The biblical history of the Jews

Jerm and William Finck examine the history of Hebrews and Judaism, the role of Edomites, Khazars, and Ashkenazis, and the claims of modern Judaism to the promises made to Abraham.

More Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare

Episode Transcript

(00:38):
An observation that I've made isthat there is definitely an
increase in people randomly justhating Jews.
And I think that's not a good place to be just hating because
I know good Muslims and I know good Jews and they're, they're
decent people. Yes.
And, and I'm, I'm not going to dispute the fact that you may
have had pleasant experiences with certain Jews, certain

(01:00):
Muslims, but there's an intrinsic nature in men that is
not common amongst all races, soto speak, or all men.
And, and there are intrinsic characteristics which are part

(01:22):
of our fabric that express themselves in every generation.
Now it may not express themselves in all of us, or in
all Germans or all Swedes or allJews or whatever, but it does
hold from generation to generation, these certain

(01:44):
behavioural characteristics. You can see that if you look at
if you look at, say, for example, black people over
overall, they tend to be better athletes than, say, Asians, who
tend to overall be better at technological thinking.
They can be good at certain types of technological thinking,
but they don't really develop next levels of technology.

(02:10):
They don't. They haven't.
Characteristically, they haven't.
You can give an Asian ace an iron sword and show him how to
make iron, and he could reproduce that 10 billion times,
but he never changed that iron into a rifle.
He never went to that next levelwithout Western intervention.

(02:37):
I believe that society and culture are racial constructs.
The the mainstream thinking is that race is a cultural
construct or race is a societal construct.
But no, the opposite is true wherever you take Africans.

(03:01):
When I say Africans in this sense, I mean non westernised,
not American Negroes. American Negroes have had 400
years of experience living underbasically the rule of Europeans.
Even today they're still living under the rule of Europeans.

(03:21):
They're living by laws and and customs that come from European
culture and they've been more orless compelled to do so by the
rule of law. So if you take Africans and
plant them anywhere on the planet, they're going to
reproduce as best they can with the natural resources.

(03:45):
They're going to reproduce the same culture and society they
had in Africa that they're not going to be able to do any
differently. You could take them and put them
on Jupiter and they would do thesame thing.
They would reproduce the cultureand society that they had in
Africa. White men have gone all over the
world and established wonderful civilizations.

(04:07):
Australia, New Zealand, it doesn't matter where we are, we
reproduce Western culture. What we perceive is what
culture. Yeah, it's the white people who
bought South Africa, essentially.
I wish that you could go to China, go to the inner cities,

(04:28):
see how they are. And I've never been there, but
I've seen plenty of videos. But I had been on the streets of
Chinatown in New York City for asignificant number of hours in
my younger life. And I would bet that you would
see the same thing that you see in China because the Chinese,

(04:49):
wherever they go, that's what they reproduce.
We can't homogenise our cultures.
There's always going to be resistance because we have a a
natural intrinsic character thatwe are blessed with that allows
us to establish this. And they don't have it.

(05:11):
They have a different intrinsic nature that they can't build
this on their own. They can only build it with
Western intervention. That's why these beautiful Arab
cities that we see, these wonderful skyscrapers and things
that we're building are built byGerman engineers.

(05:32):
They hired German engineering firms to build those things.
They don't do it themselves if you took those Arabs.
Did you know that all the all the water, all the sort of water
construction that's going on in Dubai is built effectively by
Dutch engineers? Yes, Well, well, that's German
enough. I mean, they're Dutch.

(05:52):
Yes, I understand that. I understand the divisions
between the people who called Dutch and the people called
Germans. But Dutch is just Deutsch to me.
It's just German that they were Germanic people.
They have the same essential ancient origins.
I wanted to actually ask you, William, to explain to me the

(06:13):
history of Jews because part of this October 7 narrative is
largely about this, the modern state of Israel fulfilling what
the Bible says. And I don't see that in the
Bible. I've got an interlinear Bible
that doesn't use the word Jew orJudaism once.

(06:36):
It shouldn't ever. Jews should never be in the
Bible. I know this confuses many
people. I know there were hundreds and
hundreds of comments on on the last the last discussion we had
had on UK column some I tried toanswer but it was just rabbit

(07:05):
holes. Rabbit holes.
I don't I'm sorry, I don't remember if I, I engaged with
several people on your comments.No, your comments on that
ukcolumn.org, the comments that that generated, I read that and
I'm like, there's no way I'm getting involved with this.
These same people are going backand forth for days and days and
I'm like, no, no, this is a timesink.

(07:27):
I'm not getting involved. I basically had a similar
discussion with James Delling Poll, and I did get involved in
the comments. They were a little more rational
on that particular discussion atthe time I engaged in it.
And that was a time sink becausepeople look at Scripture and

(07:50):
history from an emotional basis instead of looking objectively
and plainly. These Jews, these modern Jews
base their claims to Palestine on promises made to this
gentleman called Abraham, which were made almost 4000 years ago.

