A collection of art from ancient Judaea displaying the European features of the ancient White Judaeans.
On the Biblical Origins of the 'Jews'
Now we shall be dealing with the origins of the 'jews' as we know them today. It is taken as unquestionable orthodox in our modern epoch that the jews of our age are the legitimate descendants of the Israelites of the biblical age. This holds no validity under the scrutiny of the historical record, and this we shall demonstrate with the witness of both scripture and ancient historian alike.
Esau disgraced his birthright and sold it to his younger brother, Jacob. Esau was hence known as Edom (Gen 25:30) and his descendants, the Edomites. In Genesis 36 we are given the genealogy of the Edomites, where we see that Esau took wives of the daughters of Canaan, as well as a daughter of Ishmael. The Canaanites in Esau's day would have been of the seedline of Cain, and hence of the serpent seedline of Genesis 3:15.
Cont.
Now we shall be dealing with the origins of the 'jews' as we know them today. It is taken as unquestionable orthodox in our modern epoch that the jews of our age are the legitimate descendants of the Israelites of the biblical age. This holds no validity under the scrutiny of the historical record, and this we shall demonstrate with the witness of both scripture and ancient historian alike.
Esau disgraced his birthright and sold it to his younger brother, Jacob. Esau was hence known as Edom (Gen 25:30) and his descendants, the Edomites. In Genesis 36 we are given the genealogy of the Edomites, where we see that Esau took wives of the daughters of Canaan, as well as a daughter of Ishmael. The Canaanites in Esau's day would have been of the seedline of Cain, and hence of the serpent seedline of Genesis 3:15.
Cont.
Conflict between the posterity of Jacob and Esau would see no conclusion and will of course continue right up to the modern day.
While the Israelites dwelt in the southern Levantine coast, the Edomites would inhabit the land immediately to the south of the Kingdom of Judah (the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had separated in the reign of Rehoboam). In the 8th Century BC, the northern House of Israel was divorced by God (Jer. 3:8) and taken into Assyrian Captivity and exiled belong the Euphrates. The southern Kingdom of Judah was taken into Babylonian Captivity in the 6th Century BC and the Judahite king's children were savagely put to death (see the 2nd Books of Kings and Chronicles). In this time, the Nabataeans (a nomadic tribe in NW Arabia) had encroached on Edom from the south and began driving the Edomites northwards into the former southern territories of Judah. When King Cyrus of Persia had crushed Babylon in c.539BC, he freed the people of Judah and allowed them to return to their land in Palestine. They'd go form an autonomous state of Yehud under the Persians, before falling under control of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire until the Maccabean Revolt in c.160 BC. From this stage on, Judaea was an independent state under the Hasmonean Dynasty.
This would all go downhill when the Judaean leader, John Hyrcanus, began a military conquest of the surrounding regions of Judaea, taking the Transjordan, Samaria and eventually Idumaea (Edom), absorbing all of them into the territorial boundaries of Judaea. Circa 120BC, Hyrcanus would have the Idumaeans (Edomites) unlawfully converted to the Israelite religion, as well as them circumcised; all of this despite being forbidden from making unions with the children of Edom. Gradually they would be integrated and eventually emancipated as citizens of Judaea, otherwise known as Judaeans (Gr. ioudaios; Lat. iudaeus; erroneously translated in most Bibles as 'jew'). All of this is historically verifiable through the contemporary records of Josephus and Strabo (see image above).
From here, certain Edomites would begin climbing the ladder and gaining positions of power in Judaean society, including Antipater who would be chief advisor to the Hasmonean Hyrcanus II, and would begin building relations with the Roman Republic. It wasn't until 37BC when Antipater's son, through some Machiavellian strategy, would be crowned as King of Judaea thanks to the Romans. This would establish the Herodian Dynasty, of Idumaean descent, over Judaea - the very same Herodians who would have all pure-blooded Judahite infants put to death in the hopes of killing the prophesied Messiah that he assumed would usurp him, as well as ordering the deaths of John the Baptist and Christ's brother and Apostle, James. The Herodians would run Judaea as their own crime ring.
