"A thing cannot be and not be at the same time." This is called the "principle of Excluded Middle" in Logic. Now, logic is nothing more than the science of correct thinking. Logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth.
At the risk of appearing repetitive, it is necessary to always keep in mind the two-fold meaning of the current term "Jew."
Although it is relatively simple to determine who `Juda' was, it is not so simple to determine the exact origin of those who today call themselves "Jews" and those who are the `Israelites' of which St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Romans. As we shall see, `historical revisionism' is essential to a sound understanding not only of the past but also of the present and the future.
Words stand for ideas and act as labels for things. Among these `things' are to be counted the peoples of this earth. An apple is not an orange and a pineapple is not a pumpkin. To confuse them would not only be objectively false, but it would also result in endless chaos. It would be the equivalent of giving a child a viper when he cries for bread.
The word "Jew" is an anglicized corruption of the word "Judean" which signifies a biological descendant of the tribe of Juda. It also means an adherent of religious sect called "Judaism." Most people think they know about whom they are speaking when they use the term "Jew." However, as the reader will learn, the proper and objective application of the term to an objectively real entity becomes very complicated and confusing. Is it by design?
Who is `Juda' and what is his relationship to Jacob (Israel)? We are informed that Jacob's sons were twelve in number: "The sons of Jacob were twelve: the sons of Lia: Ruben, Jacob's firstborn, Simeon, Levi, Juda, Issachar and Zabulon; the sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin; the sons of Bala, Rachel's maid: Dan and Nepthali; the sons of Zelpha, Lia's maid: Gad and Aser"(Gen. 35,22-26).
Juda, therefore, was the fourth son of Jacob. Jacob's name was changed by the Lord to "Israel": "God said to him, `Your name is Jacob; no longer shall you be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.' Thus he named him Israel" (Gen.35, 10).
Note: This custom continues in Religious Orders of the Roman Catholic Church. When a Religious enters a Religious Order, he takes off his secular clothing and is invested in the habit of the Religious Order. The Superior, acting in loco Dei, says: "From henceforth you shall be known as Brother"
The significance is that this person has been called by God to a special vocation. The giving or changing of a name has profound significance often ignored or perverted by society today.
Juda, then, was the fourth son of Jacob (Israel). The twelve sons of Jacob (Israel) were the founders of the twelve tribes of Israel.
The fourth son of Jacob was not the founder of the religious sect that calls itself "Judaism."
We can speak of "Lutheranism" as an heretical sect started by Martin Luther when he broke away from the Roman Catholic Church; we can speak of "Calvinism" as an heretical sect founded by Calvin, a renegade priest from the Roman Catholic Church; we can speak of "Anglicanism" as an heretical sect founded by the English King Henry VIII who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. We can go on an on with the different sects, larger or smaller, that have broken away from the Roman Catholic Church in the past and in the present. But, there is no record of the fourth son of Jacob, Juda, breaking away from the Old Testament Catholic Church to form his own sect imbued with a false theology of his own.
"Judaism" therefore is a misnomer coined for a specific purpose. We will not examine that purpose here.
The Holy Scriptures do not speak of a `God of Juda' but they do speak of the `God of Israel.' The `God of Israel' is the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). This is the God which Israel taught his twelve sons. This is our God - the God of the Roman Catholic. However, we do not wish to confuse the issue by getting religiously entangled unduly. Our primary goal here is to establish an ethnic origin of those who call themselves "Jews".
The "God of Israel" is the One God worshipped by Abraham and Isaac and all those faithful to the Mosaic Law including all the Prophets and saints of the Old Testament. Likewise, Jesus Christ had said to the Pharisees and Scribes that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. If "Jews" are the descendants of Israel's fourth son, Juda, and if their God is the same God as that of Jesus Christ, then how can we explain the fact that these "Jews" arranged the crucifixion of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets? How can we explain the fact that even in the New Testament these "Jews" make three amazing statements:
When Jesus said to those people called "Jews" who had come to believe in Him that "If you abide in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Here is what they answered Him: We are the children of Abraham, and we have never yet been slaves to anyone" (John 8, 31-33). This is the first statement.