(08:17):
These promises that his descendants would inherit this
land and keep it forever and andthis land.
By that I mean what might be called Eretz Israel by Jews
today. It's from the river of Egypt to
the Euphrates River and from from the sea to the Euphrates

(08:40):
River. It's that entire area which
would include most of modern Syria and all of ancient Judea
and and Jordan and several othersmaller nations.
So they claim they have a right to this land based on the
promises to Abraham. Those promises to Abraham were

(09:03):
passed down to Isaac. Ishmael was excluded.
And then very explicitly in Scripture, those promises were
passed from Isaac to Jacob, and Esau was excluded, was totally
excluded. And Abraham had other sons from
Katora who were excluded. So only Jacob inherited these

(09:27):
promises. And in the book of Isaiah, in
the prophecy of Isaiah, there's something prophecy called the
controversy of Zeon. And because of the controversy
of Zeon, Yahweh would have wrathagainst Esau Edom, whom he

(09:54):
called in that chapter. I believe it's Isaiah chapter
35. Perhaps.
I'm going to look it up real quick.
Isaiah chapter 34 it starts at well, it really starts at about
verse one of that chapter, Isaiah chapter 34 for the day of

(10:19):
Yahweh's vengeance and the year of the recompenses for the
controversy of Zion. And that is how his wrath
against Edumia, the people of his curse, that's what they're
called in that chapter. That's how his wrath is, is
quantified, that it's his vengeance for the controversy of

(10:42):
Zenon. Why is that?
We have to put that in, in the back of our heads.
I believe in Malachi. There is also basically a
prophecy that Esau Edom would come and rebuild the waste
places, the desolate places. Historically those must be the

(11:07):
places that are left desolate bythe Romans where Christ had told
his enemies, your house is left to you desolate.
And within the next 100 years itwas desolated by by Rome and all
of the people of Judea were who were practising Judaism were
expelled from Jerusalem at that time.

(11:29):
So. Hang on, hang on, hang on, you
said practising Judaism at that time.
That would then suggest, William, that Judaism did exist
at that time. But wasn't it formalised
centuries after Christ in Eastern Europe?
Yes, but what is Judaism? Judaism is not the religion.

(11:54):
It's obviously not the same viewof scripture that Christ and his
apostles had. Why is it that Edom Esau would
come and rebuild the desolate places in Malachi from the time

(12:16):
of Malachi forward? Malachi was a prophet of the
Second temple period. The second temple was already
built. There was only one episode in
history which could have made that land desolate, and that
would have been the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and
Judea which began in 65AD. It didn't end in 65 to 70 AD.

(12:43):
It didn't end until the the after the the Ketos War in the
second decade of the 1st centuryAD of the 2nd century AD about
120 something AD, and then the Barkhoppa Revolt in 130
something AD. Or I might have those two events

(13:04):
in the wrong order, but that's when it finally ended.
So it took 60 or 70 years to make Jerusalem and Judea
desolate, and that's the only time in history it was made
desolate. From that biblical perspective,
Edam would return to rebuild it.According to the prophet

(13:26):
Malachi. This is only understood by the
fact that the Judeans of all thepeople of the tribe of Judah
that went into captivity. Now many of them went into

(13:48):
Assyrian captivity. At least as many as went into
Babylonian captivity. Many of them went into Assyrian
captivity in the days of Sennacherib, the king of
Assyria, about seven O 1 BC, andthe inhabitants of Jerusalem
remained and they spread back into the countryside, but they

(14:11):
went into Babylonian captivity. The survivors after Jerusalem
was destroyed by the Babyloniansin 585 BC and in the five 20s
BC, the late five 20s BC, only 42,000 of them returned and
rebuilt the temple. And the temple was rebuilt by

(14:34):
516 BC by those 42,000 people that are listed in the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah. They're both recounting the same
event under Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple.
They didn't build a 40 year temple.
They built A5 year temple. It was done in five years

(14:55):
according to those same books. So those 42,000 people probably
increased in numbers, but they never had a lot of territory
because the Edomites had taken over much of the former
territory of Judea. This is spelled out in the pages

(15:22):
of Flavius Josephus. It's also indicated in Ezekiel
chapter 35 and when John Hurtkanis became king of
Jerusalem. Jerusalem was quite powerful and
very well organised and they were able to defeat city after
city in Judea. The books usually stop by

(15:47):
referring to John Hurtkanis in his light.
He took Dor and Marissa and forcibly converted all the
inhabitants who were Edomites, as Josephus explains.
He converted them all into what By then, at that time we could
start to call Judaism, because I'm going to insist, and Judaism

(16:12):
was the the, the Greek word for the religion at the time.
It wasn't necessarily the word that the people of Juda used,
but we don't have many of their writings.
The word Judaism does not appearin the in the Septuagint, which
those people did produce. Yeah, it doesn't appear in mine.

(16:32):
It doesn't appear anywhere in my.
In my I've got the TS 2009 into linear and it doesn't appear
anywhere at all from Genesis to Revelations.
Right. So when I think of Judaism, I
think of the corrupted form of Hebrewism that began with the

(16:53):
days of John Hakanis because theEdomites were cursed.
I know what it says in Deuteronomy 23 seven, that thou
shalt not abhorrent Edomite, butI want to insist that it should
not say that and I can explain that.
It's a 10 minute explanation if you want it.
Maybe I could do it in six or seven, but in Isaiah chapter 34,

(17:18):
the Edomites are called the people of my curse in the words
of God. And in Malachi, I loved Jacob
and I hated Esau in the words ofGod.
This is God saying these things.If you're a Christian, you have
to understand that if God says the Edomites are the people of

(17:39):
his curse, you have to respect that, otherwise you're not a
Christian. Paul of Tarsus, a Christian,
repeated that clause in Malachi I Jacob I've loved and Esau I've
hated in Romans Chapter 9. So Paul of Tarsus upheld those

(18:00):
words. Paul of Tarsus also paraphrased
from this Isaiah chapter 34, buthe he didn't quote it ex
verbatim so he would also upholdthat chapter.
The words of God, if we believe God, do not fail.

