Why the Modern Jews Are Not God’s Chosen People

World history reveals a remarkable story in which one group of people assumed the identity of another. The vast majority of people who are today called Jews are not, in terms of strict definition of the term, Jews at all.

The term “Jew,” actually a later comer to the Old Testament, originally meant one who can genuinely claim genetic descent from Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob. It is from the Hebrew and “Yhudi,” meaning “of Judah.”

The true people of Judah were a numerous part of the ancient, twelve-tribed Israelites. In time, the Israelites divided into two kingdoms. The southern one was called the “Kingdom of Judah,” and the region it occupied, “Judea.” All of its inhabitants, of whatever tribe, were often called Judeans, and in time “Jews.” As time passed, the Northern Kingdom was taken into captivity and scattered to the north and west (721 B.C.).

The Kingdom of Judah was later taken to Babylon (586 B.C.), where many stayed. Seventy years later a remnant returned, and gradually, with much struggle, regained its status of nationhood. Unfortunately, the religion they returned with had picked up many pagan elements while in Babylon, and this gradually evolved into a system of oral teachings that Scripture condemns as the tradition of the elders. (Matthew 15:2-3)

At this juncture in history, an unusual development occurred that muddled the meaning of the words Judah, Judean, and Jew. In the second century before Christ, a dynamic priest-king of Judah, John Hyrcanus of the Hasmonean dynasty, conquered the people directly to the south of Judah, the Edomites.

The Edomites (or Idumeans) were descended from Esau. Jacob/Israel’s twin brother (Genesis 36:8). Esau had married a woman of a Hittite family, thus destroying forever the pure genetic pedigree of his descendants. For this, Esau essentially was disinherited (his mother saw the need for this before his father; Genesis 26:34; 27:46). These folks had been perennial enemies of both Israel and Judah since ancient times.

After thoroughly subjugating them, Hyrcanus gave the Edomites the choice of either death or conversion to the religion, language, and culture of Judah. This proved to be a catastrophic decision for the people of Judah, and a choice which Hyrcanus should have known as forbidden in Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Leviticus 20:24, Joshua 23:12-13; Ezra 9:1-4; Nehemiah 13:23-30). But not surprisingly, most chose conversion.

The Jewish (truly of Judah) historian Josephus described this event: “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 circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the land of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time this therefore befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” (Jewish antiquities, Book 13, 9:1)

The marginal note in Josephus’ works add this commentary, quoting Ammonius, a writer from 129 A.D.; “...the Idumeans were not Jews from the beginning...but being afterward subdued to buy the Jews.” After editorial comment regarding Josephus’ work adds emphasis: “This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterward.”

The significance of the Edomite population merging with the Jews is often overlooked. But it is not really any secret. Many modern Biblical scholars admit that the historic event did, indeed, occur. For example: “But during the warlike rule of the Maccabees (Hasmonean dynasty of the jews) they were again completely subdued and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites and submit to the government of Jewish perfect. The Edomites were then incorporated into the Jewish nation, and the whole providence was often termed by Greek and Roman writers ‘Idumea’...From this time, the Edomites as a separate people disappear from the pages of history.” (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 333)

There is Edom [Esau is called Edom in Genesis 36:8]. And Edom is in 'Modern Jewry' Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41. Even the encyclopedia on your shelf may inform you of these events, if one is sharp enough to understand the significance: “The Hasmonean dynasty conquered the Idumeans in the 100's B.C., and converted them to Judaism.” (World Book Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 6, p. 55)

Over the next century as imperial Rome cast its long shadow over the Middle East, these Edomites or Idumeans were gradually absorbed into Jewish society. Many of them, such as Herod, achieved high status, working their way into the priestly and aristocratic classes. Those who leveraged their way into the priestly professions had a strong proclivity for the pagan oral teachings (traditions of the elders) brought back from Babylon. Dominance in the two mainstream religious parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees, was soon theirs to enjoy and capitalize upon.

This was the situation when Christ lived and walked the lovely hill country of Galilee and Judea. There were two groups of people living check by cheek with each other in the land of Judea. They spoke the same language, practiced the same oppressive yoke of Roman rule, and were together in our time called jews.

In 70 A.D., the city of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah was utterly shattered by the Romans. Many survivors were scattered throughout the Roman world, finding refuge where they could. The Edomite element of these jews, who had utterly rejected Christ, lodged themselves in various enclaves in the Roman Empire including the great city of Byzantium (Constantinople). During the centuries that followed, these people continued to develop and propagate their highly altered form of the ancient Hebrew faith in which the Biblical aspects were almost completely submerged in layers of pagan philosophy and rules. It was during this era that their oral tradition was codified into a written textual form called the Talmud. It has been the touchstone of the religion of Judaism for many centuries.

