If you were to look in almost any manual of dogmatic theology, you will find this reference made in a way that almost every Catholic has come to accept without question. It is stated thus: Under `signs of the Second Coming' will be listed: "The conversion of the Jews." Almost everyone who considers himself some kind of `Christian' or `Catholic' has accepted this statement without examining one, basic, essential word which has led to many misconceptions, false interpretations and, generally speaking, a total distortion of past, present and future objective reality.
Human hypocrisy has spawned so much meaningless superficiality in society that our entire education system has been bent to serve the continuation of fakes and frauds through false history.
George Orwell, author of the too quickly forgotten book "1984" has clear-sightedly written: "He who controls the past, controls the present; and he who controls the present, controls the future."
A little reflection on this thought will convince the serious person of its truth. Wars are fought not only for reasons of material aggrandizement; they are more often fought to control the past so as to control the future. By destroying libraries and historical records and archives, the facts of history are erased from human memory. Once this is done, it is a relatively easy matter to substitute historical fact with contrived `Hollywood-truth' and teach fiction for fact, and dismiss fact as if it were fiction.
What are we to understand by the term "Jew"? This is a fundamentally important question because if the `sign' is to mean anything, it has to be clear in what it signifies. A doubtful or ambiguous sign is no sign at all. How can anything be accomplished if directions and instructions were confused, unclear, ambivalent, incomprehensible?
And what if these `signs' were specious, deceptive, unwarranted, fallacious, groundless, misrepresentations, subterfuges, and just plain lies? What good purpose would they serve? They would serve no good purpose. Their purpose would be to deceive, to falsify, to deprive unjustly, to forge an identity.
We are certainly living in most challenging times when things were never worse. On the other hand, given good will and generosity, it might be said that things were never better.
And, because God alone is able to draw good from evil, one might conclude that the greatest good can come from the greatest evil. Not that evil has any good in itself because `evil' is the absence of something. Evil has no positive content. Like `black' is the absence of color, `evil' is the absence of good that ought to be present.
Consequently, the only reason why we can say that things are `very bad' is because we perceive that they ought to be `very good.' With the advance of knowledge and technology, there is a commensurate advance either for good or for evil. Since the elements of evil are howling like wolves today, it is only because God is preparing His own `coup' for good.
Because heresies abound, truth will shine forth with even greater brilliance when the lovers of truth wake up and begin to roll back the `black plague' of error with the flashing sword of truth.
The true Christian life is a daily challenge that should keep every Christian alert and prepared. Nothing dulls the mind more, than wallowing in wearisome clichés. Or, as someone once said: the only exercise some minds get is by jumping to conclusions.
There is nothing more sad than being used and thus contributing to one's own destruction. Satan is good at that. He knows how to palliate Christians with saccharine `charity' which comfortably disguises laziness and cowardice. He knows how to present vice so that it will look like virtue. And while he has his victims `viciously virtuous,' he uses them to further his goal of ultimate and universal conquest: Nothing less than his Luciferian reign over God's creation, after having eliminated Christ from the world with the help of Christians.
Lucifer uses people just as Christ uses people. Lucifer uses religion just as Christ uses religion because religion is
nothing more than a relationship between persons - either it is a relationship between a created soul with the person of Lucifer,
or it will be a relationship of the created soul with Jesus Christ and through Him with the Divinity. Lucifer can only lead
souls to himself. Beyond him there is but a vast, infinite
nothing. Jesus draws souls to Himself and through Himself to the
Divine
Persons of the Trinity. Beyond the humanity of Jesus lies His divinity. This is the reason why the Church correctly denounces
all other `religions' as the work of Satan (Lucifer) and excoriates Satan as the `teacher of all heretics.'
St. Paul suffered greatly from the adherents of the Talmudic heresy. They hounded and hunted St. Paul down like a pack of wolves after a lamb. They would send their agents ahead of him to warn communities of believers to shun him. They would resort to all kinds of vile falsehoods to achieve their end as they still do today.
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans is the great document that came out of this persecution of Paul on the part of the Synagogue.