(18:21):
How we interpret them fails veryoften.
In the Hebrew language there's 2letters Dayleath and Resh D&R
and they are very often confused.
I've documented on my websites alot of that confusion.
I've also documented throughout my biblical commentaries on the

(18:44):
Old Testament where those two letters were confused in many
places. So if we have a, if we had the
word Edom in Hebrew it's spelledAleph which is a or E depending

(19:05):
on how we feel like transliterating it, and then
dalep which is the D and then mem which is an M So it's Adm.
But the word aram, which is always translated as Syrian Aram

(19:26):
is ARM Alep, Reshma M. And very often that DNETR are
confused. So in Deuteronomy, in
Deuteronomy chapter 29, I believe it is, we had this

(19:49):
statement, I'm sorry, chapter 26, we had this statement.
And this is God speaking throughMoses to the children of Israel.
And thou shalt speak and say before Yahweh, thy God, a Syrian
ready to perish was my father. And he went down into Egypt and

(20:11):
sojourned there with a few and became there a nation, great,
mighty and populace. So there we see a reason why the
Israelites should have respect for Syrians and the Israelites
should have respect for Egyptians.
Now we should go back to 23 seven Deuteronomy chapter 23

(20:32):
verse 7 where it says thou shaltnot abhorrent Edomite and
understand that that's in conflict with the rest of
Scripture. It's in conflict with Isaiah
chapter 34. It's in conflict with Malachi
chapter 4. It's in conflict with Romans
Chapter 9, and it's in conflict with other scriptures.

(20:55):
If we amend that to Aram insteadof Edom, it agrees with
Deuteronomy chapter 26, Thou shalt not abhor Assyrian.
And that's how I would insist onreading that.
And I could point out probably adozen places, at least 7 or 8,

(21:19):
where those two words Aram and Edom have been confused in the
past. And this in in Scripture.
And this is documented in detailat Christogenia.
So First Chronicles chapter 13, there's a man called Obel Idam.

(21:48):
And in the Septuagint there are passages where the same word is
transliterated as Abed Arab. So there we see Edaman Arab
confusion in other places in in Genesis chapter 10 there's a
riffath and in the cephalogen it's dithath it it's AD and

(22:15):
there's a rhodanum and in the cephalogen it's dodanum and it's
AD or vice versa. So these letters are confused
very often. Significantly in First Kings
Chapter 11 where the context is very clearly a reference to
Edom, Heydad is described as an Edomite who became an adversary

(22:37):
of Solomon. But then in Chapter 11 verse 25,
the King James Version states this is First Kings Chapter 11,
verse 25, that Heydad abhorred Israel and reigned over Syria
instead of Edom because they confused the D and ER in that

(23:00):
passage. First Kings Chapter 11, read
from the verses 14 through 21 and then see verse 25 and you'll
see that confusion between the Dand ER because hey, dad ruled
Edom, he didn't rule Syria. So those words are compute.
Those letters are confused everyoften, actually hundreds of

(23:23):
times in Scripture, and sometimes it has great
significance. I'd like to give an example of
that significance. I believe it's it.
It's in Malachi chapter 4. OK, in Malachi chapter 4, verse
one, there's a phrase that says and all the proud.

(23:44):
And if you look in the Septuagint, that same phrase
says And all the aliens, all thealiens and all that do wickedly
shall be stubble in the sethragen.
But in the King James Version wesee and all the proud and all
that do wickedly shall be stubble.
That's a huge difference. How do we get to the theological

(24:06):
bottom of that? Well, the word for proud in
Hebrew is zed, and it's filled with two letters, a zaddy and a
daileth. But there's a word for stranger,
which is SER, and it's spelled with two letters, a zaddy and a
rash, ZR instead of ZD. If you read that that day left.

(24:29):
And the rash can be confused very easily in scribal cursive
handwriting. And if you read Zer or Zerim in
the plural, you'll translate it as aliens.
If you read Zed or Zed being in the plural, you'll translate it
as proud. So in the substitute we have

(24:49):
proud. In the King James Version, I'm
sorry, we have strangers. In the King James Version, we
are proud. Who is going to be burned up.
Now that's important because burning up all the strangers
means everyone who's not an Israelite.
Burning up all the proud means all of the arrogant bastards.
OK, so you would, if you're a theologian, you'd want to get to

(25:13):
the bottom of that? Yeah, and I think in the book of
Matthew, Jesus himself says he he came not for anybody other
than the lost sheep of Israel. Lost sheep of the House of
Israel. But when we get through this
Judean history and we find out that the, I can't quantify this

(25:35):
in numbers, but the Edomites hadoccupied most of the former land
of Judah, not only as far north of as Hebron.
Most of the books will tell you that they occupied as far north
as Hebron. However, Hyrcanus took Marisa,
which is 12 miles east northeastof Hebron.

(25:59):
So Edomites were further north than Hebron, right?
And, and Hebron is about 22 miles southeast of Jerusalem.
But Hercanus also conquered the Edomites at Dora, and that's a
reference to Dor on the seacoast.
And Dor is 58 miles north, northeast of Jerusalem.

(26:25):
He took them that far north. And Dora was at that time a
significant city on the coast, the coast of what would have
been the territory of the tribe of Manasseh.
So the Edomites occupied areas that were far north of Hebron
and entire cities that later Alexander Janius had conquered.