Rabbi Stephen Wise, one of the main Jewish leaders in the United States a few years ago, stated that when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon (with the True Israelites), about 536 B.C., they brought with them the teachings which became known as the Babylonian Talmud. "This was the end of Hebraism, and the beginning of Judaism," the learned Rabbi stated.

Judaism quite possibly would have expired in the tumult of the early Medieval Period had it not been for a single titanic evangelistic coup. In approximately 740 A.D., an entire empire was forcibly converted to Judaism by the decree of its emperor. This was the Khazarian Empire, centered in modern day Ukraine, comprised of a people of mixed Russian, Eastern Europe, and Western Mongolian descent. The Khaszarians took to their new faith like ducks to water. Even after their empire dissolved, never to rise again, they retained tenaciously the precepts of Judaism. In time these proselytes to Judaism gradually made their way in Eastern Europe. By the time the Medieval Period closed, they no longer considered themselves Khazarians, but Jews, for it was the religion of Judaism that formed the backbone of their subculture.

Arthur Koestler, a modern Jew and a prize winning author, summarizes these developments in his best selling book, The Thirteenth Tribe: “Thus the Judaization of the Khazars was a gradual process which, triggered off by political expediency, slowly penetrated into the deeper strata of their minds and eventually produced the Messianism of their period of decline. Their religious commitment survived the collapse of their state, and persisted, as we shall see, in the Khazar-Jewish settlements of Russia and Poland.” (The Thirteenth Tribe, p. 74)

Other sources document this important historical event: “The Jews, expelled from Constantinople, sought a home amongst them (Khazars), developed the Khazar trade, and contended with Mohammedans and Christians for the theological allegiance of the pagan people. The dynasty accepted Judaism (740 A.D.).” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 15-16, p. 775)
It is common knowledge that as of a century ago, most Jews in the world were found in Eastern Europe, with the highest percentage concentrated in Poland. How did they get there? A more clear picture has emerged than what was heretofore available. Koestler continues: “...the cumulative evidence makes one included to agree with the consensus of Polish historians that ‘in earlier times the main bulk originated form the Khazar country’; and that, accordingly, the Khazar contribution to the genetic make-up of the Jews must be substantial and in all likelihood, dominant.” (The Thirteenth Tribe, p. 180)

What is most important to remember abut these Khazarian converts to Judaism is this: they have no genetic link to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah or any other Hebrew. Furthermore, the majority of the Jews of today are descended from this Khazarian branch.

ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 96% OF ALL THE JEWS KNOWN TO THE WORLD TODAY ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE KHAZAR TRIBES OF RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPE AND WESTERN MONGOLIA; THESE ARE THE ASKNAZI JEWS, THE OTHER MAJOR SECT OF THE JEWS ARE THE SEPHARDIC JEWS, AND THEY ARE A BASTARD PEOPLE FROM THE MIXING OF THE CANAANITES, HITITES, AMORITES, PERIZZITES, HIVITES, JEBUSITES, GIRGASHITES, KENITES, EDOMITES AND SOME TRUE ISRAELITES. THE JEWS HAVE NEVER BEEN ISRAELITES; THEY ARE NOT ISRAELITES NOW; AND THEY WILL NEVER BE ISRAELITES.
Let me repeat that again

ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 96% OF ALL THE JEWS KNOWN TO THE WORLD TODAY ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE KHAZAR TRIBES OF RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPE AND WESTERN MONGOLIA; THESE ARE THE ASKNAZI JEWS, THE OTHER MAJOR SECT OF THE JEWS ARE THE SEPHARDIC JEWS, AND THEY ARE A BASTARD PEOPLE FROM THE MIXING OF THE CANAANITES, HITITES, AMORITES, PERIZZITES, HIVITES, JEBUSITES, GIRGASHITES, KENITES, EDOMITES AND SOME TRUE ISRAELITES. THE JEWS HAVE NEVER BEEN ISRAELITES; THEY ARE NOT ISRAELITES NOW; AND THEY WILL NEVER BE ISRAELITES

Although modern Jews purport the idea that they are descended from ancient Judah, they are lying. Twice in the book of Revelation, the followers of Christ are informed that there exists a group of people who claim to be Judean, but are not: “...and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:9; 3:9)
For those who wish to be honest with the totality of Scripture, there is no mistake; somewhere on this emerald blue planet of ours, there is a group of people who claim to be Judean, who are actually not. Are they hard to find? Indeed, no. The twentieth century has seem them migrate from Poland and Eastern Europe to places like New York City and the modern nation of Israel (the United States of America).