Over time, Edomites would begin to infiltrate the religious sects of the day, namely the Pharisees and Sadducees. This can be infered from Josephus, Wars 2.8.2:
Last
Cont.
While the Israelites dwelt in the southern Levantine coast, the Edomites would inhabit the land immediately to the south of the Kingdom of Judah (the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had separated in the reign of Rehoboam). In the 8th Century BC, the northern House of Israel was divorced by God (Jer. 3:8) and taken into Assyrian Captivity and exiled belong the Euphrates. The southern Kingdom of Judah was taken into Babylonian Captivity in the 6th Century BC and the Judahite king's children were savagely put to death (see the 2nd Books of Kings and Chronicles). In this time, the Nabataeans (a nomadic tribe in NW Arabia) had encroached on Edom from the south and began driving the Edomites northwards into the former southern territories of Judah. When King Cyrus of Persia had crushed Babylon in c.539BC, he freed the people of Judah and allowed them to return to their land in Palestine. They'd go form an autonomous state of Yehud under the Persians, before falling under control of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire until the Maccabean Revolt in c.160 BC. From this stage on, Judaea was an independent state under the Hasmonean Dynasty.
This would all go downhill when the Judaean leader, John Hyrcanus, began a military conquest of the surrounding regions of Judaea, taking the Transjordan, Samaria and eventually Idumaea (Edom), absorbing all of them into the territorial boundaries of Judaea. Circa 120BC, Hyrcanus would have the Idumaeans (Edomites) unlawfully converted to the Israelite religion, as well as them circumcised; all of this despite being forbidden from making unions with the children of Edom. Gradually they would be integrated and eventually emancipated as citizens of Judaea, otherwise known as Judaeans (Gr. ioudaios; Lat. iudaeus; erroneously translated in most Bibles as 'jew'). All of this is historically verifiable through the contemporary records of Josephus and Strabo (see image above).
From here, certain Edomites would begin climbing the ladder and gaining positions of power in Judaean society, including Antipater who would be chief advisor to the Hasmonean Hyrcanus II, and would begin building relations with the Roman Republic. It wasn't until 37BC when Antipater's son, through some Machiavellian strategy, would be crowned as King of Judaea thanks to the Romans. This would establish the Herodian Dynasty, of Idumaean descent, over Judaea - the very same Herodians who would have all pure-blooded Judahite infants put to death in the hopes of killing the prophesied Messiah that he assumed would usurp him, as well as ordering the deaths of John the Baptist and Christ's brother and Apostle, James. The Herodians would run Judaea as their own crime ring.
Over time, Edomites would begin to infiltrate the religious sects of the day, namely the Pharisees and Sadducees. This can be infered from Josephus, Wars 2.8.2:
Last
Cont.
“For there are three philosophical sects among the Judeans. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Judah by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”
It is also wholly evident throughout the New Testament that during Christ's ministry, Judaea was a multiracial melting pot and we often see in His Sermons and parables that there was always an in-group and an out-group. Examples of such we see throughout the gospels, from Christ calling His opponents a "brood (offspring/race) of vipers" while judging them for the "blood of the righteous Abel" (Mt. 23:33-35), to telling some that they do not believe in Him because they weren't His sheep (Jn. 10:26), and we already know who Christ's sheep are (Mt. 15:24). The heaviest charge He placed on these Edomite pharisees was telling them that they were "of their father the devil" the "murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). Even after Christ, we would see that Paul would tell the Romans that "not all Israel are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6) while later in that very chapter likening the children of Esau to vessels of wrath, fit for destruction, while the children of Jacob-Israel are likened to vessels of mercy. Then, last but not least Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, where John warns the two congregations about a group that "say they are Judaeans", but are rather "the synagogue of Satan". This is as true in the 1st Century, as it is today.
As a brief aside, it should also be important to note that whenever you see 'jew' in the OT, it refers to the Hebrew 'Yehudi', meaning Judahite - descendent of Judah. And when you see 'jew' in the NT, it refers to the Greek 'ioudaios', meaning Judaean - citizen of Judaea (though as we can demonstrate, Judaean national and ethnic identity was being eroded throughout the First Century AD).