(26:49):
And most of the books don't mention Alexander Janius.
But after the time of Racanis, perhaps 30 years after Alexander
Janius had conquered all of the other Edomites and and other
aliens, people that may have been Canaanites or Syrians, and
forcibly converted them to this new religion of Judaism.

(27:11):
And that's the point where I have to call it Judaism because
it's no longer the religion of Moses that explicitly excluded
these people. And we?
See what period of sorry sorry, when would that have been more
or less on the timeline. 2nd century BC. 2nd century BC.

(27:32):
Permanently corrupted into this idea that other people can
become Israelites. That's interesting.
That kind of confirms what is itStephen Wise, I think he was an
American rabbi quite high up in the system.
He maybe 2 decades ago more or less said something to the tune

(27:54):
of the end of Hebrews. Sorry, I beg your pardon.
The the the Babylonian exile marked the end of Hebrewism and
the beginning of Judaism, which kind of aligns to what you're
saying. Yes, there there was.
I mean, OK, he's kind of close, right?

(28:18):
Because in the days of Ezra, nowmy chronology of Ezra and
Nehemiah is different than mainstream chronology, but I
know I could prove my case. So I am very confident of it.
Nehemiah was the governor of Jerusalem for the king of
Persia. He'd also been the cup bearer of
the king of Persia, a very highly trusted position.

(28:43):
So cup bearer is a is a ceremonial title.
It actually was an important member of a cabinet, so to
speak, of the King's counsellors.
So in the days of Nehemiah they were already trying to mix with
the local peoples, the Edomites and others who had been giving

(29:07):
them trouble and tried to prevent them from rebuilding the
temple. So the rebuilding of the temple
was decreed by Cyrus around 5:30BC and he died and through the
time of cambesis his son, I believe it was no Darius.

(29:27):
Yeah, through the time of his successor, I believe is it was
cambesis. I might be confused on this.
But it was prevented. They wouldn't allow the temple
to be rebuilt. And then Darius became the king
of Persia and he obeyed Cyrus's decree.
And that's why the temple wasn'trebuilt until 5:20 to 5:16 some

(29:50):
years after Cyrus made a decree.And that fulfilled the 70 years
that Jerusalem was supposed to like desolate, saying that by
the time of Nehemiah he was roaming.
He was Persian governor of Judeaof Jerusalem from five O 3 to
490 BC. In 490 BC, he his ministry in

(30:12):
Jerusalem was terminated, and there's reason for that.
And the building in Jerusalem isterminated.
The Temple was built and Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of
the city, but he never built theentire city.
It was terminated because 490 BCwas the year of the Battle of
Marathon, and the Persians recalled all their important

(30:32):
resources to prepare for an assault against Greece.
That planning began at that time, but it wasn't fulfilled
until the time of Xerxes, the next king of Persia.
So Xerxes invaded Greece, and that didn't happen for another

(30:57):
10 years, I believe, or maybe 20years.
No, 10 years, I think the battles of Salamis and for
Tahia, those battles. So Persia suffered a huge loss
in the invasion of Greece and they really did.

(31:17):
It was really devastating. So the Persian king Xerxes
retreated and Persia remained fairly quiet for some a couple
of decades. Ezra was commissioned about
sometime around 460 BC to returnand rebuild to continue the

(31:39):
rebuilding of Jerusalem and actually rebuild the the city
itself, where Nehemiah had only rebuilt the walls and so Babel
had only built the temple. We see in both books, Ezra and
Nehemiah, in times that are contemporary to them, that the

(32:00):
priests, especially in Jerusalem, the Levitical
priests, we're encouraging race mixing with the local people
contrary to the Law of Moses, that you could say that that's
where Judaism began. But both times that was
corrected down in the 2nd century, it was never corrected.

(32:24):
It was permanent. So Rabbi Stephen Wise is kind of
accurate, but I would amend it slightly.
That's all. That's the only difference.
But it's true. That's when Judaism began.
Judaism is a corruption of the laws of Moses and the religion
of of the patriarchs and and of David and and the ancient

(32:48):
Kingdom. Obviously Jesus himself was not
a Jew. The people he spoke to would
have become Jews at a later stage.
In the formal sense they would have been what, proto Jews or
something? Because they had moved away from

(33:09):
Hebrewism. They were this conglomerate of
customs, traditions, beliefs that eventually all kind of
amalgamated into what would become Talmudic Judaism.
Am I? Am I correct?
Well, well, yes, but the Talmud in many, many ways is absolutely

(33:35):
contrary to the Old Testament. It's absolutely contrary.
In the Talmud, for instance, a Jew is.
And I don't have all these chapters and verses in my head,
but I could come up with these citations if I need to, and I'm
sure many of them are on my website already.
In the Talmud, it's OK for a Jewto take the property of a

(33:58):
Gentile. The gentiles should own nothing
and Jews should own everything. But in the.
Word gentiles also means something, but hold on, the word
gentile also I'm. Not using gentile in the
traditional Judeo Christian sense of non Jew because that's
how the Talmud uses it. It it's not a good translation

(34:22):
of the Latin term Gentiles at all.
So but that's the way Jews use the term.
Christians should not use the term in that manner.
It's a deception. It's a Jewish deception.
So in the time when it's OK for a Jew to take the property of
people of other religions, that the the Jews deserve it all and

(34:50):
the other people don't deserve anything.
But in the in the books of Moses, the Israelites are
specifically told on several occasions to have one law for
themselves and for the strangersamong them, the same law.