Even honest scientific inquiry reveals the truth. Spanish geneticist Professor Antionio Amaiz-Villena recently headed a team of researchers and published a paper entitled “The Origins of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations.” After conducing detailed DNA studies, the report state: “Jews and Palestinians in the middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate.” (The Observer, November 25, 2001)

This is consistent with the fact that modern Jews are either descended from the Khazarians, who were of a mixed background, or from the ancient Edomites. In both cases, they are genetically related to the ancient Hittites, Jebusites, Canaanites, Amorites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Kenites, Edomites; all perennial enemies of the Israelites.

Also, it must be remembered that the Edomites, and the Canaanite nations were blood drinkers, flesh heaters, and so were the Khazars, thus the tradition of Ritual Murder was carried forth from one group of Jews to those Khazars who chose Judaism as their religion.

Thus we have Christ saying: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

Christ then tells the jews they are not of God that they are not His children and not of God. "He that is of God heareth God's words: YE (jews) THEREFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE (jews) ARE NOT OF GOD." (John 8:47)

Christ is telling the jews that they do not believe Him because they are a perverse, generation of vipers, the children of the devil, and that they are not of His sheep. And who are His sheep? It is the Israelites of course.

"Jesus answered them, I TOLD YOU, AND YE (jews) BELIEVED NOT: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But YE (jews) BELIEVE NOT, BECAUSE YE (jews) ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said unto you (jews)." (John 10:25-26)

Paul now testifies that they are a perverse race: “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” Philippians 2:16)

Strong's #Untoward: Strong's #4646 skolios (skol ee os'); from the base of NT:4628; warped, i.e. winding; figuratively, perverse: KJV crooked, froward, untoward. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION." (Acts 2:40)

John also tells us in 1 John that the jews are the children of the devil.

“In this the children of God are manifest, and THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” (1 John 3:10)

In John 8:47 we find: “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”

Many people say that the words of Christ was for all men everywhere, but that is simply not true, and is the lying, deceiving, statements of perverse, traitorous, false teachers, known to us as the Judaeo-Christian clergy. For Christ taught in Parables so that the Jews would not know what He was saying. For it is obvious from a reading of the parable of the tares and the wheat; when He says:

“And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: THAT SEEING THEY MAY SEE, AND NOT PERCEIVE; AND HEARING THEY MAY HEAR, AND NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST AT ANY TIME THEY SHOULD BE CONVERTED, AND THEIR SINS SHOULD BE FORGIVEN THEM (Mark 4:11-12)
One could go on for several pages, but these should suffice to prove that the Jews are the most evil and perverse people that have ever existed on earth, and that there is no doubt they are the descendants of their father the devil as Christ said.

The end of Britain as a nation state? Not on your life, Mr Van Rompuy

By Daniel Johnson

The President of the European Council has finally revealed his true colours. ‘The time of the homogeneous nation state is over,’ declared Herman Van Rompuy in Berlin yesterday.

According to Mr Van Rompuy, the idea that a country can survive alone is not merely an illusion: ‘It is a lie!’

He has clearly never heard of the Battle of Britain.

Deluded: The blustering Belgian President Herman Van Rompuy

My first reaction to this latest diktat was to laugh out loud. This blustering Belgian, the grandest panjandrum in Brussels, is straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan.

‘President’ Van Rompuy and his British colleague, the EU ‘High Representative’ Baroness Ashton, cut richly comic figures on the international stage.

It is tempting to dismiss their empire-building as an extravagant but otherwise harmless pastime.

The trouble is that these Eurocrats not only waste tens of billions of pounds on their palatial offices and legions of flunkeys — they have real power, too.

The British public watched in dismay as, earlier this month, David Cameron was forced to back down from his promise to stop Brussels from increasing its already bloated budget.

The Prime Minister tried to present the deal he secured — reducing the 6 per cent increase Brussels demanded to 2.9 per cent.

But at a time when Britain is slashing its national budget by at least 25 per cent, even a 2.9 per cent increase in the profligate EU budget is indefensible.

Worse, Mr Cameron agreed to further treaty changes to placate the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, without securing any firm promise that there will be no new EU power grab.

Mr Van Rompuy’s Berlin speech appears to be the first shot in a new campaign to speed the transfer of sovereignty to Brussels — a transfer that was briefly interrupted by the defeat of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty in successive referendums.