Inaccuracies and imprecision have led to much confusion even on the part of most Christians to the present day. Poorly-informed or misinformed Christians repeat these errors that were born of misunderstanding in areas that seemed to be of little consequence. The truth, however, is quite different: These apparently `insignificant' details are extremely important in understanding what is called `biblical prophecy.'
If one of the signs preceding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead is the conversion of the "Jews," we had better be certain that we know who we are talking about!
We still refer to the original inhabitants of this land as "Indians" simply because Columbus thought he had found a route to India. Native inhabitants are no more "Indian" than Tibetans are Irish. Yet, we still refer to those who pre-date the arrival of Europeans on this soil as "Indians." And, if you were to ask an "Indian" what his nationality was, he might say he belongs to the Iroquois nation, or the Mohican, or the Mohawk, or the Blackfoot, or the Pawnee, or the Apache, or Pince-Nez - just to mention a few of the distinct and different tribes of people inhabiting this land we now call "United States of America."
Furthermore, if you were to ask one of these inhabitants of this land "What is your nationality?" he would certainly not say: "Presbyterian." And if he did, you would rightly understand that he misunderstood the question. You would politely correct him by saying: "No, I did not ask you your religion; I asked you what your ethnic origin was." To be an Iroquois is to belong to an ethnic, biological family. To be a Presbyterian is to belong to a particular Christian sect. The two are not identical.
I am certain that this example has been clear enough to distinguish two distinct ideas: nationality and religion. Even if the two were so united in a group that the distinction could be somewhat blurred, it cannot be totally erased. This is so true that any statement attempting to identify absolutely someone or something by accidental differences is dangerous. For example, to emphasize the veracity of something, one might say: "Is the Pope Catholic?" This is meant to affirm with assurance that something is true. While it is generally true that a pope is Catholic, this is not always the case. Because, you see, it is possible for someone to occupy the visible place where a genuine Pope would be expected to be, yet not be a pope. When Anthony Quin played the role of a pope in the movie "Shoes of the Fisherman" no one thought for a moment that he was a real pope. No one even bothered asking if Anthony Quin was a Catholic. It was not important because Anthony Quin was an actor playing the part of a Pope.
Before we can take something as a `sign,' we must first establish the appropriateness of the thing to serve as a sign.
We must carefully examine the people St. Paul speaks of in his Epistle to the Romans and determine beyond reasonable doubt whether those who call themselves by this name are truly the descendants of those people concerning whom St. Paul was writing.
Who would object to such objective fairness and honesty? I can't think of any honest persons objecting. Forgers would not be very happy to be closely examined, especially if there were an inheritance at stake. Heirs to a fortune are not likely to tolerate well false claimants. Yet, isn't history full of such deceits? Are we able to depend upon the `good will and honest conscience of everyone' when dealing with such things? If such honesty and integrity are so common, why do we require numerous pieces of identification to prove not only who we are, but what we are? Mass falsification of all kinds of documents has mushroomed into a big business and even into a bigger headache for civil authorities.
The falsification of green residence cards in the United States has become a serious problem that makes life difficult especially for those who have authentic cards.
An interesting question comes to mind in this matter of determining who is who: How do you hide 6 million people without, seemingly, a trace?
It's easy. You just relocate them and give them a different name. Or, how do you `lose' ten tribes? Simple. Names change; and migration does the rest. That's why someone came up with the groundless idea of the "ten lost tribes of Israel." Is it any more difficult to lose ten tribes than it is six million? As a matter of fact, it's easier to lose 6 million that never existed than it is to lose 12 tribes that did and still do exist. The following example will help to clarify the point:
On June 7, 1979 Pope John Paul II went to Auschwitz, Poland. There, surrounded by hundreds of spectators, including high officials of the Roman Catholic Church and government officials, he blessed the monument dedicated to "4 million victims" as stated on the tablets in front of him. These `victims' were supposedly "Jews." The government of Poland posthumously bestowed "Medals of Martyrdom" on the "4 million victims" that day. There is a `slight' problem with this entire publicized scene.
