Were Jews ever really slaves in Egypt, or is Passover a myth?.............. V [Archive]

View Full Version : Were Jews ever really slaves in Egypt, or is Passover a myth?.............. V

Ponce

21st June 2013, 10:19 AM

All that you have to know is that the Jew were the founders of the Bible by using the religion of others and then adding what ever they wanted in order to make their own religion or make believe religion.
============================================

We are so quick to point out the obvious lies about Jews and Israel that come out in Egypt – the Sinai Governors claims that the Mossad released a shark into the Red Sea to kill Egyptians, or, as I once read in a newspaper whilst on holiday in Cairo, the tale of the magnetic belt buckles that Jews were selling cheap in Egypt that would sterilize men on contact – yet we so rarely examine our own misconceptions about the nature of our history with the Egyptian nation.

We tend, in the midst of our disdain for Egyptian, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, to overlook the fact that one of the biggest events of the Jewish calendar is predicated upon reminding the next generation every year of how the Egyptians were our cruel slave-masters, in a bondage that likely never happened. Is this really so different from Jaws the Mossad agent?

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

It is hard to believe that 600,000 families (which would mean about two million people) crossed the entire Sinai without leaving one shard of pottery (the archeologist's best friend) with Hebrew writing on it. It is remarkable that Egyptian records make no mention of the sudden migration of what would have been nearly a quarter of their population, nor has any evidence been found for any of the expected effects of such an exodus; such as economic downturn or labor shortages. Furthermore, there is no evidence in Israel that shows a sudden influx of people from another culture at that time. No rapid departure from traditional pottery has been seen, no record or story of a surge in population.

In fact, there's absolutely no more evidence to suggest that the story is true than there is in support of any of the Arab world's conspiracy theories and tall tales about Jews.

So, as we come to Passover 2012 when, thanks to the “Arab Spring,” our relations with Egypt are at a nearly 40 year low, let us enjoy our Seder and read the story by all means, but also remind those at the table who may forget that it is just a metaphor, and that there is no ancient animosity between Israelites and Egyptians. Because, if we want to re-establish that elusive peace with Egypt that so many worked so hard to build, we're all going to have to let go of our prejudices.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844

7th trump

21st June 2013, 10:56 AM

Hey Ponce heres something thats not brought to the worlds attention. Its video of proof that the exodus did happen. Pottery is found in and around this area
Please watch.
My opinion is that the those who call themselves the chosen and are not are supressing this information to hide the who the real Chosen are.
The white race arent called Caucasians for no reason. After the exodus from Egypt 10 of the 12 tribes migrated over the Caucaucian Muntains to settle Europe. Guess what countries those 10 tribes eventually became. Scotland is one of the tribes that can be traced back to a daughter named scootcha (spelling is wrong).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoeEy8Qzzy8&feature=related

As far as Egypt's history after the exodus....God addressed Egypt by saying Egypt will never be what it was........she'll maintain her borders and never have an influence on world affairs. Egypt will never be a major player.
History shows the once mighty powerhouse egyptian ruins were found in the desert, most of it covered up with sand............Gods words coming true.

singular_me

21st June 2013, 11:58 AM

hey Ponce, if you ever find something mainstream that is not a myth, let me know.... ???

Back then Jews were called the Hyksos, they were well known to invade neighboring countries and pharaohs often had to fight them, Thutmose the 3rd expelled them for good around 1400BC.. The Hyksos ruled Egypt for quite a while

According to Flavious Josephus, the Hyksos were Jews, is there any other historical support for that idea? (of course they did everything to counter that)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090306085941AAJTEfJ

There is no warrant either in the Bible or outside it for simply equating the Hyksos with the later Hebrews, although it is not impossible that some of the latter may have been ultimately decended from some of the Hyksos. Of special significance is the fact that some of the Hyksos rulers bore names echoed in the Bible, e.g., Yaʿqb-hr; and that one of the kings of the period is named Shesha which is similar to the name Sheshai, one of the ruling families in Kiriath-Arba (Judg. 1:10).
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09361.html

however if Passover is a myth, then the whole Old testament must be questioned... what do we do then with the New Testament, should we go that road? Dangerous path...

7th trump

21st June 2013, 12:27 PM

Ponce

21st June 2013, 12:31 PM

Well guys, if you were to look hard enough in , let's say, 2,000 years you would find evidence that the Cubans were at one time in Oregon......only thing is there was only one Cuban and not 10'000,000 Cubans. You can blow a balloon up to be as big as you want it to be but the mistake that the Jew made was that they blew it so big that it exploted on their face.

Some of you might be familiar with "The old man on the mountain" I suspect that the Jews were the real one behind all this, in modern days we know them as the Thugs. Singular?

I just to believe that the Bible as only a history book and not a holy book...........but now I wonder how much of it is really real where even "the son of God" was an Egyptian reference and nothing to do with the modern "son of god".

V

V

singular_me

21st June 2013, 12:58 PM

Read up on this josephus traitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

traitor of not, Jews were not called as such back then . I am not a scholar but it seems like the term appeared along with the 1st bible... there were many tribes/clans/sects but they had different names... "Jews" is a generalized name that didn't exist at the time. "Hebrews" seems more probable though... According to what I know, I could be wrong...

going after the Jewish history could/will take down Christianity. Something to chew on...

StreetsOfGold

21st June 2013, 01:03 PM

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Ponce

21st June 2013, 01:24 PM

Singular? according to what I have read the word "Jew" didn't come out till the 7th century.......but of course they will say otherwise..........like 5,000 years ago?.

V

singular_me

21st June 2013, 01:32 PM

Singular? according to what I have read the word "Jew" didn't come out till the 7th century.......but of course they will say otherwise..........like 5,000 years ago?.

V

... this is indeed explosive...

gunDriller

21st June 2013, 01:37 PM

in order to be a slave, you have to have a capacity for hard work & suffering.

not many Jews qualify. slave-masters tend to reward whining with stiff punishment.

i'm not sure if Jews were or are capable of being slaves.

messianicdruid

21st June 2013, 03:16 PM

Singular? according to what I have read the word "Jew" didn't come out till the 7th century.......but of course they will say otherwise..........like 5,000 years ago?.

V

Then why are you, and the article quoted, assisting in the mislabeling?

Ponce

21st June 2013, 04:57 PM

Me because I am ignorant......the article? no idea.

V

messianicdruid

21st June 2013, 06:12 PM

Me because I am ignorant......the article? no idea.

VBut didn't we discuss some aspects of this already?

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?69682-The-last-of-the-Semites-great-article&highlight=shemite

Hatha Sunahara

22nd June 2013, 01:31 AM

Pat Colo provided a link to Arthur Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe. I read that book several years ago, and found it fascinating. Apparently, the people who call themselves Jews today, about 90+ percent of them are Ashkenazi Jews, whose ethnic heritage is Khazarian--a tribe that lived in the area around the Caucasus mountains with no blood relations to the Jews of ancient Israel. They chose to become Jews en masse because they did not want to be either Christians or Muslims, but wanted to trade with both groups.

The Jews of ancient Israel were semites--brown skinned people who resembled today's arabs. They are a small minority of Jews both in Israel and throughout the world. In Israel, these Jews (the semitic ones) are called Oriental Jews, or Sephardic Jews, and are considered low class by the Ashkenazis. What is ironic about these facts is that the Khazar Askenazis who have no genetic link to the ancient Jews of the bible claim the land of Israel based on a claim that the bible says God gave Israel to the Jews.

What is even more ironic about the Khazar Ashkenazis is that they adopted the heritage and the history of the ancient jews as their own. That heritage includes the Babylonian Mystery religion that is embodied in the Kabala, and is passed through an oral tradition, and also the Talmud, which is an embellishment of Mosaic law--which only had 10 commandments, which the Talmud expanded to some 613 or so commandments. A sufficient number that allows the Talmudic rabbis to claim that they have studied these laws and understand them because these rabbis themselves made them up. So,not only are the modern jews ethnically removed from the ancient jews, but from a religious perspective they are removed by the complexity of their modern jewish religion as compared to the simple religion of the ancient jews.

I think that attributing the character of modern jews to the ancient ones is analogous to considering modern Greeks to be similar to the ancient Greeks, who appear to have been far wiser and vastly more spiritually grounded in their religion than the modern Greeks are.

I don't doubt for a minute that the ancient jews were present in Egypt. Whether they were slaves or not depends on what propaganda you want to believe. Modern jews can only go back as far as Khazaria existed, which is only about 1000 years or so, and any claim that their ancestors were slaves in Egypt is pure bunk.

Hatha

gunDriller

22nd June 2013, 05:55 AM

BarnkleBob

22nd June 2013, 06:58 AM

From much of the limited research I have conducted on the origins of Judea, it appears that the United States was somewhat modeled in the same way.... Judea was originally created by social, religious, and political misfits of the time.... hence the numerous tribes that were expelled from their respective kingdoms for rebelling and/or nonconformation.... Jurusalem became one of the main trading center for the expelled tribes... which led to security compacts & treaties to protect their property and commerce.... this led to a mixing and gestation period which resulted in the adoption of each tribes customs, mores, religious and political ideas... once these were ingested an amalgamation occurred along with a new common identity, ideology, religious and political systems... the so-called Hebrew nation & Hebrew people emerged.... a blending of myths and, stories from the tribes became their history..... we dont really know who, where, or what tribe the exodus is referencing it very well could represent a tribe that was expelled out of Egypt or somewhere else.... if Egypt was a commercial or political enemy, the story may have been altered
forming ancient propaghanda..... or possibly creating a common enemy to prevent the newly formed nation/kingdom from disbanding due to internal strife among the various tribes...