In 70AD, the Romans led by Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian, would find victory in the Siege of Jerusalem (up to 20,000 of the combatants on the Judaean side are identified as Idumaeans, however there were likely many more with Idumaean blood that identified merely as 'Judaeans') and this would begin the Jewish Diaspora. The 'judaeans' which at this time were truly a mixed multitude of Israelite, Canaanite and Edomite bastards, would be dispersed in all directions, notably to Babylon, Alexandria, Khazaria, Rome, Byzantium, Persia, Arabia, etc, to eventually make up the tribes known as Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Of course, after this point, we'd never again hear about any 'Edomites' nor 'Idumaeans' as a separate entity in the historical record. One thing is very certain however, this anti-Christ band of murderous serpents would be known as the ioudaios or iudaeus, and a plethora of contractions of this in other European languages, from gyu, ieu, ieue, iew, until in the 18th Century the English moniker of 'jew' would solidify. Since 70AD up until today, they have claimed descent from Judah, thanks to their very integration and infiltration of Judaea. Now, thanks to this identity theft, they have gone onto claim full Israelite identity with their parasite state in the Middle East, 'Israel'. All this time, thoughtless and gullible Christians have allowed themselves to be deceived and to some degrees will even venerate jews to a level of idolatry.
The Jews today are not Israelites, let alone Judahites. The Jews are Edomite usurpers masquerading as children of God, while being the children of the devil and our greatest racial adversary. We shall seek no communion with them, no covenant with them, and make no attempts to 'convert' them, for the God of our race has already declared their fate (Obadiah 1:18).
Last
Restart
It is also wholly evident throughout the New Testament that during Christ's ministry, Judaea was a multiracial melting pot and we often see in His Sermons and parables that there was always an in-group and an out-group. Examples of such we see throughout the gospels, from Christ calling His opponents a "brood (offspring/race) of vipers" while judging them for the "blood of the righteous Abel" (Mt. 23:33-35), to telling some that they do not believe in Him because they weren't His sheep (Jn. 10:26), and we already know who Christ's sheep are (Mt. 15:24). The heaviest charge He placed on these Edomite pharisees was telling them that they were "of their father the devil" the "murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). Even after Christ, we would see that Paul would tell the Romans that "not all Israel are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6) while later in that very chapter likening the children of Esau to vessels of wrath, fit for destruction, while the children of Jacob-Israel are likened to vessels of mercy. Then, last but not least Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, where John warns the two congregations about a group that "say they are Judaeans", but are rather "the synagogue of Satan". This is as true in the 1st Century, as it is today.
As a brief aside, it should also be important to note that whenever you see 'jew' in the OT, it refers to the Hebrew 'Yehudi', meaning Judahite - descendent of Judah. And when you see 'jew' in the NT, it refers to the Greek 'ioudaios', meaning Judaean - citizen of Judaea (though as we can demonstrate, Judaean national and ethnic identity was being eroded throughout the First Century AD).
In 70AD, the Romans led by Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian, would find victory in the Siege of Jerusalem (up to 20,000 of the combatants on the Judaean side are identified as Idumaeans, however there were likely many more with Idumaean blood that identified merely as 'Judaeans') and this would begin the Jewish Diaspora. The 'judaeans' which at this time were truly a mixed multitude of Israelite, Canaanite and Edomite bastards, would be dispersed in all directions, notably to Babylon, Alexandria, Khazaria, Rome, Byzantium, Persia, Arabia, etc, to eventually make up the tribes known as Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Of course, after this point, we'd never again hear about any 'Edomites' nor 'Idumaeans' as a separate entity in the historical record. One thing is very certain however, this anti-Christ band of murderous serpents would be known as the ioudaios or iudaeus, and a plethora of contractions of this in other European languages, from gyu, ieu, ieue, iew, until in the 18th Century the English moniker of 'jew' would solidify. Since 70AD up until today, they have claimed descent from Judah, thanks to their very integration and infiltration of Judaea. Now, thanks to this identity theft, they have gone onto claim full Israelite identity with their parasite state in the Middle East, 'Israel'. All this time, thoughtless and gullible Christians have allowed themselves to be deceived and to some degrees will even venerate jews to a level of idolatry.