The problem is this: Historians have been forced by objective evidence to at least reduce the number of "victims" by 3 million! That's a number even exceeding the entire population of Lithuania! This is not all. A dedicated German patriot, Mr. Ernst Zundel, visiting Auschwitz on August 15, 1991, is pictured standing at the location where the Pope stood 12 years earlier, and the photograph shows him pointing to the large tablets imbedded in concrete. The difference 12 years later is that the inscriptions have been chiseled off because they were proven to be false!
The Pope and Polish authorities have resorted to culpable silence in the face of having been used to lend prestige to lies. Are they deliberate falsifications or are they merely an "error"?
Everybody can be a "Jew" and nobody can be a "Jew" - depending upon one's definition of what constitutes a "Jew."
Our purpose here is to determine in so far as possible the identity of those people whom St. Paul says will be converted before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This is very important because unless this takes place, the rest will not follow. On the other hand, if our understanding of who is to be converted before the Second Coming takes place is mistaken, we will most certainly be unable to read the signs. Now, if these signs have been given, they must be sufficiently clear so that those for whom they have been given may perceive them without confusion or error.
It would be absolute folly to expect an angel, and welcome the devil.
If the conversion of the "Jews" will precede the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, then it behooves us to know precisely who we are talking about.
For years, unknown to most Christians, a group has been painstakingly identifying itself first as the religious adherents of a Middle East religious sect. Then, gradually, this religious sect began to work at identifying itself in the minds of their neighbors as the biological descendants of the tribe of Juda. The adherents of this "Internazi" sect persecuted other biological members of the tribe of Juda because they would not adhere to the former's heresies. In other words, the transformed and paganized former inhabitants of Judea returned from their captivity and proceeded to impose their paganized version of Old Testament Catholicism. They called themselves `Judeans' because many of them still had some Judean blood in them, although they had intermarried with the Babylonians and were now more Babylonian than Judean because now they were not only biological mongrels, but also theological mongrels.
At this point, it becomes very difficult to distinguish who is who. The closest we of this time-period can come to some kind of experiential knowledge of anything similar, is the confusion that reigns among those who call themselves "Catholics"
You can meet "Catholics" who know almost nothing of what Catholics believe: they live like animals in concubinage or in adulterous unions - and they will say they are "Catholic." These "Catholics" will deny whatever doctrine or discipline the Church teaches, and will still delude themselves into thinking they are Catholics.
Clergymen will accuse their bishops of being `heretics' and will ridicule them publicly; disobey them scandalously, and then pretend that they are `loyal' to the "Holy Father" with whom those heretic bishops are in close union. Yet, these and the people who follow them will staunchly proclaim themselves to be "Catholics."
In a way, then, just as it is difficult to determine who is a real "Catholic," it becomes almost impossible to determine
who
is a real "Jew."
Nevertheless, no one can completely shed his culture and religion. This is true today as it was true then. These apostate Judeans melded with the pagans through marriage. They took pagan wives and it was not long before they abandoned the true faith and began to indulge in the human sacrifice of their own children to Moloch, to worship the star of Rempham and Astarte - symbols of their newly-embraced pagan religion.
Moloch-worship consisted in sacrificing human beings, preferably the first-born children, as a burnt offering to him. This detestable and inhuman pagan custom of slaying and then cremating the victim, also practiced at Tyre in honor of Melcarth, was severely condemned by the Mosaic Law and was made punishable by the death of the guilty party (Lev.18,21; 20, 2-5))
Because of his marriage to foreign women, King Solomon in his old age tolerated the worship of Moloch and had a shrine built for his honor near Jerusalem (3 Kings 11,4-7).
Because of this idolatry the kingdom was to be divided after his death (3 Kings 11, 31-33).
King Achaz of Juda sacrificed his own sons in the valley of Hinnom (4 Kings 16,3; 2 Par.28,3) and King Manasses made at least one of his sons "pass through fire" (4 Kings 21,6). The pious King Josias strictly forbade this form of worship (4 Kings 23, 6), but this hideous pagan rite was continued in the period before the Babylonian Exile (Jer.7,31;32, 35; Ez.20, 31).
