laid by the Hebrew writers of scripture. The collective power of the Church began to be broken and the individual began to gain freedom and power. The response from the Roman Church was the Inquisitions. Since that time there has been a schism in Christianity and as you see today, the liberal churches (based on the Roman model) as they did then, diametrically oppose the pro-Israel Evangelical Christians who are drawn to the Jewish people and their original roots. These Jewish roots draw Gentile believers to the Jerusalem model of thought and this is where many Jews and Gentiles are meeting on a foundation of common principles and values, even if beliefs of faith differ.

However, Western civilization has always been a mix of the two ideologies and has never come to fully understand or fully embrace the Jewish model completely – but to the extent it has and to the extent some Christians have, they have prospered. Nonetheless, what we see now as Europeans go secular their society goes down and they become more anti-Semitic.

Islam ties into this also since Roman paganism had roots in Babylonian paganism – and though many people are not aware of it, Mohammad was raised for a time by a Catholic nun during in his formative years and was taught Catholicism and developed Islam in part on it – but I digress.

There are two basic foundations of thought for civilization, the collective society and the society of free individuals – And they are in constant conflict.

Read Full Post »