(35:10):
They should judge themselves andthe strangers among them by the
same law. That's explicit in the laws of
Moses. So the Talmud in that aspect is
absolutely contrary to the laws of Moses.
The Israelites were not permitted, permitted to cheat

(35:31):
the people that they traded with.
They would have one law in the Talmud.
You could cheat and swindle everybody that's not a Jew.
The Hebrew Bible in the Scriptures, in the laws of
Moses. It's my opinion that paedophilia
is so reviling that it's not even mentioned.

(35:55):
But in reality, in ancient reality, a father has absolute
power and ownership of his children, His absolute power
over his children. So it's the father's
determination what is done with his children and nobody else's.

(36:17):
So the father wants to marry offhis daughter, 10 years old.
There's really no law preventinghim.
If you have an upright father, he's going to look out for the
interests of his daughter and he's not going to marry her off
at 10 years old. That being said, pederasty or

(36:39):
or, I'm sorry, sodomy or homosexuality is punishable by
death and it doesn't matter it it's sex between males and it's
punishable by death and it doesn't matter the age of the
males. But in a Talmud, it's completely
acceptable for a man to have, and it's explicitly permitted

(37:05):
for a man to have sex with a child, male or female, doesn't
matter between 3:00 and 9:00 years of age.
And it's counted nothing. It's not an offence in the
Talmud. Yeah.
William, when we talk about whenyou talk about a Jew or Judaism,

(37:29):
what are we actually talking about?
We're talking about, OK, the these Edomites were all
converted into this religion that we must call Judaism by
this time. It's not the Hebrew Bible, it's
not Israelite in nature. It didn't come from Moses that

(37:52):
this idea that you could mix allthe races, circumcise them,
convert them in and they're they're Israelites all of a
sudden and they're God's chosen people all of a sudden.
That's not true. There were laws that certain
people could, could become part of the body, body politic of

(38:14):
Israel, certain kindred nations.But the Canaanites were
explicitly excluded from those laws.
So were the Moabites, so were the Ammonites, and so were the
Edomites and the Ishmaelites. They were all excluded from
those laws. But these are the people that
Hyrcanus and Alexander Janius converted to Judaism.

(38:40):
They mixed with the Judeans. They began to intermarry with
the Judeans. Christ comes along in the 1st
century and says, My sheep hear my voice.
And he says to his, Those who opposed him, You do not believe
me because you are not my sheep.The church teaches you are not

(39:06):
my sheep. They're not a sheep because they
didn't believe them. That's not what he said.
He said you do not. John, chapter 10, verse 26.
It's very explicit. There's only one way to
translate it. I read Greek.
You can't possibly translate this any other way.
You do not believe me because you were not my sheep, period.

(39:29):
If they're not a sheep, they're not as people.
If they don't believe him, they're not as people.
That's what Christ said. If you're a Christian and you
don't believe that, then you're denying Christ.
It's real simple. It's not complicated.
Look at the history to see why that could be.

(39:53):
And it's very clear that all of these Edomites were folded in
with the into the same people asthe Judeans.
They intermarried with the Judeans.
There's all sorts of proof of that in the pages of Flavius
Josephus, who was a Judean historian, but he was a real

(40:13):
Israelite. He was a Levite.
He was from the tribal Levi. He was a priest from Galilee,
not in the Temple. So.
He's not really a priest, he's aLevite.
The priests are chosen out of the tribal Levi, but Levites had
many priestly duties. They were the teachers of

(40:35):
scripture and the synagogue, butthey were also the town clerks
and administrators of the Old Kingdom.
So Herod comes to power in 36 BC.
He actually had administrative positions in Judea under the

(40:55):
legitimate high priests, the Hasmoneans before that, and the
Judeans constantly had rebelled against the Romans.
The Romans came and conquered Judea in 63 BC, but the Judeans
were constantly in a state of rebellion until Herod got the

(41:17):
Edomites to take the side of Rome and Herod was made king and
Herod and this is explained at length in Flavius Josephus in
Antiquities of the Judeans. Herod had actually wiped out all
the family of the Hasemonians and taken power to themselves

(41:39):
and killed many the priests and the noble people in Jerusalem
and replaced them all with his own people, replaced the high
priest with his own people, and all of the people who had
offices of authority he replacedwith his own people.

(42:00):
Who did he replace them with? Israelites or Edomites it it
should be pretty clear who we replace them with, even though
each individual isn't spelled out.
This one's an Edomite, this one's an Israelite.
No, he replaced them with Edomites with his own people.

(42:21):
Someone said to me the other day, yes, but Paul was a Jew.
He even referred to himself as an Edomite.
No, that's a lie. Paul described himself as a
Benjaminite of the tribe of Benjamin I.
Beg your pardon? He didn't say Edomite.
I think he said Pharisee. I beg your pardon.
But but the Pharisees were Edomites.

(42:42):
Pharisee was a political party. Look at America.
Look at the Republicans. We have white Republicans, Black
Republicans, Indian Republicans,Chinese Republicans.
Pharisee was a political party. That political party didn't rise
or or at least let me say that Josephus doesn't mention any

(43:04):
existence of political parties. He says that they began in the
time of John Herkanis and one ofthem was called Sadducees and
one of them was called Pharisees.
And at that time there were other break off groups that
didn't want anything to do with either one of them.
One of those break off groups was later called the Essenes.