The Jews today are not Israelites, let alone Judahites. The Jews are Edomite usurpers masquerading as children of God, while being the children of the devil and our greatest racial adversary. We shall seek no communion with them, no covenant with them, and make no attempts to 'convert' them, for the God of our race has already declared their fate (Obadiah 1:18).
Last
Restart
On the Word "Jew"
Too often will you find people that see the word 'jew' in English translations of Scripture and will assume that this is speaking of the jews as we know them today. Where did this word come from?
"Jew" entered the written English language in the 18th Century as a development of iew, ieue, etc which themselves are a contraction of the Greek ioudaios, which referred to a citizen of Judaea (which, in the 1st Century was a multiracial cesspit of Israelite, Canaanite and Edomite). Citizenry doesn't determine racial belonging.
Jew doesn't appear in the Old Testament until 2nd Kings 16:6, and never once in the Torah which they claim is their own. In the OT it is translated from the Hebrew yehudi, referring to the children of the tribe of Judah. In the NT, ioudaios (lit. Judaean) is rendered as 'jew'. As we have concretely proven in the past, the Judaeans at the time of the diaspora in the 1st and 2nd Centuries were amalgamated with Edomite and Canaanite.
Too often will you find people that see the word 'jew' in English translations of Scripture and will assume that this is speaking of the jews as we know them today. Where did this word come from?
"Jew" entered the written English language in the 18th Century as a development of iew, ieue, etc which themselves are a contraction of the Greek ioudaios, which referred to a citizen of Judaea (which, in the 1st Century was a multiracial cesspit of Israelite, Canaanite and Edomite). Citizenry doesn't determine racial belonging.
Jew doesn't appear in the Old Testament until 2nd Kings 16:6, and never once in the Torah which they claim is their own. In the OT it is translated from the Hebrew yehudi, referring to the children of the tribe of Judah. In the NT, ioudaios (lit. Judaean) is rendered as 'jew'. As we have concretely proven in the past, the Judaeans at the time of the diaspora in the 1st and 2nd Centuries were amalgamated with Edomite and Canaanite.
Thou shalt not abhor an (((Edomite)))?
A common challenge to the CI identification of the jew with Esau-Edom is that Deut. 23:7-8 appears to exclude the Edomites from being hated on account of them being our brethren, while stating that 3rd generation mischlings may join the congregation.
We will protest this notion, as this is both contrary to the biblical narrative (Mal. 1:3-4), but is also a very absurd proposition, given that the Edomites were Canaanite by blood (Gen. 36). The more likely reading is that Edomite actually would have read 'Aramite'. This would be due to a scribal error after the Judahites adopted the Aramaic script over their former Paleo-Hebrew in the 3rd Century BC. Bearing in mind that Hebrew didn't have written vowel marks until the late masoretic scribes introduced them, and that in the Aramaic script the dalet (D) and reish (R) look near identical (fig 3), one can see how a misplaced pen stroke could change ארומי (Aramean) into אדומי (Edomite).
[1] [2] [3]
A common challenge to the CI identification of the jew with Esau-Edom is that Deut. 23:7-8 appears to exclude the Edomites from being hated on account of them being our brethren, while stating that 3rd generation mischlings may join the congregation.
We will protest this notion, as this is both contrary to the biblical narrative (Mal. 1:3-4), but is also a very absurd proposition, given that the Edomites were Canaanite by blood (Gen. 36). The more likely reading is that Edomite actually would have read 'Aramite'. This would be due to a scribal error after the Judahites adopted the Aramaic script over their former Paleo-Hebrew in the 3rd Century BC. Bearing in mind that Hebrew didn't have written vowel marks until the late masoretic scribes introduced them, and that in the Aramaic script the dalet (D) and reish (R) look near identical (fig 3), one can see how a misplaced pen stroke could change ארומי (Aramean) into אדומי (Edomite).
[1] [2] [3]
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 24, under the subtitle Edom reads:
“ ... there are places where, because of the similarity between letters ד (d) and ר (r), the text has wrongly read ארמ, ‘Aram’ (i.e., Syria), and ארומי, ‘Arameans’ (i.e., Syrians), for אדמ, ‘Edom’, and אדומי, ‘Edomites’, such as II Kings 16:6; II Chr. 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.”