The second statement shows that Jesus did not deny their claim: "I know that you are the children of Abraham; but you seek to kill me because my word takes no hold among you" (Ibid. 8, 37).
Then the third statement is peculiarly revealing: these "Jews" seek to hide their true origin: "We have not been born of fornication; we have one Father, God" (Ibid. 8, 41).
Why would they make such a statement? What prompted them to spontaneously volunteer that they "have not been born of fornication"?
Is it because these people spread the calumny that Jesus was born of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier? They are, in effect, calling Jesus an illegitimate. But, the truth of the matter is that they have been born of fornication in the biological sense, and have been born of spiritual `fornication' by worshipping false gods. In fact, they have been born of adultery. True, their father was Abraham, but their mother was not the wife of Abraham, but the servant of his wife: The Egyptian maid, Agar.
Agar's son was named Ismael. Of Ismael, the Lord said: "He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; he shall dwell apart, opposing all his kinsmen" (Gen.16,12).
Let us examine the first statement. These "Jews" claimed that they had never been slaves to anyone. Jesus does not deny their statement nor makes any effort to correct them. Why should He? They spoke the truth: They were never in captivity; they are the offspring of Abraham.
But, the true Israelites had already been reduced to slavery in Egypt when they all migrated there to be with Joseph. We find this account in the Book of Exodus:
"These are the names of the sons of Israel who, accompanied by their households, migrated with Jacob into Egypt: Ruben, Simeon, Levi and Juda; Issachar, Zabulon and Benjamin; Dan and Nephtali; Gad and Aser. The total number of the direct descendants of Jacob was seventy. Joseph was already in Egypt" (Exodus 1,1-5).
The tribes of Israel increased greatly: "But the Israelites were fruitful and prolific. They became so numerous and strong that the land was filled with them" (Ibid. 1,7).
From honored guests to slaves was a sudden transition for the Israelites: "Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph, came to power in Egypt. He said to his subjects, `Look how numerous and powerful the Israelite people are growing, more so than we ourselves! Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase; otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave our country.
Accordingly, taskmasters were set over the Israelites to oppress them with forced labor. Thus they had to build for Pharao the supply cities of Phithom and Rameses. Yet the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread. The Egyptians, then, dreaded the Israelites and reduced them to cruel slavery, making life bitter for them with hard work in mortar and brick and all kinds of field work - the whole cruel fate of slaves" (Ibid.1,8-14).
The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Sephra and the other Phua, `When you act
as midwives for the Hebrew women and see them giving birth, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.'
midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live. So the king summoned the midwives and asked them, `Why have you acted thus, allowing the boys to live?' The midwives answered Pharao, `The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.' Therefore God dealt well with the midwives. The people, too, increased and grew strong. And because the midwives feared God, he built up families for them. Pharao then commanded all his subjects, `Throw into the river every boy that is born to the Hebrews, but you may let all the girls live'" (Ibid.1,15-22).
The true Israelites of which the Judeans were but one tribe, then, had been reduced to slavery. The false `Judeans' were not the slaves, they were among the oppressors of the Israelites. The false `Judeans' may have been descended from Abraham, but their mother was the Egyptian maid, Agar. The false `Judeans,' therefore, are descendants of Ismael, the Egyptian. They are also Chanaanites through Esau who married the Chanaanite woman in the line of Ismael.
But, let us examine still further those who have been enslaved. Since the Pharisees stated they were never slaves to anyone, and since Our Lord made no comment contrary to that statement, we ought to be justified in concluding that those who claim to be "Jews" yet were never enslaved by anyone cannot really be the same people who were led away into the Babylonian Captivity and the Assyrian Captivity.
We must keep in mind that after Solomon's death, the twelve tribes split into two kingdoms: The Kingdom of Juda led by Roboam which comprised the tribes of Juda and Benjamin in the south, and the Kingdom of Israel comprising the other ten tribes in the north led by Jeroboam.
