“The [Pharisaic-Rabbinic] schools believed that in heaven God and the angels studied Torah [i.e., Talmud/Kabbalah] just as the rabbis did on earth. God donned phylacteries like a rabbi. He prayed in rabbinic mode ... He guided the affairs of the world according to the rules of the Torah, like the rabbi in his court. One exegesis of the Creation-legend taught that God had looked into the Torah and therefrom had created the world. Moreover, heaven was aware above of what the rabbis in particular thought, said, and did below. The myth of the Torah was multi-dimensional. It included the striking detail that whenever the most recent rabbi was destined to discover through proper exegesis of the tradition was as much of a part of the way revealed to Moses as was a sentence of Scripture itself...

It was therefore possible to participate in the giving of the law, as it were, by appropriate, logical inquiry into the law. God himself, studying and living by Torah, was believed to subject himself to these same rules of logical inquiry, so if an earthly court overruled the testimony, delivered through some natural miracles, of the heavenly one, God would rejoice, crying out, ‘My sons have conquered me! My sons have conquered me!’”

- Rabbi Jacob Neusner, “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1., Feb., 1970, pp.3-4

“... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself.”

- [Rabbi Jacob Neusner, “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1., Feb., 1970, pp.3-4]

Note the casual admission that both “qabbalah and massoret [the vaunted, but bowdlerized, ‘Hebrew Bible’]” change Scripture through “process,” “traditioning.” In Judaism tradition is not fixed or faithful, but is an ever-changing “process” that is described as “traditioning.” This is why “the latest Responsa and homiletical interpretations of the rabbis” are Torah, hence authoritative in Judaism. Thus, the rabbis “bury Moses” (Tikkunei haZohar 1:27a) and “defeat God.” They too admit in Bava Metzi’a 59b that the Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmud) supersede the word of God.

Even then, ‘Attaching the system to scripture was secondary’, and that Rabbinism is not the ‘organic unfolding of Scripture.’ The Rabbis also pridefully admit that ‘The complex of rabbinically ordained practices … including most of the rules for the treatment of Scripture itself–do not derive from Scripture at all.’ (Rabbis Jacob Neusner & William Scott Green, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, ISBN 9780800629090, Fortress Press, 1995, pp. 31-34.)

““The return from Babylon [following the Captivity, about 538 B.C.], and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism, and the beginning of Judaism.”

Roger Rusk, The Other End of the World: An Alternate Theory Linking Prophecy and History (Plano, Texas: Le Book Company, Inc., 1988), 182.

Also remember that their Written Torah bears no similarity at all to the original texts and was formed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef and Codified in the 10th century by Rabbi Aaron ben Asher and given the stamp of approval by Maimonides, the most famous Talmudic scholar. Even then, they still put that as secondary. And they hate Christian translations even more. It even says for Jews to burn the ‘Torah scrolls of the heretics’ in Shabbat 116a.

The Septuagint quotes the Dead Sea Scrolls not the Masoteric Jewish Tanakh. They also censor the fuck out of non-Judaist versions of the Old Testament. I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to get them in Israel. Their Tanakh (written Torah- their version of old testament) is just as disgusting as the Talmud, worse because it’s a total perversion. All of this was done as a way to undermine the legitimacy of Christianity and attack Christ and our sacred texts.

Erubin 21b: "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah"

The Koliner rebbe, a 17th century rabbi of Prague, also states:

“Our Zaddikim’s [famous Orthodox rabbis] words are more important than the Torah of Moses As our Sages teach: A Zaddik decrees, and God obeys.”

- Jeremy Dauber, Antonio’s Devils: Writers of the Jewish Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Hebrew and Yiddish Literature, Stanford University, 2004, 276, also documented in Judaism Discovered, p. 298

“The Holy One, Blessed be He, speaks Torah out of the mouths of all rabbis.” Haggadah 15b

“...the Babylonian Talmud represents God in the flesh...” Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Judaism, Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1995. p. 62
 
"Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own... anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture." - Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph

Moral of the story is that all 6 parts of the Oral Torah (homiletical interpretations of Rabbis, Responsa, Haggadah, Aggadah, Talmud/Mishnah/Midrash/Kabbalah and the totemic scroll paraded around the synagogue) supersede the perverse Mastoeric texts, which they call the ‘Hebrew Bible.’ Which is only for women and children btw.

This is why pagans get so mad when you prove how the words of Rabbis can’t just simply be ignored when it comes to their own system

“Judaism was not evolved in Judah; it was in Babylon that Judaism first became that which it was and still is.”

– “The Hebrew Peoples” written by Jewish authors Dr. H. Winckler, L.M. King, Dr. R. G. Brandis, and H. R. Hall. On pages 1781-4, Vol. 3, appearing in Harmsworth’s “History of the World”

“We Jews, we the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy, because we want a world of our own, a God-World, which it is not in your nature to build.”

- Maurice Samuel , You Gentiles, p. 155

Paganism offers a sense of strength and purpose to many young and disillusioned men in today's society, and it is for this reason, it is no wonder why these beliefs are on the rise.