(43:27):
So it it's peculiar. It's not peculiar, not really.
Pharisee originally meant separatist, but the Jews will
tell you it means religious separatist.
But how does a party that means separatist suddenly arise when
John Herkanis wants to take Edomites and turn them into

(43:50):
Judeans and this party called the separatists appears?
OK, so I could read the handwriting between the lines,
but that's when the parties arose and they were only
political parties, competing political parties.
And the Sadducees, we're a partythat basically denied the role

(44:13):
of God in the world, the existence of the Spirit after
death. Josephus explains all that and
it's also explained in in not somany words in the New Testament
that the Sadducees had those atheistic or or at least they
couldn't deny God, not at that time.

(44:35):
They couldn't deny that God existed.
So they denied that he had any interest in the affairs of men,
as Josephus explains it. So you have these political
parties and they're competing. Most of the high priests, if not
all appointed from time of Herodforward were Sadducees.

(44:59):
I can't name one that was a Pharisee.
There may have been one, but most of them are identifiable as
Sadducees explicitly so. Sadducees had the control of the
High Priesthood for perhaps 2/3 of the time from the death of

(45:21):
Herod to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in
7080. So in many ways, Jesus, who was
a Hebrew and not a another Jew in in the sense that we
understand today, right, he was very much an outlier.

(45:44):
Yes, they were outliers. It's you really have to read a
lot to understand the truth of what I'm trying to convey.
John the Baptist, he was born from a priestly family.
His father was a priest. He was a Levite, not at all the

(46:05):
the he was the cousin of Christ through Mary, but Christ was of
the tribe of Judah by the circumstances of his birth.
His his adopted father, right. His natural father, of course,
is God, but his perceivable father was the wife of his

(46:26):
mother when he was born, and that's the husband of his mother
when he was born. And that's Joseph of Nazareth,
and he was of the tribe of Judah.
So Christ was of the tribe of Judah in that manner, and Mary
was probably of the tribe of Judah.
And there are theological reasons for that.

(46:48):
It can't be proven one way or another because it's never
explicit, but Mary and Elizabethcertainly can be cousins, being
women and be of two different tribes of Israel.
That's very possible and I couldprobably make illustrations in a
few minutes as to why, but I shouldn't have to do that here.
So Johnny Baptist is baptising in the river.

(47:13):
When we look at the the book of Ezekiel, he was in the captivity
and he opens his book in chapter1 explaining that he was praying
by the river. When we look at the Acts of the
Apostles and where Paul encounters a woman named Lydia

(47:35):
in Macedonia and in a city in Macedonia and he meets a group
of women, among whom is this woman Lydia, and they are
praying by a river on the Sabbath.
And from those two books, 2 Witnesses right there, we can
see that the Hebrews, the Israelites, when they didn't

(47:56):
have a synagogue to attend, where they could hear readings
of the Scripture, they typicallywent to the rivers, went to the
riverbanks on the Sabbath, and prayed by the river.
But there were synagogues in Judea.
And in spite of the fact that there were synagogues in Judea,

(48:18):
John the Baptist had a very successful ministry baptising
people in a river. Why?
Because many of the Israelites, the true Israelites in Judea,
must have become outliers. They must have been disaffected
from the from the Edomite controlled society to have even

(48:40):
been by the rivers on the Sabbath days.
Why else would they be there? And that's where John the
Baptist ministry was successful and that's why it was
successful. That's the only thing that
explains that is that the disaffected people were going to
the rivers where they were baptised by John.

(49:04):
So how did we end up where we are now?
It it's a long story, but in Judea after the time of Christ
and this I, I could walk throughthe words of the prophets in
order to determine in or in order to prove this to fully

(49:25):
demonstrate it. But it would take much too long
a time for for this conversation.
And today at the time of Christ,the real history lights my sheep
hear my voice. They became Christians, becoming
Christians. They left behind their identity

(49:48):
as Judahites or Israelites, or Ishould say Judeans, because Jew
isn't a proper word. It's a contraction of Judean, a
modern contraction. So they left behind that
identity and they identified themselves as Christians.

(50:10):
The people who did not accept Christ remained as Judeans and
suffered in in the the wars withthe Romans, but they were never
eradicated. They maintained the identity of
Jews, of Judeans, which was later contracted into Jews.

(50:37):
So that identity of Judeans thatwas later contracted into Jews
belongs to all of the people of Judea who did not accept Christ,
and Christ told them, you do notbelieve me because you are not
my sheep. They're not as people.

(50:58):
That's why in Revelation chapter2 we have those who say they are
Judeans and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.
Satan just means adversary. Above Christ on the cross, it
would have actually said King ofJudea, not all king of the
Judeans, not king of the Jews. Yes, but Christ never said that.

(51:21):
Yes. So it doesn't matter what's
written above Christ on the on the cross.
If you read the Gospels, Christ never said I'm the king of the
Jews or I'm the king of the Judeans.
He never said that. His enemies accused him of it.
His enemies said he's trying to make himself king.

(51:44):
Christ never tried to make himself king.
His enemy said that. So Pilate wrote it.
He wrote it to taunt his enemies.
Pilate was forced politically toallow him to be executed, to be
crucified. They had him in a political
stranglehold and you have to understand Roman and Judean

(52:06):
politics and Judean politics in relation to Rome in order to
understand why. So that's also a long
discussion. But the the Judeans, the leaders
that wanted Christ executed, hadPilot in a political
stranglehold. He had to accede to their wishes
if he himself cared about his own welfare.