The first to go into captivity under the Assyrians were the ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel (circa 705 B.C). The Samaritans of the Gospel were actually the ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel because the new capital of this kingdom was named "Samaria."
The Kingdom of Juda was destroyed by the Egyptians and Babylonians in 586 B.C. The true Judeans, then, were enslaved. Here, also, begins the tale of treachery, opportunism, defection and infidelity to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We refrain from dealing with this intriguing period in Israelitic history only because this would take us too far afield from our purpose. That, purpose, of course, is the determining who are the `Israelites' today of whom St. Paul foretold would be converted back to the true faith.
It should be sufficiently shown now that those who addressed Jesus and stated that they had never been slaves to anyone cannot be the blood descendants of any of the twelve tribes of Israel . It has been shown that the true Israelites were enslaved by others. Therefore, the Pharisees could not be the blood descendants of Juda. This being the case, there are many consequences and conclusions to be drawn from this fact which extend down to our present day.
Mention has been made of the `Chanaanites.' Where do the Chanaanites come from? The Chanaanites are descendants of Cham (Ham) from whence the Negro comes. Now, in view of the biblical fact that Ismael and Esau both married Chanaanite women, it follows logically that their descendants are part Negro.
Therefore, based on the information provided in the Sacred Scriptures, there are two branches, as it were, of those who claim to be `Israelites': the Negroes and the Whites. After the flood, there were only Noe, his wife, and their three sons: Sem, Ham and Japheth. Eight people. Ham was the father of Chanaan. Chanaan, you will recall, was cursed by Noe his grandfather: "Cursed be Chanaan; meanest of slaves shall he be to his brethren."
The true Israelites, the offspring of Abraham and Sara who conceived in her advanced age by the power of God and bore Isaac. The true Israelites were to become nations and kings of peoples would descend from them. This certainly cannot be said of those who today claim to be descendants of the twelve tribes and call themselves "Jews." They have neither become nations nor kings of peoples. If anything, it might be closer to the truth to suggest that they have used the machinations and murders of their true ancestors to destroy nations and the rightful kings of peoples. As we will see from the following, these people are not the People of the Covenant.
Abraham said to the Lord: "Oh, that Ismael may live in your favor!" But God had other plans: "God answered, `No, but Sara your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as a perpetual covenant for his descendants after him" (Gen.17, 18-19).
Jesus affirms their claim as being descendants of Abraham. They do not , however, volunteer the important
that they are the descendants of Abraham and Agar. Consequently, they are not the descendants of Jacob (Israel).
Then, Our Lord tells them that although they are the descendants of Abraham, they do not have the same faith as Abraham.
Isaac gave Jacob the blessing that was intended for Esau: "The fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field which the Lord has blessed! God give you dew from heaven, and fruitfulness of the earth, abundance of grain and wine. Let nations serve you, peoples bow down to you. Be master of your brothers; may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, blessed be those who bless you"(Gen.27,27-29).
Practically every Protestant sect applies these words to those who claim to be descendants of Jacob, that is, those who call themselves "Jews".
Although Esau tried to get a blessing from his father, Jacob, he did not succeed. Instead, Jacob answered him: "Without the fruitfulness of the earth shall your dwelling be; without the dew of the heavens above. By your sword shall you live; you shall serve your brother. But when you become restive, you shall shake his yoke from your neck" (Ibid. 27, 39-40).
Isaac blessed Jacob and charged him with the command: "Do not marry any Chanaanite woman" Through Jacob many nations would come into being. As we have already seen, Esau, having learned of his father Jacob's orders not to marry a Chanaanite woman, went to Ismael and married Maheleth, daughter of Abraham's son Ismael and sister of Nabaioth. Here we encounter the further mixing of Abraham and Isaac's progeny with Egyptians and Chanaanites.
This explains who the `Judeans' of Christ's time really were. Among them, certainly, were true descendants of the tribes of Israel. Many of these had remained faithful even during the captivities. They recognized Jesus as the Messiah; they believed in Him and made the necessary transition from the Old to the New Testament.