BarnkleBob

22nd June 2013, 07:18 AM

@Hatha.... spot on... thats what all my research...from various & numerous sources testify to....

gunDriller

22nd June 2013, 07:31 AM

the story of the original Passover may have been embellished over the years.

however, Blood Passover is very real. Jews have been celebrating Passover by killing Gentiles for many centuries.

messianicdruid

22nd June 2013, 08:34 AM

The term “Jew” is a shortened form of Judean or Judahite. The Hebrew term is Yehudi, “of Judah.” The Greek term is Ioudeos, “Judean.” The meaning of this term has changed over the years. The first time the Bible uses the term is found in 2 Kings 16:5, 6, which reads (NASB):

"Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to wage war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram, and cleared the Judeans [“Jews” in KJV] out of Elath entirely; and the Arameans came to Elath, and have lived there to this day."

In the above passage, the king of Israel had become an ally with the king of Syria (Aram). Together they laid siege to Jerusalem, the capital of the Kingdom of Judah. It was during this time that Syria and Israel drove the Jews (i.e., Judeans) from Elath. The passage shows clearly that Israel and Judah were not the same nation. Some years earlier, after the death of Solomon, the ten tribes of Israel had revolted from the rule of Solomon’s son and had formed their own nation called “Israel.”

Later (745-721 B.C.) the ten tribes of the House of Israel were taken captive by Assyria, and they never returned. The prophets spoke much about the House of Israel and its ultimate restoration, but we must keep in mind that they were speaking of the “lost” {appolumi = put away in punishment} tribes of Israel, not the nation of Judah (“Jews”). This distinction is extremely important, because many Christians today are told that the Jews are Israel and that the prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel are being fulfilled by the Jews in the Israeli state. This is not the case, regardless of the fact that they call themselves “Israel.”

During the United Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon, Judah was one of the tribes of Israel. The term Yehudi (“Jew”) during those days would have referred to a member of that tribe, most of whom were descendants of the patriarch by that name, Judah, the son of Jacob-Israel. But when the nation was divided, the term came to include the tribe of Benjamin that remained united with Judah. Thus, instead of the term being strictly a tribal name, it now became a national term that included Benjamin as well as the Levites who lived in Judah. The meaning thus broadened, and the prophets of the divided kingdom used the term with that broadened meaning.

After the House of Judah was taken to Babylon (604-586 B.C.), the term Yehudi could no longer be used strictly as a national term, for the nation had been destroyed. Thus, we find in the book of Esther that the term had taken on a more religious meaning. Esther 8:17 says,

"And in each and every province, and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them."

Obviously, those who “became Jews” were not lineal descendants of Judah, the patriarch, nor had they been citizens of the Kingdom of Judah. They were Persians or at least Persian subjects who converted to Judaism at that time.

A few centuries later, the Maccabean Jews conquered their neighbors and forced them to either convert to Judaism or to face exile. Most of them chose to convert, and they too became Jews. This occurred primarily around 126 B.C. This is recorded by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, XIII, ix, 1. Here we read:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would be circumcised, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision and the rest of the Jews’ ways of living; at which time therefore, this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”

Josephus was the first-century Jewish historian who initially fought against the Romans in the war that destroyed Jerusalem. He was himself a descendant of the Maccabees. He was well-acquainted with these things when he wrote of these things, because he was writing about his own family history. The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903 edition, under “Edom,” affirms the Edomite absorption into Jewry, saying,

“Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time (B.C. 163; Ant. Xii, 8 par. 1, 2). They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 B.C.) by whom they were forced to observe Jewish rites and laws (ib. 9, par. 1; xiv. 4, par. 4). They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans ‘Idumea’ (Mark iii. 8; Ptolemy, Geography v. 16). With Antipater began the Idumean dynasty that ruled over Judea till its conquest by the Romans. Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem 20,000 Idumeans, under the leadership of John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the zealots who were besieged in the Temple (Josephus, B.J. iv. 4, par. 5).

“From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate people, though the name ‘Idumea’ still existed (in) the time of Jerome.”

The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Dr. Cecil Roth and Dr. Geoffrey Wigoder (1970 edition), says under “Edom,” on page 587,

“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants. During Titus’ siege of Jerusalem, they marched in to reinforce the extreme elements, killing all they suspected of peace tendencies. Thereafter, they ceased to figure in Jewish history. The name in the Talmud is a synonym for an oppressive government, especially Rome; in the Middle Ages, it was applied to Christian Europe.”

Thus, all historians—including Jewish historians—agree that Edom was absorbed into Jewry and ceased to exist under a separate name after 70 A.D. In fact, they were part of the most radical element in Judaism, the Zealots, whose actions incited Rome to destroy Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. In later years, as we read above, the Jews began to call Rome and Christian Europe by the name of “Edom.” They obviously did not use the term literally, but as “a synonym for an oppressive government.” Even so, they seem to have done this in order to explain the many prophecies in the Old Testament about Edom in the latter days. The prophets treat Edom as being a latter-day enemy. Since the rabbis could not believe that their own nation might one day have to fulfill those prophecies, they spiritualized them and applied them to other people that they considered “enemies.”

This also explains the statement of Jewish leaders made to Jesus, "We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?" It seems He was speaking to grandchildren of converted-by-force Edomites who had risen to positions of leadership in Jerusalem. These "jews" were bragging that they had never been slaves in Egypt, because *THEY* weren't.

The problem is that Edom was forcibly converted to the religion of Judaism and that this did not give them a personal relationship to the God of Israel. It only forced them to conform to the external rituals required of such “converts,” which did nothing to change their hearts. They had no problem sacrificing one innocent man to save their nation, in reality their cushy positions as its leaders. In fact, their tendency toward violence brought most of them into the ranks of the more radical Jews called “Zealots.” These were the terrorists in the first century A.D. They refused to recognize that God had given Judea into the hands of Rome in judgment for their sin. They were defined in Jer. 24 as “evil figs.” God said in Jer. 24:9, 10 that He would destroy them.

The Zealots and Edomites were both violent groups and kindred spirits. They were even willing to kill peace-loving Jews to force their revolutions upon others. Ultimately, their revolt forced Rome into destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

This same spirit of terrorism was revived in the early 1900’s largely through Vladimir Jabotinsky with his violent brand of Zionism. Once again, they were willing to assassinate more peace-loving Jews (and anyone else who stood in their way) to accomplish their purpose.

The radical Zionists of the 1940’s terrorized both the Palestinian population as well as the British who were attempting to keep the peace. The terrorist organizations of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir—as recorded in their own biographies—were simply updated forms of Zealot-Edomite terrorism in the first century.

Zionists have a sordid history of killing anyone who proposes peace. For example, as early as 1924, Jacob de Haan, was assassinated by the Haganah, the Jewish agency in Palestine. Another rabbi to be persecuted was Amram Blau. The Jewish writer, G. Neuburger, wrote an article on May 26, 2000, saying,

“Rabbi Amram Blau was imprisoned in Jerusalem, not by the Ottoman authorities, not by the British, and not by the Arabs, but by the Zionists.”

Yitzhak Shamir (i.e., Itzhak Yizernitsky) was responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne on Nov. 6, 1944. Moyne was Britain’s Minister for Middle East Affairs. Gerold Frank’s 1963 book, The Deed, says this on page 35:

“Explaining the nature of individual terrorism, Itzhak Yizernitsky, who as Shamir, the operations commander of the Stern group, planned the death of Moyne, once said: “A man who goes forth to take the life of another whom he does not know must believe one thing only—that by his act he will change the course of history.”

Shamir had sent two young assassins to do “the deed.” On page 36 Frank writes,

“Each made his way by different roads to the same conclusion: that Britain would not give up Palestine unless forced to; that freedom would be won only by fighting for it and that if it was to be won, Jewish zealots patterned after those who twenty centuries ago rose up against the might of Rome must now rise up against the might of Britain.”

Years later, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated in 1994 by the same type of radical Jew. It is plain to see that the spirit of Edom yet operates in Jewry today, particularly in the Likud party, founded by Menachem Begin. We must also make it clear that any Jew or any Edomite who genuinely repents and turns to Jesus Christ is a new creature and will not be among those who are destined to fulfill the prophecies of Edom written in Obadiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Malachi, and elsewhere. In turning to Christ, they receive new identities in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Yet apart from Christ, they will continue to be identified with the first Adam and bound by the sins of their forefathers. Their generational spirit will continue to lead them in the carnal ways of violence and death.

The prophets tell us that the Edomite nation will be destroyed in the end (Obadiah 18). But this does not mean that individual Edomites will all be judged and destroyed. God has provided a way of escape for anyone who comes to Jesus Christ. Such people give up their old identity as Edomites in the flesh and are given a new identity in the Last Adam. This is true of all men, not just Edomites. In the end, there will be no Edomite left on the face of the earth. Some will die in the revolt, fighting Jesus Christ; others will see the truth, repent, and transfer their citizenship from Edom to the Kingdom of God.

Meanwhile, books have been written attempting to prove that Turkey or China or other nations are modern Edom, in an effort to rewrite history and shift the focus from the Zionists to some other nation. Yet even The Jewish Encyclopedia itself states the truth in plain language. “The Idumeans [or Edomites] ceased to be a separate people” from the Jews about 125 or 126 B.C.

This is confirmed again by The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41, which says, “Edom is in modern Jewry.”

Edom was absorbed by the Jews and ceased to be a separate people in history. This fact of history is beyond dispute, and no historian has even made the attempt to refute it. It is so well-known to historians that it is incredible how few Christians know this or have incorporated it into their views of Bible prophecy. Only God could have blinded the Church so as to make them lose the entire nation of Edom!