(52:30):
So for his own self interests hehad no choice.
He allowed him to be crucified. But he was taunting them by
writing that on the cross, and they begged him not to write it.
And he said that which is written is written, and he left
it. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the

(52:50):
Judeans, is what it should say. So Christ never said that.
He never declared that of himself.
One of the other talking points that always comes up, William,
is that Jews are from the tribe of Judah.
I see it all the time. I hear it all the time.

(53:12):
This is an established fact thatJews are basically from the
tribe of Judah. But the established facts are
simply Jewish propaganda. They're factoids.
They are not facts. I'm going to read from real
quick. I would like to read from three

(53:33):
sources. I will really try to keep this
brief. This is all at my website.
It's all documented there. I'm going to read from a
facsimile from Encyclopaedia Judaica, and this is volume 10,
page 23, and it's published in 1971.

(53:56):
And it says, and it, and it gives an explanation of how the
word Jew became such a curse. The the word was disparaged.
It was used in in that tenor as as a curse by white Europeans
and it says Jews because they wanted to escape that

(54:17):
association. That's how this article explains
it. But the rather the semantics of
popular usage were the reason for the problem with the word
Jew. And it says in order to avoid
the unwelcome associations and connotations of the word, Jews
began in the 19th century to call themselves Hebrews and

(54:39):
Israelites. Now that's a Jewish source and
they cite an example, the Alliance Israelite Universal or
the Universal Alliance of Israelites, an organisation
founded in 1860 that also happens to be the organisation
that commissioned Marx to write the Communist Manifesto, by the

(55:03):
way, that came from. A coincidence?
Yeah, just a coincidence. A coincidence?
Yeah. So that's one Jewish source very
clear. Jews began in the 19th century
to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites, but it's not true.
So I'm going to read one more source.

(55:24):
This is from the Jewish Almanack.
This is published in October of 1980 by Bantam Books.
And on page three it says, strictly speaking, this is a
brief history of the terms for Jew.
And it says, strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an

(55:48):
ancient Israelite a Jew or to call a contemporary Jew an
Israelite or a Hebrew. Jews know what I'm saying.
The Jewish scholars, the rabbis know what I'm talking about if

(56:09):
they're truly Jewish scholars. And that's two Jewish sources
which support what I'm saying. I have many other sources on my
website from ancient books whichsupport what I'm saying.
So what do we believe? Do we believe what we see on TV
or do we believe the contemporary evidence of Flavius

(56:30):
Josephus? And, and I've quoted other Greek
writers, outsiders who have saidthe same things, who have
summarised the same things that Josephus explains in detail,
that the true people of Judah, the true Judeans and the

(56:52):
Edomites were all mixed up with one another in Judea,
practising, practising the same laws and customs.
Christ said my sheep hear my voice.
They converted to Christianity. The apostle James in Acts
chapter, it's out of chapter 20 or 21.

(57:13):
I think it's chapter 21 told Paul of Tarsus that there were
thousands. He said myriads, which is
actually 10s of thousands, myriads of people in Judea that
believed in Christianity. The context was Speaking of
Christianity. There are significant sects of

(57:39):
Judeans who were later Christians.
The Ebenite Christians are one of those sects.
So when is a Christian going to consider all of these things?
That these people are really Edomites, the people of God's
curse? They didn't believe Christ

(58:00):
because they weren't his sheep. And consider the theological
implications of that, that the promises to Abraham were not
made to them. Where does the Eastern European
link come in? The Caesars were a powerful

(58:21):
nation probably by the 5th century BC.
They were probably, at least forthe most part, very much like
Europeans in their ethnicity originally.
Because originally most people in Mesopotamia, the Levant,

(58:45):
Syria, the Caucasus mountain regions were European.
They were European in their ethnicity.
So those places didn't become brown, so to speak, Arab until
after the rise of Islam and the invasions of the Turks.

(59:10):
The rise of Islam was in the 7thcentury AD.
That is when Northern Africa wastaken from the Phoenicians and
the Vandals who were essentiallythe same people as Europeans,
and the Vandals were Germanic. And that is when the entire
Levant and all the way to Persiawere taken by Arabs and an

(59:33):
Arabization process began and the Arabs introduced them of
many Negro slaves. And eventually it it changed
that whole ancient world into anArab world.
So it's ethnography. Ethnographically, I'm sorry,
it's ethnographically very different today than it was

(59:58):
before the rise of Islam. Very different.
Now Egypt had already absorbed alot of Negro blood, of black
blood, sub Saharan African blood, but that's a different
story. Egypt and Ethiopia were also
originally white, and this I could establish in in not only

(01:00:21):
in history but in language and in archaeological relics.
Many, many archaeological relics.
But Ethiopia was probably that they were ruling kings of Kush
were ruling over Nubia and the peoples.
The two peoples were mixing by the 8th century BC and they

(01:00:44):
conquered Egypt at the end of that century I believe.
And they had the 25th dynasty ofPharaohs were Pharaohs,
Ethiopian Pharaohs from Pharaohsfrom Kush and that 25th dynasty.
During that time much Nubian blood was introduced into Egypt.

(01:01:05):
So the Egypt had become Arab. Arab means Arab is a word which
means mixed in Hebrew. Originally it was used of
various white tribes that had mixed with each other.
But in the Islamic period, you had the introduction of other
races into the bloodlines of of the Middle East and Near East.