When St. Paul speaks of the ultimate conversion of a remnant (Therefore, not all Israelites will be converted and saved!) of the tribes of Israel, he is speaking of biological descendants who have embraced heresy.
Speaking in a prophetic spirit, St. Paul is speaking of the remnant of those who will have embraced sny heresies, such as the universal apostasy of Modernism among Roman Catholics. We should seek the true Israelites among the various once-Catholic nations of the world. Those nations that were founded by the twelve tribes of Israel and were dispersed throughout the world, particularly in what is today known as `Europe.' In fact, St. Paul does not particularly refer to the biological descendants of Jacob simply as `Judeans' or `Jews.' St. Paul speaks of `Israelites.' Therefore, he is speaking of descendants of each of the twelve tribes. It is erroneous to identify all Israelites as if they had been members of only one tribe, the tribe of Juda. Such an idea is historically incorrect and has led to much confusion.
It is not enough simply to say that somewhere along the line, all the Israelites suddenly became `Judeans.' This is an unwarranted transition. A Lithuanians are not Russians simply because the Russians invaded their country and oppressed them for one hundred years, punishing with death the distribution of books in the native Lithuanian language. Nor, on the other hand, are Lithuanians to be confused with the Slavic inhabitants of Poland just because they have contiguous boarders. These mistaken notions have led to many unfortunate practical conclusions such as the unwarranted claims on sovereign territory.
Lithuanians were being either `russified' or `polonized' by sheer physical force. If we keep this example in mind, we will more easily understand the `Judaizing' of other nations and vice versa: namely, the appropriation of `Judean' rights by non-Judeans.
Before the birth of Jesus, those people occupying that portion of the earth known as `Judea' were the descendants of the two tribes of Israel: Juda and Benjamin. Prior to this, the twelve tribes lived in relative harmony. The split came, as we have already stated, after the death of Solomon.
If these people who call themselves "Jews" today are not the people to whom St. Paul is referring in his Epistle to the Romans, then, we are certainly entitled to ask: "Who are they?
The fact that almost every Protestant sect has one doctrine in common while being completely divided concerning the doctrines of Jesus Christ, ought to tell us something. It is a fact that almost all these Protestant sects hold that those who are today known as "Jews" are:
The blood descendants of the "Jews" of the Bible, and
They are the `Chosen People' of God.
This is their fundamental `dogma' and to deny it is sufficient to be considered `diabolically possessed' or to be insane. Some fanatic radio-preachers quote the Scriptures (Better yet: misquote) and claim that "God has blessed the United States because we are so good to the "Jews"! Others, however, go too far by blaming all the ills of society on them alone.not realizing that they, too, are a part of the problem.
These Protestant sects are so diverse in their `Christian' teachings that they have found it necessary to establish their own distinct churches. How can we account for the numerous sects in Protestantism, differing greatly in their beliefs concerning Jesus Christ, yet mysteriously united in defense of His mortal enemies? For, we certainly cannot say that these people who call themselves "Jews" are in any way the `friends of Jesus Christ' without abandoning right reason.
Today's "Jews" classify themselves as basically "Ashkenazim" or "Sephardim". The suffix `im' merely denotes the plural in the Hebrew language.
I will quote at length from a letter written by a convert to Roman Catholicism from the sect of the "Jews". The author's name is Benjamin H. Freedman. He wrote this letter to another `convert' to Catholicism who may not have been all that sincere: Dr. David Goldstein, LL.D. This "Dr.Goldstein" was very active in `campaigning for Christ.' Or, so it seems, while being very careful to keep certain truths from Catholics. This letter may be had by ordering it through The Seraph. It is entitled: FACTS ARE FACTS. This letter makes up a pamphlet of 63 information-charged pages. No serious student of history and religion can afford to ignore it. For, its understanding is essential to biblical understanding.
I am assuming that we are all interested in the truth. Those who are not will quickly dismiss all reference to objective fact that contradicts their bigotry and prejudice. To such as these the only adequate response would be: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians, 4:16).