Hence, the Jews—or some branch of them—became the only people remaining to fulfill Isaac’s blessing and the Zionist prophecies of Edom. These will be known by their character, manifested by their Zionistic methods. We would expect Edom’s Zionism to be fulfilled by violence, theft, and bloodshed. In contrast, we would expect the true, godly Zionism of Israel (Joseph) to be fulfilled by peace, righteousness, and justice that would be a blessing to all families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). This is the contrast between the old Jerusalem and the New, between carnal and spiritual, between counterfeit and genuine.

We may conclude, then, that the term “Jew” does not strictly apply to a racial group of people, even if the original stock were descendants of Judah, the patriarch. The meaning of the term came to be applied nationally as a citizen of the nation of Judah, and later to an adherent of the religion of Judaism, including converts from Persia, Edom, and many others over the years.

Today, there are hundreds of thousands of black Jews in New York City, Chicago, and other cities, as well as Japanese Jews who are racial Japanese, Chinese Jews who are racially Chinese, and so on—along with the so-called “white Jews” of Europe. It would be highly improbable that all these Jews came from the same racial stock. Through intermarriage, of course, it is possible that many may have a few genes from Abraham, but they are anything but a “pure race,” as many Christians today mistakenly believe.

The real question posed by this is whether or not a man can become “chosen” by converting to Judaism. Many Christians apparently believe so, because in their desire to attain a higher status with God, they have converted to Judaism. Did this conversion suddenly confer upon them a “chosen” status that they did not already enjoy under Christ? Or did such conversion graft them from the living Christ into a dead tree called Judaism?

The Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe have been identified by many Jewish historians as Turkish-Mongolian converts to Judaism in the eighth century. These were not converted forcibly, but their conversion was to a religion that had already rejected Jesus Christ. And so, while their conversion from paganism might be considered to be an improvement in their social life, it did not put them into a covenant relationship with God. The Old Covenant had already been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Heb. 8:13). Thus, the Chazars were grafted to the branch of a dead tree. Perhaps if Christians in those days had manifested the character of Jesus Christ to them, and the power of the Holy Spirit, they might have chosen to convert to Christ.

The entire story of their conversion is told in The Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading, Chazars. It is the first article in Volume IV in the 1903 edition. The article opens with the statement:

“CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia.”

Later in the article, it tells the story of their conversion,

“It was probably about that time that the chaghan of the Chazars and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion. According to A. Harkavy (“Meassef Niddahim,” i.), the conversion took place in 620; according to others, in 740. King Joseph, in his letter to Hasdai ibn Shaprut (about 960), gives the following account of the conversion:

“Some centuries ago King Bulan reigned over the Chazars. To him God appeared in a dream and promised him might and glory. Encouraged by this dream, Bulan went by the road of Darian to the country of Ardebil, where he gained great victories [over the Arabs]. The Byzantine emperor and the calif of the Ishmaelites sent to him envoys with presents, and sages to convert him to their respective religions. Bulan invited also wise men of Israel, and proceeded to examine them all. As each of the champions believed his religion to be the best, Bulan separately questioned the Mohammedans and the Christians as to which of the other two religions they considered the better. When both gave preference to that of the Jews, that king perceived that it must be the true religion. He therefore adopted it” (see Harkavy, ‘Soobshchenija o Chazarakh,’ in ‘Yevreiskaya Biblioteka,’ vii, 153).

“This account of the conversion was considered to be of a legendary nature. Harkavy, however (in ‘Bilbasov’ and ‘Yevreiskaya Biblioteka’), proved from Arabic and Slavonian sources that the religious disputation at the Chazarian court is a historical fact.”

The article in The Jewish Encyclopedia is complete with pictures of the Jewish Kingdom of Chazaria (or Khazaria, Gazaria), extending from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea and north to Poland. (See the photo above, taken from the 1903 edition.) The Ashkenazim comprise the majority of “white Jews” today. On the back cover of Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe, 1976 edition, we read:

“This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark Ages became converted to Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan, but evidence indicatesthat the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry.”

Koestler himself was a Hungarian Jew who became a British citizen after World War II. Some dispute the extent of the Khazar tribe’s conversion to Judaism in terms of population figures, but again The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, under Chazars says,

“. . . it may be assumed that in the ninth century many Chazar heathens became Jews, owing to the religious zeal of King Obadiah. ‘Such a conversion in great masses,’ says Chwolson (ib. p. 58), ‘may have been the reason for the embassy of Christians from the land of the Chazars to the Byzantine emperor Michael. . . The Jewish population between the seventh and ninth centuries, must have been considerable.”

We merely point out what is said by Jewish writers to establish the simple fact that the Jews are not “the purest race in the world,” as many Christians have been taught. The fact is that Judaism includes people of all races, and all of these are commonly called “Jews.” Furthermore, the Israeli state also recognizes people of all races as Jews and has extended to them the right of automatic citizenship.

The Chazar branch of world Jewry is today called the Ashkenazim to distinguish them from the Sephardim, or “Spanish” Jews. The Sephardim are descended primarily from the Jews of Judah and Edom that were expelled from Palestine by the Romans. However, the Ashkenazim come originally from the area of southern Russia, and the bulk of Jewish immigrants to the Israeli state in the past century are Ashkenazim.

Many evangelical Christians today are expecting the nation of Russia to invade the Israeli state. This view of Ezekiel 38 and 39 seemed very plausible during the Cold War of the twentieth century. Prophecy teachers had a heyday, but it all fell apart in the end. Since then, the Soviet Union has not even been successful militarily in its tiny province of Chechnya. Theoretically, they could still throw nuclear missiles at the Israeli state, but Ezekiel describes an invasion involving actual people, not a nuclear strike from afar.

Furthermore, in 2003 the Israelis began to build a partitioning wall to protect themselves against suicide bombers from Palestinian territory. And yet Ezekiel 38:11 says about Gog and Magog,

"...and you will say, I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls, and having no bars or gates."

Palestine was an unwalled place prior to the arrival of the Zionists. Only then did it become a land of barred gates and walls—probably the most insecure place on earth. The Jewish state has never been at rest since its inception in 1948, nor does anyone “live securely.” It cannot possibly fit the description of the Jewish state today. In fact, now it is building “the mother of all walls,” the longest wall since the Great Wall of China that was built over 2,000 years ago. Each passing day seems to bring Ezekiel’s prophecies into disrepute—unless, of course, there is a different fulfillment.

Is there a reason why the Russian “Ashkenazi” Jews are named for Ashkenaz, the nephew of Magog (Gen. 10:2, 3)? What if the Chazars—Russian Jews—are actually the physical descendants of Gog and Magog? What if the so-called “Russian invasion of Palestine” was fulfilled by Russian Jewish immigrants, rather than by Russian troops? What if the invasion has already been fulfilled by Zionists coming “to capture spoil and to seize plunder” (Ez. 38:12) by seizing land from the Palestinian people?

In an article published at the World Zionist Organization’s website, we read,

“It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqiih, in fact, wrote, ‘All of the Khazars are Jews.’ Christian of Stavelot wrote in 864 that ‘all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety’.”

In regard to Christian of Stavelot (above), this is a quotation from his Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam, that is, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which he wrote in the year 864, over a century after the Khazars began to convert to Judaism. A more complete quotation is as follows:

“At the present time we know of no nation in the world where Christians do not live. For in the lands of Gog and Magog who are a Hunnish race and call themselves Gazari [i.e., Khazars] there is one tribe, a very belligerent one—Alexander enclosed them and they escaped—and all of them profess the Jewish faith. The Bulgars, however, who are of the same race, are now becoming Christians.”

These last two quotations come from the website of The American Center of Khazar Studies: khazaria.com. They make the point that “Judaism has always welcomed converts like the Khazars into the Jewish fold as equals.” It then lists the passages in the Bible and from the Talmud where converts are welcomed. Then it ends with the statement, “Nevertheless, there are many who distort history to attempt to deny the Jewishness of the Khazars.”

There should be no dispute over the jewishness of the Khazars insofar as man’s definition of a Jew is concerned. The dispute should be whether a physically circumcised adherent of the Old Covenant is a Jew in the eyes of God, or if a true Jew is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant.

If these Khazars “in the lands of Gog and Magog” had converted to Jesus Christ, they would have given up their old fleshly identity as Gog and Magog for a new identity in Christ. Then we would welcome them into the Kingdom of God as warmly as Judaism has welcomed them into the Jewish fold. But they did not convert to Jesus Christ. Therefore, from a New Covenant perspective, we must conclude that they are still the prophetic Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38 and 39. Conversion to Judaism does not change their fleshly status, nor does it make them “chosen.” If the nation of Kenya or China were to convert to Judaism, that would not give them a God-given right to immigrate to Palestine and displace the Palestinians.

Further, Ezekiel 38:6 says that others would come with Gog and Magog to invade the mountains [land, not people] of Israel:

"Gomer with all its troops, Beth-togarmah [“House of Togarmah”] from the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you."

Genesis 10 does not list for us the sons of Togarmah, and so they appeared to be lost from history. But then just as suddenly they reappeared in 760 A.D. in a letter written to a prominent Jewish diplomat in Cordova, Spain. Togarmah was the father of the Chazars. According to the letter that King Joseph of the Khazars wrote to Hasdai ibn Shaprut, quoted by Koestler in The Thirteenth Tribe, p. 72,

“Joseph then proceeds to provide a genealogy of his people. Though a fierce Jewish nationalist, proud of wielding the ‘Sceptre of Judah’, he cannot, and does not, claim for them Semitic descent; he traces their ancestry not to Shem, but to Noah’s third son, Japheth; or more precisely to Japheth’s grandson, Togarma, the ancestor of all Turkish tribes. ‘We have found in the family registers of our fathers,’ Joseph asserts boldly, ‘that Togarma had ten sons, and the names of their offspring are as follows: Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars, Sabir. We are the sons of Khazar, the seventh.’. . .”