☩
The importance of the Israelite's blood relation to the Arameans cannot be understated either. Both Israel and Aram were of Shem, compared to the Edomites who were bastardized with Canaanites (Gen. 36). We can also see that Isaac, son of Abraham, married the Aramean daughter of Laban:
Genesis 25:19-20
¹⁹These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, ²⁰and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.
Jacob, contrary to Esau, followed suit and took two daughters of Laban:
Genesis 28:5-7
⁵Thus Isaac sent Jacob away; and he went to Paddan-aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother. ⁶Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he charged him, “You shall not marry one of the Canaanite women,” ⁷and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and gone to Paddan-aram.
Later on in Deuteronomy, the Aramean ancestry of the Israelites is acknowledged:
Deuteronomy 26:5
⁵And thou shalt speak and say before the Lord thy God, "An Aramean ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous".
“ ... there are places where, because of the similarity between letters ד (d) and ר (r), the text has wrongly read ארמ, ‘Aram’ (i.e., Syria), and ארומי, ‘Arameans’ (i.e., Syrians), for אדמ, ‘Edom’, and אדומי, ‘Edomites’, such as II Kings 16:6; II Chr. 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.”
☩
The importance of the Israelite's blood relation to the Arameans cannot be understated either. Both Israel and Aram were of Shem, compared to the Edomites who were bastardized with Canaanites (Gen. 36). We can also see that Isaac, son of Abraham, married the Aramean daughter of Laban:
Genesis 25:19-20
¹⁹These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, ²⁰and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.
Jacob, contrary to Esau, followed suit and took two daughters of Laban:
Genesis 28:5-7
⁵Thus Isaac sent Jacob away; and he went to Paddan-aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother. ⁶Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he charged him, “You shall not marry one of the Canaanite women,” ⁷and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and gone to Paddan-aram.
Later on in Deuteronomy, the Aramean ancestry of the Israelites is acknowledged:
Deuteronomy 26:5
⁵And thou shalt speak and say before the Lord thy God, "An Aramean ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous".
Who are the 'gentiles'?
It is very apparent that one of the foremost stumbling blocks to the detoxification of the falsehood of racial universalism is the fantastical idea of the 'jew' and 'gentile' distinction in the New Testament narrative. The idea of 'gentiles' who hadn't been relevant to the story of revelation or prophecy until the 1st Century AD when God decided He'd simply 'graft' some new people into His fold from a different flock.
Of course, such a concept is foreign to Scripture. Gentile in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word ethnos/ἔθνος, which referred to a nation as a collective. Gentile itself comes from the Latin 'gentilis', which means 'of the same tribe or clan'. Over the centuries, gentile adopted connotations of referring to non-jews.
Whenever Judaeans and the nations (gentiles) are contrasted, one should note that the latter refers to the dispersed nations of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:4-7, 35:10-11; Jer. 31:31-33; Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1-2; etc). [1]
It is very apparent that one of the foremost stumbling blocks to the detoxification of the falsehood of racial universalism is the fantastical idea of the 'jew' and 'gentile' distinction in the New Testament narrative. The idea of 'gentiles' who hadn't been relevant to the story of revelation or prophecy until the 1st Century AD when God decided He'd simply 'graft' some new people into His fold from a different flock.
Of course, such a concept is foreign to Scripture. Gentile in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word ethnos/ἔθνος, which referred to a nation as a collective. Gentile itself comes from the Latin 'gentilis', which means 'of the same tribe or clan'. Over the centuries, gentile adopted connotations of referring to non-jews.
Whenever Judaeans and the nations (gentiles) are contrasted, one should note that the latter refers to the dispersed nations of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:4-7, 35:10-11; Jer. 31:31-33; Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1-2; etc). [1]
'Christian' Zionism in Prophecy
Malachi 1:4
⁴Even though Edom has said,
“We have been impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places.”