Mr. Freedman gives praise to Dr. Goldstein for the truth which he speaks. Then, he goes on to prepare him for what is going to follow by trying to assure the Doctor that whatever is said is said without malice, but only in the service of truth.
Mr. Freedman is surely a gentleman. He writes: "In the best interests of that worthy objective to which you are continuing to dedicate the years ahead as you have so diligently done for many past decades, I most respectfully and sincerely urge you to analyze and to study carefully the data submitted to you here. I suggest also that you then take whatever steps you consider appropriate and necessary as a result of your conclusions. In the invisible and intangible ideological war being waged in defense of the great Christian heritage against its dedicated enemies your positive attitude is vital to victory. Your passive attitude will make a negative contribution to the total effort."
We are made aware of the fact that we are engaged in an ideological war. A war which spills over, necessarily, into physical activity. We are also presented with the logical consequences of ignoring the truths presented in this letter: Passivity is a `negative contribution' to this war. What does this mean if not `aiding and abetting the enemy'?
Mr. Freedman wrote this letter on October 10, 1954. When he wrote it, he had already been trying in vain to draw attention to these truths for thirty years without success. He hopes that Dr. Goldstein subscribes to the `sound and sensible sentiment that `it is better to light one candle than to sit in darkness.' Since 1924, the world still remains in that `darkness' of which Mr. Freedman wrote in his letter.
By way of `introduction,' Mr. Ben Freedman points out to Dr. David Goldstein a very important truth about Truth:
"It has been correctly contended for thousands of years that `In the end Truth will always prevail.' We all realize that Truth in action can prove itself a dynamic power of unlimited force. But alas, Truth has no self-starter. Truth cannot get off dead-center unless a worthy apostle gives Truth a little push to overcome its inertia. Without that start Truth will stand still and will never arrive at its intended destination. Truth has often died aborning for that most logical reason. Your help in this respect will prove of great value."
This thought is reminiscent of St. Paul's exhortation to the Romans:
"How then are they to call upon him in whom
they have not believed? But how are they to believe him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear, if no
preaches? And how are men to preach unless they be sent? As it is written, `How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace; of those who bring glad tidings of good things!' But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaias says, `Lord, who has believed our report?' Faith then depends on hearing, and hearing on the word of Christ" (Romans 10,14-17).
What intelligently informed person can argue the truth of his next observation:
"On the other hand Truth has many times been completely `blacked out' by repeating contradictory and conflicting untruths over and over again, AGAIN AND AGAIN. The world's recent history supplies sober testimony of the dangers to civilization inherent in that technique. That form of treason to Truth is treachery to mankind. You must be very careful, my dear Dr. Goldstein, not to become unwittingly one of the many accessories before and after the fact who have appeared upon the scene of public affairs in recent years."
There are countless instances in history - of which today is the misguided child where the misrepresentation of truth to the world has been believed for generations. We cannot change the past, but we can and must assure the present and future generations that the truth about the past represents the truth. Those who have spoken or even now speak of the past should rightly be challenged as to their competency to report the facts. Many are totally ignorant of the facts while others, knowing the facts, had reason to remain silent on the subject.
Mr. Freedman urges the necessity for truth in our time especially: " A duplication of this situation exists today with respect to the crisis which confronts the Christian faith. It is a vital factor today in the struggle for survival or the eventual surrender of the Christian faith to its enemies. The times in which we are living appear to be the `zero hour' for the Christian faith."
He could not have been more correct! Already at the time of this letter (1954), our Catholic seminaries were slyly introducing Naturalistic Modernism and a dislike for the supernatural which eventually turned into a hatred for grace.
How insightful are his observations! He writes: "As you have observed, no institution in our modern society can long survive if its structure is not from its start erected upon a foundation of Truth. The Christian faith was first erected upon a very solid foundation of Truth by its Founder. To survive, it must remain so. The deterioration, the disintegration, and finally the destruction of the structure of the Christian faith today will be accelerated in direct ratio to the extent that misrepresentation and distortion of Truth become the substitutes of Truth. Truth is an absolute quality. Truth can never be relative. There can be no degrees of Truth. Truth either exists or it does not exist. To be half-true is as incredible as to be half-honest or to be half-loyal."