Christians ought to take a new look at their theory of the Russian invasion of Israel. If King Joseph’s records were accurate, it would indicate that the Russian Jews are the ones who were to invade Palestine. Did this invasion of Gog and Magog succeed only because they were able to masquerade as Israelites fulfilling Bible prophecy?

Such a suggestion may be shocking to those who have been taught never to suggest anything detrimental about Jews. But much of the history of the Chazars has been written by Jewish authors and is available for anyone to read — *if people actually do read*. But my question is this: If it is so bad to suggest that Zionist Jews from Russia might be the ones actually fulfilling the prophecies of Palestine’s invasion by Gog and Magog, is it not equally bad to suggest the same of the Russian people? Should we hold Russians and Jews to different moral standards? American Christians have bashed Russians for the past century. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed and is incapable of invading the land of Israel even if they wanted to do so, it is time to re-evaluate that entire line of thinking.

And what about the Sephardim, who conquered and absorbed Edom? They are the only ones who can fulfill the end-time prophecies of Edom. If the patriarch Jacob-Israel pretended to be Esau in order to obtain the birthright (Gen. 27), did God then allow Esau-Edom to pretend to be Jacob-Israel to reclaim that birthright in 1948?

Does this explain why the Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah even half a century after they laid claim to Palestine—even though prophecy teachers assured the Church that they would do so within seven years of their declaration of independence (May 14, 1948)? Why do they yet reject Jesus Christ?

Why have the Israeli Jews never been “at rest,” as Ezekiel describes true Israel? They have always claimed to be under siege. They have made the security issue paramount in everything they do. Why are the Israeli Jews building a great wall for their protection, contrary to Ezekiel’s prophecy?

Perhaps the Church has mistakenly identified the Jews as Israel. Perhaps, like Isaac, the Christians have been blinded so that God could rectify the wrong done to Esau many centuries ago. Perhaps it was in the plan of God that Jacob would have to give back the birthright to Esau for a time in order to fulfill Isaac’s prophecy in Gen. 27:40.

It is my contention that the Israeli state, though it is called “Israel,” is not the fulfillment of the regathering of the lost {appolumi = put away in punishment} tribes of the house of Israel. Instead, it is a regathering of the bad figs for judgment to fulfill Luke 19:27. Their lack of repentance and refusal to this day to accept Jesus as the Messiah fulfills Jesus’ curse on the fig tree in Matt. 21:19, where He said that no fruit would ever grow on that tree again.

Zionism itself has a triple fulfillment. It fulfills the desire of the bad figs to return to the land where they had been displaced by the Romans in the first century. Second, it fulfills the aspirations of Esau, who desired to inherit that land (Mal. 1:4). Third, it fulfilled the desire of Gog and Magog to rob and plunder the Palestinians, as described in Ezekiel 38:12. The bad figs, Edom, and Gog all converged in Judaism over the centuries in order that all their fleshly aspirations might find their highest expression in a single modern ideology—Zionism.

http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/who-is-a-jew/

Ponce

22nd June 2013, 09:42 AM

Very good druid.....but......who wrote all those books?.......were the Jews themselves?, if that was the case then 70% of them are lies done by them in order to fill in the gaps in time when they were not.

By the way.......I have been called a "anti-Semite" many times.......to you, what is a "Semite", I know that one of the tribes was named with a name that sounded like Semite........thanks.

V

singular_me

22nd June 2013, 11:27 AM

Read up on this josephus traitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

hey, nothing against your in particular 7th T, just wanted to point out that all politicians or people of influence end up being traitors in due time... thats the dirty world of power. Those true to themselves generally get suicided or assassinated.. or in the best case scenario, ridiculed.

I wished people could understand that crying wolf does NOT help out the truth prevail...

gunDriller

22nd June 2013, 12:16 PM

in Spanish they're called "Judeos".

singular_me

22nd June 2013, 01:05 PM

(just edited a few things)

hey, nothing against your in particular 7th T, just wanted to point out that all politicians or people of influence end up being called traitors in due time by their opponents or change side according to the external pressure ... thats the dirty world of power. Those true to themselves generally get suicided/assassinated.. or in the best case scenario, ridiculed.

I wished people could understand that crying wolf does NOT help out the truth prevail... FASTER because it strengthens denial in people... every time i did so, I felt is like I was banging my head against the wall.

messianicdruid

22nd June 2013, 02:30 PM

By the way.......I have been called a "anti-Semite" many times.......to you, what is a "Semite", I know that one of the tribes was named with a name that sounded like Semite........thanks.

V

"There were no Adamites before Adam, there were no Shemites before Shem, there were no Hebrews before Eber, and there were no Israelites before Jacob {whose name was changed to Israel}. There were no Jews before Judah. So Abraham, Issac and Jacob were not a jews. It is best to use bible terms for bible things."

God lost {appolumi = put away in punishment} the House of Israel ("Gomer" of Hosea) among the sons of Japheth also named Gomer (Gen. 10:2). This was an ingenious plan, foreshadowed by Noah's blessing on Japheth in Gen. 9:27, where Japheth was ultimately to "dwell in the tents of Shem."

Of course, when these people came to live together in the territory now known as Turkey and Armenia, they were nearly all unbelievers. In fact, this is why God had cast Israel out of the land of Canaan in the first place. And certainly, the descendants of the other Gomer, not having the Scriptures, knew little or nothing about the true character of God.

True unity is not physical, but spiritual. True unity in a biblical sense comes only when men agree that Jesus Christ is King and that His laws determine the standard of right and wrong in our relationship between God and men.

And so this true biblical unity (intended by Noah's prophecy) did not occur when Gomer-Israel and Gomer-Japheth were united in ancient times. It would only occur when both of them (along with all others) would be gathered under one Head, Jesus Christ (Hosea 1:11). This is an ongoing process.

Meanwhile, other descendants of Gomer-Japheth decided to convert to Judaism around 740 A.D. This was the same Judaism that had rejected Jesus as the Messiah-King in the first century. Which Gomerites converted to Judaism? They were listed in Gen. 10:3,

"And the sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz and Riphath and Togarmah."

Eventually, those Gomerites who converted to Judaism came to be known by the name Ashkenaz and form one of the two main branches of Judaism, the Ashkenazi branch of Eastern Europe and Russia. But historical evidence also specifically lists Togarmah as the primary tribe converted to Judaism, as noted above.

It was known, then, in 864 A.D. that the land north of the Black Sea was called "Gog and Magog," that these people were "Gazari" that professed the Jewish faith. The Rus eventually conquered them, and these Ashkenazim were scattered into Poland and other places where true Gomer-Israelites were located. Hence, they too came to "dwell in the tents of Shem."

Isn't it ironic that Jews would have to move to Europe to dwell in the tents of Shem, as it is written? And I can't think of the right word to describe the idea that the jews wrote all these things down, in the process condemning themselves, just to show the goy how smart they are.

General of Darkness

22nd June 2013, 02:42 PM

I don't think Satan would allow his children to be slaves, so no.

Ponce

22nd June 2013, 03:22 PM

messianicdruid

22nd June 2013, 05:48 PM

But still, 30% of all Arabs are Semites so that being a Semite is being for a certain region of the Middle East and nothing to do with the Jews......also....there were five more class of people (non Jews) who were also Semites.

VDon't let the name-callers bother you. The use of "anti-semite" to further a political agenda, is often directed at people who are, in fact, Shemites. My suggestion is to get rid of the term "jew" because it simply has far too many definitions to be of any use in concise communication. Miscommunication, if you're into that sort of thing, has become its only value. If there is any doubt, always ask for a definition for either word.

Cebu_4_2

22nd June 2013, 06:06 PM

Don't let the name-callers bother you. The use of "anti-semite" to further a political agenda, is often directed at people who are, in fact, Shemites. My suggestion is to get rid of the term "jew" because it simply has far too many definitions to be of any use in concise communication. Miscommunication, if you're into that sort of thing, has become its only value. If there is any doubt, always ask for a definition for either word.

So what should we call them?

Tumbleweed

22nd June 2013, 06:33 PM

So what should we call them?

Jesus haters

messianicdruid

22nd June 2013, 06:38 PM

So what should we call them?By their fruits you shall know them. There are many terms in this thread that would be accurate depending on what activity {political, economic, religious or ethnic} they are engaged in. Generalizations should be avoided. My first choice is to call bible things by bible names.

Ponce

22nd June 2013, 07:08 PM

in Spanish they're called "Judeos".

Judeos?................ more like..........Judios.........you are giving it the e=I pronunciation in English.

V

Horn

22nd June 2013, 07:38 PM

Judeos?................ more like..........Judios.........you are giving it the e=I pronunciation in English.

V

upside down>?Who, Dios mio?

Bonate

23rd June 2013, 12:11 AM

You also have to consider that the Bible as been translate so many different times that it is bound to be skewed from what it originally was. I'm not a follower of the book because I don't believe it to be factual, but I'm sure if you researched hard enough you could find different areas that were supported by history as we know it.

messianicdruid

23rd June 2013, 09:32 AM

You also have to consider that the Bible as been translate so many different times that it is bound to be skewed from what it originally was.

Then study the original languages and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. I believe enough has been preserved {attainable} for God to hold us accountable. God's Word is truth {John 17:17}, therefore if it is not the truth, then it is not God's Word.

"Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

"And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or: does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now" - thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.[22]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Washingtonianus

Hatha Sunahara

23rd June 2013, 10:27 AM

The descendants of the ancient Jews who came to Europe came to Italy with the Romans, or with the Arabs to Spain. From the south. The Khazars (the neo-Jews) came from the east, mostly to Poland and other slavic countries. The Khazars and the semitic jews are distinctly different racially. The only thing they have in common is the religion, and more recently the political philosophy of Zionism.

Hatha

gunDriller

23rd June 2013, 03:18 PM

if the history of Jewish enslavement is dependent on Jewish testimony, just think how reliable their testimony is about other historical events. e.g. the Holohoax.

Martin Luther didn't write "On the Jews and their Lies" for fun. He wrote it to warn Christians about the Jewish proclivity for lying.

Henry Ford, "The International Jew" - another example.

after 2000 years of Jewish lying, there is no reason to accept Jewish testimony on the subject of Jews being slaves in Egypt.

in a court of law, any witness that lied as much as the Jews would not be allowed back as a witness. in the US, the Jews would go to jail for Contempt of Court - if they didn't have so many obedient Shabbas Goyim judges.

Cebu_4_2

23rd June 2013, 04:36 PM

gunDriller

23rd June 2013, 04:58 PM

But but but there is a better name for them but we must spend eons of time figure that word out...

a cross between Woody Allen & Jeffrey Dahmer ?

Woody Dahmerstein - how's that for a better name ?

Cebu_4_2

23rd June 2013, 05:02 PM

I think Jew would cover it but since they arent really jews I dont know. Zionists is even more general tan nigger. WTF I want to get this decided. Been years and the jews spill filth about jews and zionists and all the other wannabes. FUCK can someone help a brother out?

Libertytree

23rd June 2013, 05:20 PM

Global elitist cockholster son of a bitches!! (I could go on and on)

In modern times it isn't just the zionists/jooz, it's everyone conspiring against the good people of the world. Some of them are Southern Babptists, Catholics, etc...etc but at the end of the day what they really all are is evil scum.

messianicdruid

23rd June 2013, 08:03 PM

But but but there is a better name for them but we must spend eons of time figure that word out...

The work has been done. Unless, of course, you just want to call them dirty names.

messianicdruid

24th June 2013, 07:21 AM

In modern times it isn't just the zionists/jooz, it's everyone conspiring against the good people of the world. Some of them are Southern Baptists, Catholics, etc...etc but at the end of the day what they really all are is evil scum.

Here is a short video of John Hagee praying with Bennie Hinn that the Israelies will go to war to smite all their enemies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4dl91wuHKY&feature=player_embedded

Like most, Hagee presumes that the jews are the biblical Israelites, when in fact, the Israelites were the so-called "lost [put away in punishment] tribes" of the Northern Kingdom, while the term "jew" referred to Judah, the Southern Kingdom only.

Hagee presumes that the old Jerusalem is the inheritor of God's promises, whereas Paul says in Gal. 4:25 that the physical city of Jerusalem is Hagar, and her children are therefore Ishmaelites who are NOT the inheritors of the Kingdom. So instead of casting out the bondwoman for their carnality, John Hagee wants them to use their carnality to make war and violence in the attempt to usurp the inheritance.

Hagee presumes that God is on the side of the jews in this coming conflict, and so he presses for war. In fact, Isaiah 29:3 says that God is the One who is laying siege to Jerusalem in this battle, and that the city will be destroyed by a nuclear device (vs. 5, 6). In his zeal to "save Jerusalem," Hagee is actually praying for its final demise.

Like Judas, John Hagee thinks that he can force God to save the day by betraying Christ in this matter of Joseph's birthright. Like Judas, he may live to regret it.

Yes, this war will come at some point, but it will not be in answer to the prayers of John Hagee, nor will victory come to the Israelie state. It will instead be a disaster for them, because "it is written." And I can tell you, it wasn't written this way because the "jews" made it all up. All they have accomplished is switching the labels around and confusing [blinding] the unwary. But their own words shall be judge them.

I have a suggestion for John Hagee. Here is a more eloquent model prayer, written by a much wiser man than he. It was written by Mark Twain a century ago just for people like John Hagee:

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

Such is the true prayer of the carnal {zionist} christian.

[sorry about the vid, I couldn't stand to watch it again before posting...]

BarnkleBob

24th June 2013, 09:24 AM

I do not understand WHY people empower the Jew myths, whether they are the real deal or the imposter class.... these people have proven over and over to be the enemy of moral man.... they have done everything in their mortal power to destroy the world when the opportunity arises.... why give them further power by recognizing them and their myth of being the "chosen people." Further, their so called God seems to hate this world and its human inhabitants..... Why even recognize the useful idiots like Hagee, Hinn, Osteen, etc. et al? They are con men & pimps marketing the invisible & intangible for a fee, their wares are an ancient obscure desert god, at least a real pimp provides a physical service while this brand of pimp provides the illusion & delusion of hopium & fear..... they sell mental masturbation and you fall for it! Indeed the Jews and their deity hate, man, their religion proves this fact..... Finally.... if judaism, xianity, islam, et al were REAL, TPTB would have either outlawed the practice or destroyed them or removed them from our consciousness.... CUI BONO!

messianicdruid

24th June 2013, 11:57 AM

Finally.... if judaism, xianity, islam, et al were REAL, TPTB would have either outlawed the practice or destroyed them or removed them from our consciousness.... CUI BONO!

They have removed the truth from your consciousness with these caricatures of godliness [man-made religion] which are for the very purpose of causing thinking people to abandon "the way". CUI BONO, indeed! I am not babbling.

http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/nicolaitian.php

"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” (Gen. 11:7-9)

“Babble” is defined in Webster’s as, “to say indistinctly or incoherently,” or “to talk thoughtlessly.” While the word “understand” is defined “to apprehend or comprehend; to know or grasp the meaning, import, intention, or motive of; to perceive or discern the meaning of; as, to understand a problem, an argument, an oracle, a secret sign, indistinct speech, etc.” So, let us try to apprehend the motive of words, like “employment,” in order to understand the problem, and maybe even the secret sign, of what now may only be thoughtless and indistinct speech.

“We are ignorant of many things which would not be hidden from us if the reading of old authors was familiar to us.”1

If we continue with Webster’s, we find “employ” to be defined, “1. to occupy the time, attention, and labor of; to keep busy or at work; as, we employ our hands in labor. 2. to use; to make use of;… 3. to provide work and pay for; as, public works employ thousands of men. 4. to engage in one’s service; to hire; as, the president employed an envoy to negotiate a treaty… Syn.. -- use, hire, occupy, devote, busy, engage, commission.”2

The synonyms listed here give a greater insight into the meaning of the word “employ”. The first synonym we should note is the word “use,” which, as a verb, is defined, “To make use of, to convert to ones service, to avail one’s self of, to employ.”3 To employ as a verb then denotes the idea of conversion. As a noun, it is defined as, “A confidence reposed in another…4 A “use” is further described as a “A right in a person, called the cestui que use, to take the profits of land of which another has legal title and possession, together with the duty of defending the same and of making estates therefore according to the direction of the cestui que use.”5 A use, by nature, is a trust. “Uses and trusts are not so much different things as different aspects of the same subject.”6

“American labor, which is the capital of our workingmen.” 7

“Hire” on the other hand is, “A bailment in which compensation is to be given for the use of a thing, or for labor and services about it. This contract arises from the principles of natural law: it is voluntary, and founded in consent: it involves mutual and reciprocal obligations; and it is for mutual benefit …in hiring, the use of the thing is the object.”8 The contract to hire arises from the natural law and, by itself, is not a subject of equity. Hiring for an immediate and equal exchange should be considered different than hiring for the purposes of profit and gain at a future time, for that would imply an interest or usury.

“ All government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery!” 9

“There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labour.”10 Compensation for labor is distinguished from profit. Wages are, “A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants’ wages…”11 But at another time, “Compensation for labor can not be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word profit, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investments. It is a different thing altogether from compensation for labour.”12 Is the compensation for labor a business? “Labor, business, and work are not synonyms. Labor may be business, but it is not necessarily so; and business is not always labor. Labor implies toil; exertion producing weariness; manual exertion of a toilsome nature.”13

Labor is the expenditure of ourselves when it is not a matter of business. “The early Christian writer looked upon business as a peril to the soul.”14 Business today is synonymized with the words, “occupation, employment, employ.”15

“Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business.”16 “It is easy to escape business, if you will only despise the rewards of business.”17 When does the compensation for labor become a business and, therefore, a profit or gain? And does the word “business” need to be defined or redefined in our own minds?

“ The modern philosophy of law is that a man may sell his services but not himself, as was pointed out in Kadis v. Britt, 224, NC 154, 29 SE2d 543…” 18

To “employ” is also defined as, “to give occupation to: n. occupation. Syn. EMPLOY, use. We ‘employ’ whatever we take into our service, or make subservient to our convenience for a time; we ‘use’ whatever we entirely devote to our purpose.”19 The synonym “occupy” should include “occupation”. “Occupy” comes from the Latin occupare meaning, “to take possession of, to possess, to employ.” While, “Occupation” means, “Possession; control; tenure; use… The word “occupation” must be held to have reference to the vocation, profession, trade, or calling, which the assured is engaged in for hire or for profit.”20 The word “profession” comes from the Latin word professio, meaning a “declaration; public register; profession,” which is defined as “the declaring …the avowal of belief in …the body of persons in a particular calling or occupation.” A professional is “a person belonging to one of the professions” or “a person who makes some activity not usually followed for gain… the source of his livelihood,” such as a doctor who, in caring for the sick, receives money rather than as an act of mercy or a lawyer who fights, not for justice, but as a mercenary-for-hire. And an occupation, of course, is a “use,” which is a “trust” (a confidence reposed in another), where the beneficial interest (rights to the profits or gain) is regarded. While, an “assured” is, “A person who has been insured by some insurance company, or underwriter, against losses or perils mentioned in the policy of insurance.”21

“ Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection”22

The term “employ” can be defined “to equitably convert.” The employer “occupies and possesses” the use of the employee. But who is the employer and master of your labor?