As we can see in our day and age, it is the jews who have returned and built the desolate places in the region of Palestine, with the aid of their judeo-churchian thralls. If prophecy holds that this would be done by Esau-Edom, then it can only be said that the jews are the offspring of the Edomite bastards of Scripture. It would not be from the 5th Century BC through to the 20th Century AD (with the dawn of 'Christian' Zionism) when the Edomite jews would begin to 'return and build the desolate places'.
Zionists are indeed CORRECT that the jews are prophesied to return to the Levant to rebuild their prized Herodian Temple. They are, however, too foolish to understand exactly who these satanic jews are and only do the bidding of the devil.
[1]
Malachi 1:4
⁴Even though Edom has said,
“We have been impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places.”
As we can see in our day and age, it is the jews who have returned and built the desolate places in the region of Palestine, with the aid of their judeo-churchian thralls. If prophecy holds that this would be done by Esau-Edom, then it can only be said that the jews are the offspring of the Edomite bastards of Scripture. It would not be from the 5th Century BC through to the 20th Century AD (with the dawn of 'Christian' Zionism) when the Edomite jews would begin to 'return and build the desolate places'.
Zionists are indeed CORRECT that the jews are prophesied to return to the Levant to rebuild their prized Herodian Temple. They are, however, too foolish to understand exactly who these satanic jews are and only do the bidding of the devil.
[1]
Are Identity Christians 'Materialists'?
A common retort that floats around whenever an adherent of CI wishes to discuss race with universalist types is that we are 'materialists' because we have a worldview that prioritises the racial covenants God has made with His elect people.
The Scriptures themselves do not hold this erroneous view, however. We only have to look as far as our race's patriarch, Adam, and his creation in Genesis 1 and 2. In Gen. 2:7 we read how Adam was imbued with the God-breathed Spirit, and Adam become a living soul. This is what truly set him apart from the rest of Creation. This very same living soul is the spark that the bastard races lack, for in Jeremiah 2:13 we read about how some have sought after "broken cisterns, that can hold no water". This is indicative of the "wells without water" (2 Pt. 2:17) and "clouds without water" (Jude 12), for if one is not a pure descendent of Adam then they are not a fit vessel for the Breath of Life.
A common retort that floats around whenever an adherent of CI wishes to discuss race with universalist types is that we are 'materialists' because we have a worldview that prioritises the racial covenants God has made with His elect people.
The Scriptures themselves do not hold this erroneous view, however. We only have to look as far as our race's patriarch, Adam, and his creation in Genesis 1 and 2. In Gen. 2:7 we read how Adam was imbued with the God-breathed Spirit, and Adam become a living soul. This is what truly set him apart from the rest of Creation. This very same living soul is the spark that the bastard races lack, for in Jeremiah 2:13 we read about how some have sought after "broken cisterns, that can hold no water". This is indicative of the "wells without water" (2 Pt. 2:17) and "clouds without water" (Jude 12), for if one is not a pure descendent of Adam then they are not a fit vessel for the Breath of Life.
Who is Lucifer?
Commonly presumed to be a name of the Satan figure by many Christians, Lucifer (Lat. light bringer) is a name found only once in older English translations of Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!". Is this really referring to the grand spiritual adversary?
Of course, Lucifer is borrowed from the Latin Vulgate and left untranslated. The Hebrew, helel ben shachar, means shining one, son of the morning (hence, isn't a proper name). The context of Isaiah 14:3-21 as a whole tells us that this is a lamentation of the earthly king of Babylon (v4). He is referred to as a ruler of nations (v6), and his fate is death and decomposition in Sheol (the grave) amongst all the other kings of the earth (vv9-11). His arrogant ambitions of self-deification (vv13-14) are met with the taunt that he has fallen from the heavens (v12). Only through reading Isa. 14:12 out of context can one posit that Lucifer is the devil, and not the King of Babylon.
Commonly presumed to be a name of the Satan figure by many Christians, Lucifer (Lat. light bringer) is a name found only once in older English translations of Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!". Is this really referring to the grand spiritual adversary?