Mr. Freedman begins to focus on the object of his letter : Who are the "Jews"? He begins by pointing out to Dr. Goldstein the great harm small concessions produce:
"As you have undoubtedly also learned, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in their attempt to do an `ounce' of good in one direction many well-intentioned persons do a `ton' of harm in another direction. We all learn that lesson sooner or later in life. Today finds you dedicating your unceasing efforts and your untiring energy to the task of bringing so-called or self-styled `Jews' into the Roman Catholic Church as converts. It must recall to you many times the day so many years ago when you embraced Catholicism yourself as a convert. More power to you, and the best of luck. May your efforts be rewarded with great success."
Now comes Mr. Freedman's gentle rebuke to Dr. Goldstein: " Without you becoming aware of the fact, the methods you employ contribute in no small degree to dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith." Whether this kindness on the part of Mr. Freedman is warranted remains to be seen. Nevertheless, Mr. Freedman continues: "For each `ounce' of so-called good you accomplish by conversion of so-called or self-styled `Jews' to the Christian faith at the same time you do a `ton' of harm in another direction by diluting the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. This bold conclusion on my part is asserted by me with the firm and fair conviction that the facts will support my contention. In addition it is a well-known fact that many `counterfeit' recent conversions reveal that conversions have often proved to be but `infiltrations' by latent traitors with treasonable intentions."
I urge the reader to think well on these words of a genuine convert from Judaism. The many `latent traitors' certainly
rose to high places in the Vatican and most certainly were greatly instrumental in the present destruction of the Catholic
Church. Among them was Cardinal Augustine Bea, a `Jewish' convert, who was responsible for orchestrating the sell-out of
Roman Catholic Church to "Jewish Communist controlled Central and Eastern Europe.
What better source of objective observations than from one who has been on the outside looking in, and is now on the inside looking around? Mr. Freedman states unequivocally the culpability of the Catholic clergy for the chaos he foresaw: "The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning fundamentals of the Christian faith is unwarranted and unjustified. It need not exist. It would not exist if the Christian clergy did not aid and abet the deceptions responsible for it. The Christian clergy may be shocked to learn that they have been aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of the Christian faith. Many of the Christian clergy are actually their allies but may not know it. This phase of the current world-wide campaign of spiritual sabotage is the most negative factor in the defense of the Christina faith."
Because of its extreme importance, this portion will be quoted at length. The kind reader is asked to read with great thoughtfulness what follows:
"Countless Christians standing on the sidelines in this struggle see their Christian faith `withering on the vine' and about ripe enough to `drop into the lap' of its dedicated enemies. They can do nothing about it. Their cup is made more bitter for them as they observe this unwarranted and unjustified ignorance and indifference on the part of the Christian clergy. This apathetic attitude by the Christian clergy offers no opposition to the aggressors against the Christian faith. Retreat can only bring defeat. To obviate surrender to their dedicated enemies the Christian clergy must `about face' immediately if they expect to become the victors in the invisible and intangible ideological war now being so subversively waged against the Christian faith under their very noses. When will they wake up?"
"If I were asked to recite in this letter the many manners in which the Christian clergy are confusing the Christian concept of the fundamentals of the Christian faith it would require volumes rather than pages to tell the whole story. Space alone compels me here to confine myself to the irreducible minimum. I will limit myself here to the most important reasons cited to support the matters presented in this letter. I will do my best under the circumstances to establish the authenticity of the incontestable historic facts I call to your attention here."
"In my opinion, the most important reason is directly related to your present activities. Your responsibility for this confusion is not lessened by your good intentions. As you have heard said so many times `Hell is paved with good intentions.' The confusion your articles create is multiplied a thousand-fold by the wide publicity given to them as a result of the very high regard in which you personally are held by editors and readers across the nation, Christian and non-Christian alike. Your articles constantly are continually reprinted and quoted from coast to coast."