“ EMPLOYEES See Master and Servant (this index)”23

If Edward Everyman is hired by the Willard Widgetmaker, we call Ed an “employee” and Willard an “employer”. Ed has earlier gone down to his local Social Security Administration office and obtained an “Employee Identification Number.”24 Ed is employed. Is Ed’s employer Willard or someone else? Is Willard acting as an agent or taskmaster for a third entity? Willard has an “Employee Identification Number,” and he also has an additional number known as an “Employer Identification Number.” Ed stands ready to serve his new master, but Ed and Willard have undergone conversions. If Willard mistreats Ed, who does he answer too? Isn’t it Willard who is vested with the responsibility to collect and deliver a portion of Ed’s labor, in the form of tax, to Willard’s and Ed’s true master? If Ed gives notice to Willard and Ed quits his job, is he unemployed or non-employed? If Willard is only an agent or an employed taskmaster himself, then is Ed simply applying for a different taskmaster, while he is unused and unemployed, but still converted and subject? Can Ed undergo reconversion back to his original free status?

The people never give up their liberties except under some dilution.25

Some have believed that the income tax on the labor of individuals is a direct tax due to the Sixteenth Amendment and then they claim that particular amendment was never legally ratified. Even though that may be true, it has nothing to do with individual income tax.

“By the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....”26

“In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises.”27

Is the graduated income tax a direct tax or an indirect tax? “The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax … is … wholly without foundation.”28 An indirect tax can be, “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.”29

“Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.” (Ex 1:11)

The word “income” can mean, “the return in money from one’s business, labor, or capital invested. Income is the gain which proceeds from labor …its usual synonyms being ‘gain,’ ‘profit,’ ‘revenue.’ …Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or both combined…30 “The general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.”31 Their “description of income” originally was the, “Total amount derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,”32 and, “income derived from a source is taxable without apportionment.”33

“Income” now is described as the total, “Wages, salaries, tips, etc…34 Yet, we find elsewhere that, “Wages, salaries and first time commissions are not ‘income’ (profit or gain)… but an even exchange of labor for money. Such money is a ‘source,’ not ‘income,’ and not taxable.”35

“The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such.”36

“ All men are freemen or slaves.” 37

If wages were the source from which income could have been derived and now wages are the income itself, then something has changed or been converted. If labor is the source from which wages are derived, then it must be the nature of the laboring individual which has undergone a conversion.

To be employed is to convert the use of one’s labor and service to the use or service of another, in the hope of some future benefit and assurance. It is the conversion of a natural right by an act of mutual consent. It involves a relationship of trust and an investment of substance (sweat, effort and time) in the form of managed service in order to be enriched. It is the subjection of oneself to another in hope of gain and benefit. If liberty is the, “State or fact of being a free person; exemption from subjection to the will of another claiming ownership of the person or services; freedom;”38 ,then a portion of our liberty and freedom is sacrificed, or at least offered up, at the moment of our legal employment.

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this [is] the gift of God.” ( Ec 5:19)

It should be clear that a man’s labor is a gift from God, as life itself is also His gift to us. In other words, our labor is a privilege granted by our God and, therefore, taxable by Him from the moment of our birth, if not our conception. God’s endowment of privilege, being the Creator of mankind, is the definition of unalienable rights and “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”39 Please note, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.”40

“ When people have to obey other people’s orders, equality is out of the question.”41

Once upon a time, a young boy asked his father, an attorney, “Who do you work for?”

The Lawyer, being accustomed to speaking distinctly and accurately, comprehending points of law, and being in a fifty percent income tax bracket, answered, “Well, until July 1st, I work for the government. After that, I work for myself.”

“ Whatever day makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.” 42

Income tax is, “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices. An income tax is not levied upon property, funds, or profits, but upon the right of an individual or corporation to receive income or profits. Under various constitutional and statutory provisions, a tax on income is said to be an excise tax and not a tax on property, nor on business, but a tax on the proceeds arising therefrom. But in other cases an income tax is said to be a property and not a personal or excise tax.”43 Income tax is said to be an excise tax, but, in other cases, it is said not to be an excise tax. Under one condition, it is not a property, but, in another condition, it may have been converted to a property. Wages are said not to be income, but are listed as income in other places. Confusion would seem to be justified. There must be a point in time when a significant change or conversion takes place. So, what are we missing? One thing to note in the search for truth is when these different statements are made.

“One could look into a caldron in which the Government and the people of the United States were moving around in response to a new idea… This was a new type of legislation--- nothing of the sort had ever come before the congress of the United States before, it took much explaining and much patience.” 44

Maybe there is a clue in the fact that, “An ‘excise tax’ is an indirect charge for the privilege of following an occupation or trade, or carrying on a business; while an ‘income tax’ is a direct tax imposed upon income, and is as directly imposed as is a tax on land.”45 In other words, income taxes paid by corporations that have no inalienable rights could be an excise tax, but a laborer paid by the day with no other interest would simply exchange one dollar labor for one dollar pay, unless he converted his inalienable right to his God-given labor into the property of another, in hope of a benefit.

“Which say, [It is] not near; let us build houses: this [city is] the caldron, and we [be] the flesh... Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Your slain whom ye have laid in the midst of it, they [are] the flesh, and this [city is] the caldron: but I will bring you forth out of the midst of it.” (Ez. 11:3 ...7)

“First: The tax which is described in statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty an impost or an excise upon the relation of employment”46 Is the act of employment the act of selling oneself into servitude for the hope of security in society?

“Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.”47

Let us digress once more in order to bring these thoughts together. In colonial America, “The ordinary citizen, living on his farm, owned in fee-simple, untroubled by any relics of Feudalism, untaxed save by himself, saying his say to all the world in townmeetings, had gained a new self-reliance. Wrestling with his soul and plow on week days, and the innumerable points of the minister’s sermon on Sundays and meeting days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to crack.”48 On the other hand citizens of the United States do not own their own land today. They have at best only a legal title which does not include “ownership of an estate” since it carries “no beneficial interest.”49

In the original American Republics, citizenship of the individual freeman depended upon his ownership of land in fee-simple as an estate, but “in the United States ‘it is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”50

“For as labor cannot produce without the use of land, the denial of the equal right to the use of land is necessarily the denial of the right of labor to its own produce.”51

“An absolute or fee-simple estate is one in which the owner is entitled to the entire property, with unconditional power of disposition during his life, and descending to his heirs and legal representatives upon his death intestate.”52 In contrast, a legal title is “the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of ‘equitable title.’53

If a legal title does not include a right to the beneficial interest, then a legal right to work as an employee does not include a right to the “profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract,” nor does it include “the ownership of an estate.” After all, a beneficial interest is “distinct from the legal ownership.”54

By definition, a legal title is the opposite, or at least the antithesis, of an “equitable title.” An equitable title, as opposed to a legal title, “is a right in the party”, rather than only appearing to be a right. Again, it is “the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.”55

This dividing of true title into a legal title on one hand verses an equitable title on the other is called “equitable conversion”. Equitable conversion is a “Conversion” or a “Constructive conversion.” It may be, “An implied or virtual conversion, which takes place where a person does such acts in reference to the goods of another as amount in law to the appropriation of the property to himself.”56

CONVERSION is an, “alteration, interchange, metamorphosis, passage, reconstruction....” While, RECONVERSION as a noun is a “change, change over, … rebirth…57

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

The word “legal” originates in the idea of being connected to a legal system by contract. The connection is created by consent. What is to be legal becomes law by that consent and one of the essential ingredients of that consent is mutual consideration, whether by application or indulgence. A person may waive certain rights naturally inherent in an individual and become obligated to abide by the administration of another authority. Covenants, contracts, and compacts are of the same order.

“Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:” (Exodus 34: 12).

“Quasi contracts are lawful and purely voluntary acts of a man, from which there results any obligation whatever to a third person, and sometimes a reciprocal obligation between the parties. Persons who have not contracted with each other are often regarded by Roman law, under a certain state of facts, as if they had actually concluded a convention between themselves. The legal relation which then takes place between these persons, which has always a similarity to a contract obligation, is therefore termed ‘obligatio quasi ex contractu.’ Such a relation arises from the conducting of affairs without authority, (negotorium,) from the payment of what was not due, (solutio indebiti,) from tutorship and curatorship, and from taking possession of an inheritance. A ‘quasi contract’ is what was formerly known as the contract implied in law; it has no reference to the intentions or expressions of the parties. The obligation is imposed despite, and frequently in frustration of their intention. A ‘quasi or constructive contract’ rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another, and is not in fact a contract, but an obligation, which the law creates in the absence of any agreement, when and because the acts of the parties or others have placed in the possession of one person money, or its equivalent, under such circumstance that in equity and good conscience he ought not to retain it. A ‘quasi’ or constructive contract is an application of law. An ‘implied’ contract is an implication of fact. In the former the contract is mere fiction, imposed in order to adapt the case to a given remedy. In the latter, the contract is a fact legitimately inferred. In one, the duty defines the contract; in the other, the contract defines the duty.”58

If you take what is not yours, you have a constructive contract to repay or you are a thief. If you take something from someone that owes you nothing, then you are creating an obligation to pay back. If you apply for benefits, you bind yourself to reciprocating obligations. There is little, if anything, government gives without strings attached. These strings bind you on earth and in God’s eyes, as well.