This same evil tradition had usurped the temple although these high priests and scribes were claiming their traditions to be from Moses. It was these traditions that were not of Moses that Our Lord denounced as well as did the Apostles. When Stephen was arrested and led to the Sanhedrin before the high priests, he pointed out to them their infidelity to the Law of Moses: "This Moses whom they disowned, saying, `Who has made thee ruler and judge?' - him God sent to be ruler and redeemer, with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This is he who led them out, working wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the desert, forty years. This is the Moses who said to the children of Israel, `God will raise up to you a prophet from among your brethren, as he raised up me; to him shall you hearken.' This is who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, and he received the words of life to give to us. But our fathers would not obey him, but thrust him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, saying to Aaron, `Make us gods to go before us. As for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.'
And they made a calf in those days and offered sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. But God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of Prophets: `Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? Why, you took up with the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Rempham, images that you made to worship. And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.' "(Acts 735-43).
Then, St. Stephen says to them: "Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ear, you always oppose the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so you do also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now been the betrayers and murderers, you who received the Law as an ordinance of angels and did not keep it." (Ibid. 51-53).
And like their ancestors who killed all the prophets, these high priests who betrayed and murdered the Just One, fell upon this angelic young man with an hellish fury and stoned him to death. Thus, confirming in the blood of their innocent victim the truth of all that he had just said.
Note that Stephen had rebuked them for their human holocausts. He mentioned their true god, Moloch, and the symbol of their god Rempham; the star of Rempham which is deliberately disguised as the "Star of David."
St. Paul is speaking of his own kinsmen when he says that his loyalty to them is so great that if it were possible to save them by abandoning Christ, he would gladly do it. What great affection for one's countrymen: to be willing to be anathema if only by that supreme, eternal sacrifice of separation from God these people could be saved. But it is a pious exaggeration because St. Paul already knows that such a thing is impossible.
St. Paul speaks of "Israel" in the sense of blood ties among the twelve sons of Jacob-Israel. When St. Paul speaks of `Jews,' he is speaking of biological descendants. He does not give their religion a name which they gave to themselves: `Judaism.'
He grieves for the Israelites who are his kinsmen according to the flesh. He speaks of his kinsmen as having the "adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and worship and the promises; who have the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is, over all things, God blessed forever."
Here St. Paul is speaking of the biological descendants of the tribe of Juda. Judeans are Israelites just as the members of the other tribes are Israelites, also. Every Judean is an Israelite; but not every Israelite is a Judean. It sounds a bit confusing because this necessary distinction has been blurred. Let's use an example closer to home: We could correctly say that `Every Frenchman is a European;' but we cannot say `Every European is a Frenchman.' The same is true of other nationalities. So, too, we cannot say `Every Israelite is a Judean.' Because every true Judean is nothing more than a descendant of one tribe of Israel. He cannot be a descendant of all twelve tribes., anymore than a true Frenchman can be a descendant of Germans, Hungarians, Poles or Russians. Those of us who are of European ethnic origin, are descendants of the different tribes of Israel. But, that does not make all of us `Judeans.' Only those Europeans who are true (as opposed to `claimed') descendants of the tribe of Juda can honestly and legitimately be called `Judeans' - or by whatever name they now are known.
In Chapter 11 of the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul writes: "I say then: Has God cast off his people? By no means! For I also am an Israelite of the posterity of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast off his people whom he foreknew."
For anyone to conclude that the "conversion of the Jews" is a sign of the imminent approach of the Second Coming is unfounded because St. Paul is not speaking of all those who have embraced the Talmudic heresy. St. Paul is speaking of the biological descendants of all the tribes of Israel and not only the members of the tribe of Juda "The conversion of the Jews" is a statement that is too broad and susceptible to misunderstanding.
St. Paul indicates that God has not cast off His people by pointing to himself: "For I also am an Israelite of the posterity of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."
"I, too, am an Israelite of the posterity of Abraham" can be said of many nations whose names have changed, more or less, over the centuries, but it most probably cannot be said of those who call themselves "Jews" or "Israeli" today.