Now comes the shocking `bomb shell' which most Catholics will recognize immediately and will not be able to deny:
"The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is the constantly repeated utterance that `Jesus was a Jew.' That also appears to be your favorite theme. That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it constantly, also without provocation. They appear to be `trigger happy' to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact by the Christian clergy with information known by them now to the contrary which comes to them from sources believed by them to be equally reliable."
Mr. Freedman plainly shows that the difference between the word `Jew' and `Judean' is as that between black and white. He says: "The word `Jew' today is never regarded as a synonym for `Judean' nor is `Judean' regarded as a synonym for `Jew.'"
He continues to explain this entire deliberate confusion created by a pressure group':
"As I have explained, when the word `Jew' was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was `Judean.' However a well-financed international `pressure group' created a so-called `secondary meaning' for the word `Jew' among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called `secondary meaning' for the word `Jew' bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word `Jew.' It is a misrepresentation.
Mr. Freedman gives several examples to illustrate what he is saying:
"The `secondary meaning' of the word `Jew' today bars as little relation to its original and correct meaning as
`secondary meaning' today for the word `camel' bears to the original and correct meaning of the word `camel,' or the `secondary meaning' today for the word `ivory.' The `secondary meaning' today for the word `camel' is a cigarette by that name but its original and correct meaning is a desert animal by that ancient name. The `secondary meaning' of the word `ivory' today is a piece of soap but its original and correct meaning is the tusk of a male elephant."
His observations are entirely correct. If you were to ask someone for a `camel,' you would be given a cigarette and not a desert animal. So, too, if you asked someone for some `ivory,' you would receive a bar of soap and not the tusk of a male elephant. Mr. Freedman continues:
"The United States Supreme Court has recognized the `secondary meaning' of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that `secondary meaning' can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled `Jews' for three centuries has created a `secondary meaning' for the word `Jew' which has completely `blacked out' the original and correct meaning of the word `Jew.' There can be no doubt about that."
There is not a person in the whole English-speaking word today who regards a `Jew' as a `Judean' in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted `secondary meaning' of the word `Jew' today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally believed theories. These four theories are that a so-called or self-styled `Jew' is (1) a person who today professes the form of religious worship known as `Judaism,' (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Biblical history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one."
The truth of Mr. Freedman's observations is certainly obvious in the attitudes of almost every English-speaking nation as can be verified by opening any Bible or commentary thereof. The confusion is so evident that one is amazed at having missed the deception. We are here unraveling that deception in order to understand exactly what Mr. Freedman has been trying for so many years to point out. If, for example, we Christians await the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and hold with the repeated assertions of theologians that one of the sure signs of His return is the "conversion of the Jews," then we had better know what the word `Jews' really means.
There are many people who claim to be `Christians' and who belong to so-called "Christian Identity" movements who have equally abused the laws of logic to do exactly the same thing that the well-organized international groups have done: They, too, have arbitrarily created a secondary meaning to the words of the Bible to fit their own particular and subjective need. Thus, an understanding of who is who is imperative to understanding the fundamental teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Claims and counter-claims abound today as never before. The problem has become aggravated by the surfacing of mini-sects among former Catholics who nonetheless insist that they are still `Catholic' though they have become practical supporters of the enemies of the Catholic Church.
"Countless Christians know today that they were `brain washed' by the Christian clergy on the subject of `Jesus was a Jew'. The resentment they feel is not apparent to the Christian clergy. Christians now are demanding from the Christian clergy `the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' It is now time for the Christian clergy to tell Christians what they should have told them long ago. Of all religious groups in the world Christians appear to be the least informed of any on this subject. Have their spiritual leaders been reckless with the truth?
Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His lifetime was a Member of a group in Judea which practised a religious form of worship then which is today called `Judaism,' or that Jesus in His lifetime here on earth was a Member of the racial group which today includes the preponderant majority of all so-called or self-styled `Jews' in the world, or that the so-called or self-styled `Jews' throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of the nation in Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on earth, or that the cultural characteristics of so-called or self-styled `Jews' throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics of Jesus during His lifetime here on earth and His teachings while He was here on earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe that the race, religion, nationality and culture of Jesus and the race, religion, nationality and culture of so-called or self-styled `Jews' today or their ancestors have a common origin or character."
There are people who have awakened to what Mr. Freedman continues to remind his readers when he often repeats the words "so-called" and "self-styled". He is telling us that these people who call themselves `Jews' are not Jews in the correct, primary meaning of the word.
He writes: "Christians now insist that they be told correctly by the Christian clergy about the racial, religious, national and cultural background of the so-called or self-styled `Jews' throughout the world and the basis for associating these backgrounds with the racial, religious, national and cultural background of Jesus in His lifetime in Judea. The intelligent and informed Christians are alerted to the exploded myth that the so-called or self-styled `Jews' throughout the world today are the direct descendants of the `Judeans' amongst whom Jesus lived during His lifetime here on earth."
"Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or self-styled `Jews' throughout the world for three centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the `Judeans' in the time of Jesus were `Jews' rather than `Judeans,' and that `Jesus was a Jew.' Christians are becoming more and more aware day by day of all the economic and political advantages accruing to the so-called or self-styled `Jews' as a direct result of their success in making Christians believe that `Jesus was a Jew' in the secondary meaning they have created for the 18th century word `Jew.'"
Let us consider some of the implications in saying that `Jesus was a Jew':
"To allege that `Jesus was a Jew; in the sense that during His lifetime Jesus professed and practised the form of religious worship known and practised under the modern name of `Judaism' is false and fiction of the most blasphemous nature. If to be a so-called or self-styled `Jew' then or now the practise of `Judaism' was a requirement, then Jesus certainly was not a so-called `Jew.' Jesus abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship practised in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practised today under the new name `Judaism.' That religious belief was then known as `Phariseeism.' The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days, but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians."
"JudaismPharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name.the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives unalteredFrom Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement" (Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith, page 21).
Our purpose here is not to examine the beliefs of those who adhere to "Judaism" as a religion. Our purpose is to establish who the people are of whom St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Romans. We have seen that Mr. Benjamin Freedman has repeatedly made the statement concerning the adherents of that sect as "so-called" and "self-styled" "Jews." We are now aware that these people are not the same ethnic peoples of the Gospel nor can we pin-point them as being the present-day descendants of the tribe of Juda.
It remains to establish their real identity, not by guessing nor by wishful thinking, but by means of rigorous logical reasoning based on the available evidence. Certainly, there is more evidence available than any one might require. The unfortunate thing is, as Mr. Freedman has pointed out, Christians (especially Catholics!) prefer to `die on the vine' through their own culpable ignorance.
St. Paul prophesied that a "remnant of Israel" will be converted in the end. Again, I draw your attention to the words of St. Paul - not those of a misinformed commentator who is trying to put words into Paul's mouth.
St. Paul was not a Judean. He was a Benjaminite - a member of the tribe of Benjamin. His tribe, as we know, remained faithful to the King of Juda when the other ten tribes abandoned Roboam to form the Kingdom of Israel. With the Judeans, the Benjaminites also went into the Babylonian Captivity. Like many of his own tribe, he had embraced the errors of the sect of the Pharisees. He persecuted all those who abandoned the sect and followed Jesus Christ with the permission of the sect leaders.
We must also keep in mind that St. Paul speaks of those among the twelve tribes whom God has foreseen to be among the elect: "God has not cast off his people whom he foreknew."
It should be obvious now that those who adhere to the Talmudic sect presently known as "Judaism" are not the Biblical Judeans nor are they Israelites. If they are not Judeans nor Israelites, they are not necessarily Semites, either. Only those would have Semitic blood who can prove their ancestry from the offspring of Sem. But, remember: They have to prove it, not just claim it. Arabs are also `Semites' because they are descended from Ismael and Esau.
(To be Continued)
Return to Contents
Return to home page.