“And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?” (Ex 14:5)

Were the Israelites slaves or servants? One subscribed to difference is that slavery is by compulsion and servitude is by agreement. In fact and law, servitude by consent is often the more binding.

“ Those captured by pirates and robbers remain free.”59

The same could be said for land or any other property. If something is stolen, has the ownership changed? But, if something is sold, given away, or abandoned, the ownership is considered to have been transferred.

“ Things captured by pirates and robbers do not change ownership.” 60

There may be another distinction between a slave and a servant, but the distinction is less important to the subject than the Master. The fact is that the Israelites were not slaves in Egypt in the strictest sense of the word. Yet, their burden was just, as if not more disagreeable, and their chains were just as real.

“Slaves never became an important ingredient of Egyptian civilization. The large subject population and enforceable corvée system - by which serfs had to work temporarily as slaves - made a permanent force of slaves unnecessary.”61

“ The man who gives me employment, which I must have or suffer, that man is my master, let me call him what I will.” 62

Slavery in Rome, although accomplished often by conquest, was much like that system used in Egypt at the time of Moses. “The state of the slave varied. Some were impressed into gangs that worked the fields and mines. Others were highly skilled workers and trusted administrators. Frequently, slaves were far better off than free laborers. Roman laws were passed to protect slaves and to allow rights, even of private possessions, which were sometimes used to ransom the slave and his family (Acts 22:27-28).”63 “Other forms of servitude related to slavery, and sometimes indistinguishable from it, are serfdom, debt bondage, indentured service, peonage, and corvée (also called statute labor).” 64

“The corvée was different from other forced labor arrangements because it was labor performed for the government, involuntarily, on large public works projects. (The word 'corvée' meant ‘contribution,’ signifying one’s obligation to the state.) In some cases, the corvée65 meant a specified amount of time given to the state every year, as prescribed by law. Another name for it was, therefore, statute labor. It was used by the Romans for the upkeep of roads, bridges, and dikes, but got its name in France early in the 18th century.”66

“Servitude. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing.” Bouvier’s 8th, 1859

We often hear an income tax obligation called a contribution. In Pharaoh’s Egypt, in the days of Israel's captivity, the tribute tax paid by Pharaoh's subjects was equivalent to two-and-a-half months of labor, all the gold and silver was in the government treasury instead of the hands of the people, and everyone only had a legal title to their land, their stock, and their lives.67 In 1995, to pay off the average corvée tax liability of employees in the United States required four months and five days of labor. A citizen of the United States Government, who has legal title to what appears to be his property (land, vehicles, labor etc.), has no right to its beneficial interest nor its use and, therefore, no right to the profits they produce.

“…and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it... and there thou shalt serve other gods,.. shalt thou find no ease…shalt have none assurance of thy life:” (Deuteronomy 28:63, 66)

“How doth the city sit solitary, [that was] full of people! [how] is she become as a widow! she [that was] great among the nations, [and] princess among the provinces, [how] is she become tributary !” (La 1:1)

Here, “tributary” was translated from the Hebrew word “mac” (mas), meaning “gang/body of forced labourers, task-workers, labour band/gang, forced service, task-work, serfdom, tributary, tribute, levy, taskmasters, discomfited … forced service, serfdom, tribute, enforced payment.” 68 “Of the twenty-three uses of this term, all but three (Isa 31:8; Lam1:1; Est 10:1) occur early in the literature. The institution of tribute, or corvée69 ,involves involuntary, unpaid labour, or other service, for superior power-a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler (Ex 1:11; Est 10:1; Lam 1:1). in Gen. 49:15, Jacob’s blessing on Issachar identifies him as bowing to ‘tribute.’ In Egypt, the Israelites find themselves in that position (Ex 1:11). This unpopular measure, and Rehoboam’s refusal to moderate it, was the immediate cause of the secession of the ten tribes and the establishment of the northern kingdom.”70

“The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.” (Acts 7: 19)

messianicdruid

24th June 2013, 11:59 AM

continuing:

Have the American people been dealt with subtly? Does “subtly” mean “fraud” or does it mean caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”? The tax liability in the United States exceeds six months of labor, yet many call it freedom.

“ Many a man thinks he is buying pleasure,
when he is really selling himself a slave to it.” Ben Franklin.

Has our deception been the result of their lies or our apathetic ignorance and/or our covetous appetite for the benefits, gratuities, and grants?

“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”71 But a recompense may need to be paid and equity satisfied.

Was the fear created by your own cowardliness, avarice, or lack of faith? Was their fraud due to lies or were you to ignorant, incompetent, and/or lazy to find out what kind of a deal you were making? Now mistake is the most reasonable assumption. Yet, once the mistake is discovered, it should be acted upon; otherwise, by your lack of renunciation, consent is considered given.

“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."
"For having overcome the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, ‘The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.’” (II Peter 2, 18-22).

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, August 14,1935, TITLE VIII---TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT, INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES, SEC. 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of wages (as defined in section 811)

Sec. 811. When used in this title... (b) The Term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed within the United States by an employee for his employer except--- 72

“ The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.” 73

“A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety ....” Pr 17:18

Did or does congress have the authority or power to establish a retirement scheme? Even with its formidable power to control interstate commerce, the Congress was never given the duty to become an insurance company for every ill that might fall the inhabitants of this land.

“The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.” 74

If Congress did not have the power to establish an insurance system, who wanted it?

“The President wanted everybody covered for every contingency in life---’cradle to the grave,’ he called it---under the social insurance75 system… But the Government of the United States is not an insurance company and so it could be done.”76

Neither the President nor the congress had the power to compel the free people of America to begin to labor without pay. They could not force the entire population into becoming tax collectors and serfs, taskmasters and statute laborers.

How could an entire nation be bound into slavery?

“20 C.F.R. § 422.1(ii) Any person who wishes to file an application for an account number may do so by filing Form SS-5.”77

“Not so: go now ye [that are] men, and serve the LORD; for that ye did desire. And they were driven out from Pharaoh’s presence.” (Ex 10:11)

“20 C.F.R. § 422.103 (b) Applying for a number - (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed form SS-5, “Application for A Social Security Number Card,” at any social security office and submitting the required evidence.”78

“For thou, Lord, [art] good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee. Give ear, O LORD, unto my prayer; and attend to the voice of my supplications. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me.” (Psalms 86:5,7)

Is it not the “Social Security Number” or “Employee Identification Number” or “Tax Identification Number,” being all one and the same, that is given as the sign of your eligibility for the benefit of legal employment, your legal conversion? Whether you hand your card to your prospective licensed employer/taskmaster or simply give him your diligently memorized numerical identifier, it is still that number that marks you for service. Your enforced payment or contribution will be collected before you even see it, and you will toil without pay.

“ Art thou less a slave because thy master loves and caresses thee?” Pascal.

There are many benefits you shall receive besides your wages. Banks shall welcome you, schools, public assistance, unemployment, workmen’s compensation, credit cards, of course, social security, medical aid, government assistance, loans and grants, and, finally, the deductibility of the children entrusted to you. The list goes on under these new covenants and contracts offered to the American people and the world. Who will repent and turn away from benefits and privileges, even though, in fact, he burdens his neighbor and creates an obligation by choosing to “enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another”?

“My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, with the words of thy mouth… How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? [Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.” (Proverbs 6:1,11)

"In Flemming v. Nestor, decided in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that Social Security is an umbrella term for two schemes that are legally unrelated. One is a taxation scheme, the other a welfare scheme. Workers and their families have no legal claim on the tax payments that they make into the U.S. Treasury or that are made on their behalf. Those funds are gone, commingled with the general assets of the U.S. government. This decision rested on a previous case, Helvering v. Davis, in which the Court ruled that Social Security was not an insurance program."79

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, a.k.a. Public Law 104-191 - 104th Congress, An Act, begins, “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of health insurance, and for other purposes. (NOTE: Aug. 21, 1996 - (H.R. 3103))” So, what do they mean “other purposes”?

Way down at the bottom of this book-sized bill, we find section 511 through 513, which provides for the forfeiture of property of anyone who loses his/her United States Citizenship (within the meaning of Section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). “nonresident aliens individuals.”

Also, Section 403 of H.R. 3103 will amend Title 42 US. Code, Section 405c(2)c(i) by changing the word “MAY” to the word “SHALL”, which will require a SSN on all state or county (a political subdivision) documents. This will, in effect, nullify the Privacy Act of 1971, as the local governments bow down to federal funding. H.R. 3130 also establishes a national “instant check” employee/employer database system. Employment is a privilege/benefit. No number, no work. Also, county deeds, courts agencies, as well as state licenses, permits, and documents will no longer be available without the card in your hand, or the number in your head, for computer verification.

The list goes on and on: The Welfare Reform Act of 1996, The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and Public Law 104-193, additionally, a sister law, Public Law 104-208, and Public Law: 105-33 all contain information for associating the Social Security Number with a National ID card.

“Title 42 U.S.C. § 666(a) In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following…” “(13) Procedures requiring that the social security number of - (A) any applicant for a professional license, driver’s license, occupational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application…” etc., etc., etc…”

“But he [Your ruler]shall not ... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.” Deuteronomy 17:16

You have a legal entitlement to work and the equitable title, or true and lawful owner of your labor, belongs to another. You are converted into a trust, the unrighteous mammon. The trust, in turn, holds that ownership of your labor as a surety for the debts of the trust. You, with your sweat, labor, and blood, is incorporated as a human resource in a system of mutual entitlements under benefactors who exercise authority one over the other.80

“ Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, Slavery! said I, still thou art a bitter draught.”81

Why are forfeiture laws for a change in citizenship found buried in an act about insurance?