What needs to be understood, especially by these young men, however, is that Paganism at its core is as rootless as the modern world you often claim to oppose.

Worship of the "old gods" lacks structure, consistency, universality, and ultimately, truth. It is for these reasons that Paganism often finds itself lacking claws when standing up to the ills of the modern world, since they find so much fundamentally in common with it.

Your gods are dead. In fact, they were never alive in the first place. Respect your ancestors and recognize the same conclusions they came to many hundreds of years ago and embrace the Cross.

@TheNewColumbiaMovement

Lutheran Church Has Drag Queen Take to the Pulpit During Sunday Service, Read Book to Kids

READ: http://w-j.co/s/d6629

“This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed.”)

- Soferim 15, Rule 10.

No matter how much you try to please the world by partaking in the works of darkness—which the Jew tries his hardest to promote—the Jew will always hate you no matter what and see you as a wicked beast, animal, pig and wholly evil

Continuation of the Holy Gospel according to Luke
Luke 1:39-47
In that time, Mary, rising up, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth. And so on.

Homily by St. Ambrose, Bishop (of Milan)
Commentary on Luke, Bk. ii. c
When any one asketh another for credence, he is bound to give some reasonable ground. And so the Angel, when he announced to Mary the counsel of God, gave, as a proof, the conception of Elizabeth, then aged and barren, that Mary might perceive, by this example, that with God nothing is impossible. When the holy Virgin had heard it, she arose and went to visit her cousin. She did not go to see if what she had heard was true, because she did not believe God, or because she knew not who the messenger had been, or yet because she doubted the fact adduced in proof. She went joyfully as one who hath received a mercy in answer to his vow goeth to pay the same. She went with devotion, as a godly person goeth to execute a religious duty. She went into the hill country in joyful haste. And is it not something that she went up into the hills? God was already in her womb, and her feeling bore her continually upward. The grace of the Holy Spirit knoweth no slow working.

Godly women will learn from the example of the Mother of God to take a tender care of their kinswomen who are with child. In pursuance of this charity, Mary, who had hitherto remained alone at home, was not deterred by her maidenly shyness from entering on a public journey; she faced for this end the hardships of mountain travelling; and encountered with a sense of duty the weary length of the way. The Virgin left her home, and went into the hill country with haste, unmindful of the trouble, and remembering only the office to which her cousinly love prompted her, in spite of the delicacy of her sex. Maidens will learn from her not to idle about from house to house, to loiter in the streets, nor to take part in conversations in public. Mary, as she was hasteful to pass through the public roads, so was she slow again to enter on them she abode with her cousin about three months.

As the modesty of Mary is a pattern for the imitation of all maidens, so also is her humility. She went to see Elizabeth, like one cousin going to visit another, and as the younger to the elder. Not only did she first go, but she first saluted Elizabeth. Now, the purer a virgin is, the humbler ought she to be. She will know how to submit herself to her elders. She that professeth chastity ought to be a very mistress of humility. Lowly-mindedness is at once the very ground in which devotion groweth, and the first and principal rule of its teaching. In this act of the Virgin then we see the greater going to visit and to succour the lesser Mary to Elizabeth, Christ to John.

Remember to never let the jews steal your beautiful sense of hope and faith in Jesus Christ.

Further proof that Modern Jews have absolutely nothing to do with ancient Judeans, Israelites or Hebrews.

The word “Jew” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jew”
and He certainly isn’t a bastard of a whore boiling in shit as Jews insist.
 
In his book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed drills that point home most eloquently;
 
“What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith'” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons). *
 
This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.
 
The English abbreviation, “Jew” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).
 
If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.
 
Race, residence, religion, then.
 
This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus's racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.
 
The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.
 
As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah's prophecy that “a ruler” would come out of Bethlehem”.
 
The Jewish Encylopaedia insists that Nazareth as Jesus's native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.

Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans.
 
Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue.
 
It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.
 
If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes. but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foes of God and man and that he used an especial, scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today's Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.
 
Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.
 
None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.
 
 
*Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jewish hearers. Speaking to such an “inter-faith” meeting at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he stated “Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian” (Christianity was born with the death of Jesus).
For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United States, but a Christian Ministers Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi Wise adds the characteristic comment: “I know not which was more hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the rabbis”.
 
The Controversy of Zion
by Douglas Reed, First Printing 1956, p. 59 ff.

My arguments about how Christianity isn’t Jewish and what led to the birth of communism are so ‘stupid’ every pagan I’ve spoke with has refused to respond to them. Funny how that works.

These people are prideful cowards who are so right and confident in their beliefs that they refuse to entertain any well thought out argument that challenges their claims. Because if Christianity isn’t Jewish, their whole system goes down the trash and then they have no other option but to become a Christian. This is why they are so scared.

Shows you where the truth lies doesn’t it.

No fuckin way. Did a bit of digging into Robert Sepehr's family line. He's not Iranian.