Of course, Lucifer is borrowed from the Latin Vulgate and left untranslated. The Hebrew, helel ben shachar, means shining one, son of the morning (hence, isn't a proper name). The context of Isaiah 14:3-21 as a whole tells us that this is a lamentation of the earthly king of Babylon (v4). He is referred to as a ruler of nations (v6), and his fate is death and decomposition in Sheol (the grave) amongst all the other kings of the earth (vv9-11). His arrogant ambitions of self-deification (vv13-14) are met with the taunt that he has fallen from the heavens (v12). Only through reading Isa. 14:12 out of context can one posit that Lucifer is the devil, and not the King of Babylon.
Our forebears wrote down their lives, histories, thoughts and wisdom in the hopes that there will never come a day in which they are forgotten by their descendants.
We are those descendants, and in an epoch of amnesia and obfuscation, reading our people's history can be a revolutionary act. So much of the history books on shelves nowadays are written by academics with anti-White biases and presupposed notions of our race's shame. The only way to get any clear picture is to begin by going to the most original sources, of which the Christian Scriptures are the most supreme authority (especially as accounting the genesis of our own Adamic origins and destiny).
If one wishes to begin the Western Canon, as it were, then their best course would be to pick up the Homeric epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and start there. You won't regret it.
The best way to honor our ancestors is to embrace their wisdom and knowledge they preserved for us. If you wish for a future then you must love our past.
We are those descendants, and in an epoch of amnesia and obfuscation, reading our people's history can be a revolutionary act. So much of the history books on shelves nowadays are written by academics with anti-White biases and presupposed notions of our race's shame. The only way to get any clear picture is to begin by going to the most original sources, of which the Christian Scriptures are the most supreme authority (especially as accounting the genesis of our own Adamic origins and destiny).
If one wishes to begin the Western Canon, as it were, then their best course would be to pick up the Homeric epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and start there. You won't regret it.
The best way to honor our ancestors is to embrace their wisdom and knowledge they preserved for us. If you wish for a future then you must love our past.
Matthew 1:21
²¹She shall give birth to a son. You shall name him Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.
In the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel, the angel Gabriel tells Joseph that his betrothed, Mary, will give birth to a son and that His name will be Jesus (Gk. Ἰησοῦς, Iésous) and that He has come to save His people from their sins.
The beauty of what Matthew was trying to convey can only be ascertained once we understand Christ's name in Hebrew, Yahshua (transliterated Joshua in the English OT), and what meaning this held to an Israelite in Judaea. Yahshua is a theophoric name, as a compound of 'Yah-' (abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH – the name of the God of Israel) and 'shua' (meaning salvation or deliverance). The implied notion being that Yahweh God is our salvation, and was incarnate as an Adamic child to be the promised Saviour of His people (the dispersed White nations of the Abrahamic Covenant, (Jer. 31:31; Mtt. 15:24; etc).
[1] [2] Cont.
²¹She shall give birth to a son. You shall name him Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.
In the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel, the angel Gabriel tells Joseph that his betrothed, Mary, will give birth to a son and that His name will be Jesus (Gk. Ἰησοῦς, Iésous) and that He has come to save His people from their sins.
The beauty of what Matthew was trying to convey can only be ascertained once we understand Christ's name in Hebrew, Yahshua (transliterated Joshua in the English OT), and what meaning this held to an Israelite in Judaea. Yahshua is a theophoric name, as a compound of 'Yah-' (abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH – the name of the God of Israel) and 'shua' (meaning salvation or deliverance). The implied notion being that Yahweh God is our salvation, and was incarnate as an Adamic child to be the promised Saviour of His people (the dispersed White nations of the Abrahamic Covenant, (Jer. 31:31; Mtt. 15:24; etc).
[1] [2] Cont.
We of course know that the Greek Iésous and Hebrew Yahshua/Joshua are the same name in their respective languages, as Joshua of Nun (Israelite leader in the Old Testament) is referred to as Iésous in the Greek NT (Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8), as well as being called Iésous in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Of course, 'Jesus' is our Modern English transliteration of the Latin Iesus, which in itself is a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iésous, pronounced 'yay-sous'), itself being a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahshua/Yashua (יהושע). Though, a direct anglicised transliteration of the Hebrew has given us the commonly known name, Joshua.
Restart
Restart