How have we been so deceived to believe that slavery is freedom and bondage is security?

“For 140 years this nation has tried to impose objectives downward from a lofty command center made up of ‘experts,’ a central elite of social engineers,… It hasn’t worked. It won’t work.... It doesn’t work because its fundamental premises are mechanical, anti-human, and hostile to family life. Lives can be controlled by machine education but they will always fight back with weapons of social pathology: drugs, violence, self-destruction, indifference, and the symptoms I see in the children I teach.”

“It destroys communities by relegating the training of children to the hands of certified experts - and by doing so it ensures our children cannot grow up fully human …- becoming instead mindless automatons programmed by the state’s change agents. Rather than instilling in youngsters an appreciation for individual liberty, the system has brought to life the ancient pharaonic dream of Egypt: compulsory subordination for all.... Schools teach exactly what they are intended to teach and they do it well: how to be a good Egyptian and remain in your place in the pyramid.”82

“If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants [are] wicked.” (Pr 29:12)

“The future of education, and of America as a free society, depends on the liberation of the American family from the grip of the public school… Regardless of motives, the people who foisted state education on us have committed a grave offense.... Using a variety of strategies, we must reclaim the right to raise our children and to help them educate themselves. In a fundamental sense, that is the American way.” 83

“Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob,” (Ezekiel 39:25 )

When the 1787 Constitution was ready to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry lectured against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warning that it had been written “as if good men will take office!” He asked “what they would do when evil men took office!” “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion,” he declared, “and they will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade!” He further warned that the new federal government had too much money and too much power and it would consolidate power unto itself, converting us “into one solid empire.” And the President with the treaty power would “lead in the treason.”

We like to believe that we live in a free country, not like the poor unfortunate citizens of the former Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, a Communist government within a republic. What is the key difference between the United States and mother Russia?

A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

1. Abolition of private property. [Legal title does not include the beneficial use of the property.]

2. Heavy progressive income tax. [An employee has only a legal title to his labor.]

3. Abolition to all rights of inheritance. [Inheritance tax on property with a legal title.]

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. [Forfeiture laws.]

5. A Central bank [Federal Reserve. The Bankers Bank.]

6. Government control of Communications and Transportation. [F.C.C., F.A.A. etc..]

7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture. [Corporations are entities of the State, forfeiture laws, executive orders and mere legal title.]

8. Government control of labor. [Social Security, income tax and incorporation.]

9. Corporate farms, regional planning. [Land planning, biospheres, endangered species, etc..]

10. Free education for all children in government controlled schools. [Public schools, 501c3 corporate private schools, controlled by federal regulations.]

“Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him”84

Has the “use” of your labor been bought and sold like flesh on the slaver’s block? Have you become a surety to pay a debt? Have you returned to Egypt, entered the Roman Empire, born again in the hearts of men, and devoid of the wisdom of God? Is there more than one way that has brought you to the loss of the “use” of your labor, your land, and your loved ones?

“The essence of all slavery consists in taking the produce of another’s labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live.”85

“USE n. 11. Law. That enjoyment of property that consists in its employment, occupation, exercise, or practice; specif., Roman and Civil Law, a personal servitude consisting in a jus intendi, or right to make use of a thing, as distinguished from the usufruct. The usuary had only a personal right that was limited by his own necessities or those of his family. He was not entitled to the use and profits of the subject of the use. … advantage; benefit; profit; specif., the benefit or profit of lands and tenements the legal title to which is given to a person other than the one entitled to the occupation or use( (in sense 11); a trust of real estate. Deeds of land made to one person to, or for, the use of another.” [see doctrine of the law of uses, Statute of Mortmain]86

"Land Patents are issues (and theoretically passed) between Sovereigns. Deeds are executed by 'persons' and private corporations without these sovereign powers."87

“Also, the merchants of the earth…, full stock of gold and silver and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen,… and all manner vessels… and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, …and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, ...(Revelation 18:)

And if you are in the service of another, then who is that mysterious master of this legal tower of babble? What doctrines and ordinances does he propagate?”

“mystery … 677. USE 1. n. use, employment, employ; exercise, ... application… administration service… usufruct, enjoyment of property, right of using, user [all Law]; consumption … usefulness, benefit etc. 644. 3. n. ..., employment, employing etc. v. 4. n. user, employer… profit by, exploit, turn to account, convert to one’s service, convert or turn to use... press or enlist into service... call or draw forth. dispose of, assign to a use, dedicate, devote, consecrate; task, tax, put to task;… reap the benefits of. 6. v. use up, devour, swallow up... drain of resources.”88

Just to get the benefit of a passport, allegiance is now required and presumed.

"No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States"89

Have you been manipulated into applying to a mystery government of control, because of the lack of knowledge concerning words like “use”, “employ” and “occupy”? Have you been utilized, exploited, and consecrated to a task? Have you been devoured, swallowed up, drained into a common vat of labor? Are you a human verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States?

Title 8, CFR PART 337 establishes and defines what “Allegiance to the United States” is. You are bound under the agreement, stating under oath, affirmation, or by application and deed, that, "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen".

Jesus Christ preached a kingdom, was called a Savior, or Soter in the Greek, which means “ruler”. Even “Christ” means “anointed”, as in “anointed King like David”. He was the highest Son of David. Are you denouncing Christ by such an allegiance? Early Christians thought so and died for their refusal.

This allegiance goes on to say "that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." This allegiance requires that you must submit to laboring for the government under the direction of civilian taskmasters. Have we agreed to bow down and serve these other masters?

Is there another way to do things?

What is the song of Moses? What is the song of the Lamb? Is our sin the fact that we serve another god other than the God, our Father, who created us? Is our sin the sin of Cain, Nimrod, and the error of Balaam? Or is our error merely a lack of knowledge? Is not all sin a lack of the knowledge of God? To know God is to have a relationship with God. Are those who say that they believe in God, trust in God, pray and serve God alone, really just taking His name in vain, while their true faith is in the governments they create with their own hands? Are we covenanting, contracting, and binding ourselves to strangers?

“And I saw... them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name.... And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb...” (Rev.15:2,3)

Do you know the song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb? Do you sing it in your Churches?

Can you now answer the question:

“Are men the property of the state?
Or are they free souls under God?
This same battle continues throughout the world.”90

footnotes here: http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/gods/cog4eve.php

messianicdruid

25th June 2013, 12:55 PM

...why give them further power by recognizing them and their myth of being the "chosen people."

You are "throwing out the baby with the bath water". I have been trying to explain why the "chosen" are obedient to the gospel. This "good news" is that we can be set free from the religions and laws of men. Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God - a form of government, not a religion. This is why He is hated and scorned by the wicked. Who can convict Him of sin?

messianicdruid

26th June 2013, 07:01 AM

I do not understand WHY people empower the Jew myths.... why give them further power by recognizing them and their myth of being the "chosen people."

I do not subscibe to the claims they make about themselves, but I do give credence to the warnings they {and we} have been given, and the resulting calamities they have and will suffer. We need to recognize that they {and those who have amalgamated with them} are fufilling prophecies, which are NOT of their own making. Hiding behind their wickedness, and their supposed ability to hoodwink the remnant, is just an excuse. Each one of us must answer for our own sins {1John 3:4} or have an Advocate with the Father who will.

Santa

26th June 2013, 07:29 AM

I do not subscibe to the claims they make about themselves, but I do give credence to the warnings they {and we} have been given, and the resulting calamities they have and will suffer. We need to recognize that they {and those who have amalgamated with them} are fufilling prophecies, which are NOT of their own making. Hiding behind their wickedness, and their supposed ability to hoodwink the remnant, is just an excuse. Each one of us must answer for our own sins {1John 3:4} or have an Advocate with the Father who will.

Or, we could sacrifice chickens, twirling and slapping them against our backs to transfer our wickedness into the chicken to be sin free for another year... like Hassidic Jews do.

messianicdruid

26th June 2013, 08:53 AM

Or, we could sacrifice chickens, twirling and slapping them against our backs to transfer our wickedness into the chicken to be sin free for another year... like Hassidic Jews do.

That wouldn't accomplish any more than it does for them.

Ponce

26th June 2013, 09:03 AM

Guys? please don't mention the "Jews", the Bible, the Chosen Ones.......or anything that has to do do with anything but for the fact that those people are Zionists that came down from the Middle East and are Kharzarians and criminals.........by saying anything else you are giving them credit for what they are not....stop giving them more cover up to make them look more beautifull and talk about them for what they are.

V

Cebu_4_2

26th June 2013, 09:14 AM

Fucking Kikes.

Santa

26th June 2013, 09:41 AM

That wouldn't accomplish any more than it does for them.

But but, they've been performing animal sacrifices religiously and ritualistically while chanting Hebrew incantations for a long long time.

Cebu_4_2

26th June 2013, 09:43 AM

But but, they've been performing animal sacrifices religiously and ritualistically while chanting Hebrew incantations for a long long time.

And human sacrifice.

Horn

28th June 2013, 08:08 AM

At least a real pimp provides a physical service while this brand of pimp provides the illusion & delusion of hopium & fear..... they sell mental masturbation and you fall for it! Indeed the Jews and their deity hate, man, their religion proves this fact..... Finally.... if judaism, xianity, islam, et al were REAL, TPTB would have either outlawed the practice or destroyed them or removed them from our consciousness.... CUI BONO!

QFT.

My only addition is the mob love preying upon a Sacrificial Realestate God.

We've been running from them ever since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0-joZwCkEM