Despite the enormous and costly propaganda cultivated over many years to identify themselves as "Semites", those people who attack the true Semites for being "anti-Semitic" are the actual anti-Semites for the simple reason that they are not the descendants of Sem (Shem) who was the first son of Noah.
The rabbis are not the progeny nor the product of the Mosaic Law. They are the product of the Babylonian Captivity where their ancestors intermarried with the Egyptians and embraced the religion of Baal, offering their sons and daughters as human sacrifices to Moloch. They are not the biological descendants of the tribes of Israel, nor are they the heirs to the promises made by God to Abraham and his posterity.
Having made this statement, it is necessary to provide the evidence to prove it. The evidence has been deliberately suppressed by the perpetrators of this universal imposture.
The very first step in identification of persons is to clarify names. There has been altogether too much clumsy and inaccurate labeling of individuals and ethnic groups even on the part of our Catholic scholars who, for the most part, naively fell into the rabbinical plot to snatch the inheritance of the Chosen People of Israel which is based to a great extent on historical and geographical considerations in time and eternity.
God does not act in a void or vacuum, nor is His action reserved uniquely to the other side of death - to eternity. His works are to take place on this side of the grave just as much as on the other side.
We Catholics have been falsely led to believe that the dividing line between the people of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament is somehow based on `us' being nothing but `gentiles' and `they' being nothing but the `chosen people,' or, "Jews".
This artificial and completely false division is not an accident. It was deliberately calculated and inculcated by a
cunning
group for a definite purpose. That purpose being, to steal the God-given inheritance from the true Children of Israel
which is not only the Promised Land that symbolizes heaven, but also the various blessings promised to His people.
You will be astounded to learn that the "conversion of a remnant of the Israelites" refers to those Christians who abandoned the true faith and consort with the Children of the Antichrist, the present-day worshippers of Baal: those who call themselves "Jews".
Even our scholarly works contain the planned dissimulation that would have us believe that which almost every Protestant Christian has been instructed to believe by his minister: namely, that those who style themselves as "Jews" today are the `Chosen People' of the Old Testament, and that we are the `Gentiles.'
Is this true or false?
For the uninformed who dabble in religious questions without adequate tools, it may be pointed out that there is no doctrinal implication involved here. On the contrary, the truth has been recorded in the Holy Scriptures. What is contested here is not the revealed word of God, but to whom does this word of God apply? The laws of right reason demand that before a conclusion can be accepted, its incontrovertible evidence must first be provided. There is no room for rash judgments; and there is no room for nervous, bigoted, fanatical name-calling.
We suggest that all this has been planned because it is inconceivable that such fundamental errors could last for so many years without serious effort to establish the validity or invalidity of the common claims.
There are two things that must be established beyond reasonable doubt. We say `reasonable' doubt because there are people who create unreasonable doubts for the purpose of creating confusion, or in order to insist and maintain a logically impossible position.
The first thing we must do is to determine who are the real "Jews" of the New Testament. That is: Who are the people spoken of in the New Testament as `Judeans'?
The second question that must be answered with reasonable certainty is this: "Who are all those people today who call themselves "Jews" or "Israelis"?
Our best evidence is not only the Scriptures as they were recorded in the original languages as far as possible. Then, we will have recourse to documentary evidence provided by those who considered themselves members of that ethnic group who have come forward for different motives to expose the error by presenting the truth.
We will proceed, therefore, with the word `Israel' because it is first in order of time.
Who or what is `Israel'?
`Israel' is the name of one of the sons of Isaac. Originally, his name was Jacob. Jacob had a brother. His brother's name was Esau. Their father, Isaac, was the son of Abraham.
Therefore, the name `Israel' is originally the name of a particular historical individual who lived hundreds of years ago. Actually, he lived about 1440 B.C. (Before Christ).
It will be our task to sift through the recorded documentation that provides us with the necessary information to make an objective judgment.
The answer to the question: Who is Israel and who are the "Jews"? will certainly surprise many people, particularly those who call themselves "Jews" to day and claim the land of Palestine as their `homeland' and a biblical birthright as their birthright.
(To be continued)
Return to Contents
Return to home page.