Not since the days of Jacques Delors, the French Commission President in the Eighties, have the Euro-federalists been so bold in setting out their agenda.

Opponents: Mrs Thatcher went down fighting against a federal Europe while the pro lobby have never been so bold since the days of French Commission President Jacques Delors

Although they failed then to extinguish the sovereignty of Britain and other nation states, it was a pyrrhic victory for the Eurosceptics, not least because they lost their greatest champion in Margaret Thatcher soon afterwards. Twenty years ago this month, Mrs Thatcher was deposed as Prime Minister by the Conservative Party after expressing her opposition to the single currency and a federal Europe in her inimitably direct way: ‘No! No! No!’

In the two decades since Mrs Thatcher went down fighting, the piecemeal transfer of power to Europe has ¬continued unabated.

The latest reminder of just how far that process has gone was the Government’s abject humiliation over the decision by the European Court of Human Rights that prisoners should be given the vote. Mr Cameron was said to be ‘exasperated’ and ‘furious’ at having to agree to votes for prisoners, but his hand was forced.

The economic crisis since 2008 has witnessed an attempt by Europe to get its hands on the City — the engine room of the British economy.

‘I want the world to see the victory of the European model,’ President Nicolas Sarkozy of France gloated last December, after the appointment of a Frenchman as the EU commissioner responsible for the City of London: ‘The English are the big losers in this business.’

Sure enough, since then, the EU has created three new authorities to regulate ¬banking, pensions, equity and insurance.

Their powers are limited but, over time, they will extend their control at the expense of our own regulators, until the City falls under European jurisdiction.

Last week, I was in Berlin to hear German and U.S. economists point out the danger of the economic recovery being stifled by over regulation of the financial markets at the behest of Brussels and Paris.

Britain, by far the biggest player in Europe, stands to lose most if the EU has its way.

It is a measure of President Van Rompuy’s confidence over this constant transfer of power that he is now openly calling time on the nation state and determined ‘to fight the danger of a new Euro-scepticism’.

Those of us who believe in our own country’s sovereignty, he implies, are deluded romantics with views which are outdated in a globalised world.

What, then, can David Cameron do about this new threat to the nation state — assuming, that is, that Nick Clegg and his fellow Lib Dems can be persuaded to keep their instinctive Eurofanaticism in check?

Leave aside, for an instant, the obvious injustice of an EU which is undemocratic and far from transparent assuming more powers over Britain.

The first argument that ¬Cameron should deploy has to do with the past.

History teaches us that nation states have always been the best guarantors of liberty, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law.

Only strong nation states have been able to defend their liberties against tyrants such as Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin.

An excellent example of what can go wrong in the absence of a genuine nation state is ¬Herman Van Rompuy’s own homeland, Belgium.

Unable to defend itself in two world wars, increasingly ¬dysfunctional as its Dutch-speaking Flemish and French-speaking Walloon citizens ¬gravitate towards Holland and France respectively, Belgium has little or no sense of identity or patriotism.

No wonder Mr Van Rompuy would rather belong to a United States of Europe.

The second argument in favour of the nation state concerns the present — in particular the -current predicament of the EU.

Shake on it: David Cameron should start wooing Chancellor Merkel, the most powerful voice in the EU

Since 1974, the share of world GDP represented by the 15 EU member states before the former Communist countries were admitted was 36 per cent. Today, that figure is 26 per cent, and by 2020 it is expected to be 15 per cent.

Such statistics give the lie to the claim that the European model is uniquely successful.

The EU was created to solve the problems of half a century ago, and today it looks increasingly old-fashioned, whether as an economic or a political system.

The truth is that it is Mr Van Rompuy who is deluded, for surely it is only a matter of time before the EU goes the way of other supranational empires, such as the Soviet Union.

David Cameron will need to show greater skill in building Continental alliances, but he will find that other countries share many aspects of the Euroscepticism that Mr Van Rompuy denounced yesterday.

Mr Cameron could start by wooing Chancellor Merkel, the most powerful voice in the EU, who has even demanded that bankrupt states such as Greece should lose their vote in EU councils until they put their house in order. There is little appetite anywhere in Europe for giving away more powers or money to Brussels.

It is high time that the British people were given a say in what happens to British sovereignty. A referendum on EU membership is the ultimate deterrent that David Cameron could deploy. Mr Clegg might object, but it used to be Lib Dem policy and the mere threat of a referendum would put the federalists to flight.

If Mr Van Rompuy wants a fight, David Cameron should give him one.