(01:01:35):
The Khazars became a powerful nation and they were used as a
as a way for the Jews to get even with Byzantium.
When the Byzantine kings had adopted Christianity and started

(01:01:58):
to make laws favouring Christians over Jews and
basically marginalising Jews in many aspects of government and
society. Many Jews left the Byzantine
Empire and many of them went to Arabia, and the outcome of that

(01:02:18):
was the foundation of Islam, andmany of them went to Khazaria.
Well, are you? Did you just suggest that Islam
could be an offshoot of Judaism?I know Islam's an offshoot of
Judaism. Judaism is written, I wonder

(01:02:39):
God, it's written all over the Quran.
Muhammad was a Jew. I'm not saying this.
Edward Gibbon, the rise and fallof Rome, famous historian, 18th
century. He said Muhammad was a Jew.
William Alzag, a historian of the church, 19th century.

(01:03:02):
He said Muhammad was a Jew, not me.
So I have documentation of this on my website.
The more they examine the Quran,the more you examine the Quran.
And in the hadith Muhammad is. I don't know if it's explicit or
not. I have to read it for myself and

(01:03:23):
examine the meanings, the original words.
I'm not really into Arabic. Arabic is basically a bastard
stepchild of Aramaic that wasn'teven really a single language
until the Quran. And the rise of Islam unified
this Arabic language amongst theregional Arabs.

(01:03:45):
So that there's a lot to the rise of Islam and the forces
behind it that's basically disguised from the general
public. It's history that's
uncomfortable, that's not reallyspoken of.
But it's very plausible that Muhammad was at least from a
Jewish mother. That's pretty much

(01:04:08):
establishable. I read, yeah, I read somewhere
that he, that he, he actually hung out with rabbis.
Yeah, yes, he was very close to Jews and that Quran is just a a
mishmash of Arab and Jewish traditions and and Hebrew

(01:04:33):
apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. And a lot of people are really
deceived into this idea that Islam recognises Jesus.
I've read those parts of the Quran where Christ and the
apostles are discussed and described, and it's not the

(01:04:57):
Jesus of the Gospels, it's not the apostles of the Gospels.
It's a caricature of Jesus. It's a caricature of the
apostles. And it's just a total totally
fictional portrayal of Christ and the apostles as Muslims.

(01:05:20):
It's not real. It's 7th century Jewish bullshit
is what it is. That's what it is.
It's not real. It's anti Christian because it
invents a very different Jesus that we see in the canonical
scriptures. Sorry to.

(01:05:43):
But you were, you were you were.You were about to tell me more
about the the Khazars. OK, the Jews were basically
alienated from Christian Byzantium.
So they went to Algeria, they went to Arabia, they went to
Khazaria, and they used the people in Arabia and Khazaria

(01:06:07):
and Algeria, they used those people in order to get
retribution against the Byzantine Empire.
So they organised those people into a religion that they could
use as an as a hammer against the Byzantines, against

(01:06:28):
Christianity. To what degree Jews mixed with
Caesars, converted them and mixed with them.
I know that there's this fantastic story about a king
that was enchanted and he heard out a Christian, a rabbi and an
imam, a Muslim, and he decided on Islam to be a state religion.

(01:06:52):
I've heard that story and that alot of people attribute that
story to author Kosler, who wrote a book called The 13th
Tribe in about the 1950s. But it's not his story.
He didn't make, he didn't inventit.

(01:07:14):
He didn't make it up. The story is really told by a a
man who is a very highly esteemed Jewish historian.
I don't know how much he's worthy of that esteem, but I'm
not going to comment on that. But his name was Heinrich Gratz
GRAETZ. He told that story.

(01:07:39):
I have his books here, all six volumes I have here in my
backroom. I think I have two copies.
So. So Heinrich Gratz told that that
exact story about how the quasars became Muslims and the
origin of the Khazarian Jews. He told that story.

(01:08:01):
And that's where that's the mostlikely source for Arthur
Kosler's the 13th Tribe. The the Jews intermingled
heavily with the Khazar people. And that gives us our Ashkenazi
Jews. But the word Ashkenazi isn't to
be confounded with the Khazars. The word Ashkenazi is the slant,

(01:08:26):
the slander that Jews put upon Germans.
The ger. The Jews called the Germans
Ashkenazi, which isn't true in the Middle Ages, and they call
themselves Ashkenazi Jews, whichshould be translated to German
Jews. That's the way the Jews use the
term in their rabbinical literature.

(01:08:50):
These czars, which later became Ashkenazi Jews.
The Jews may have intermarried with them and converted many of
them, but the preponderance of them became Muslims.
All of the invaders that the Jews used against Byzantium were

(01:09:12):
Muslims. And the common denominator
between the East, where you haveTurks that are suddenly Muslims,
and Arabs in the South, which are suddenly Muslims, is Jews.
They're in both places. How did that happen?
That's another coincidence. Coincidence, yes.

(01:09:35):
So it's not a coincidence at all.
Jewry leverage these alien peoples to assault Christian
Byzantium and it took many centuries for them to gain the
vengeance that they wanted. On 700 years they also used
those peoples to assault Christian Spain and and it was

(01:09:58):
Goths, it was Germanic Goths whohad control of Spain at the
time. Primarily there was a large
population of Jews in the very South of Spain, but they were
basically expelled and they cameback with the Muslim hordes and
they occupied most of Spain for up to 700 years.

(01:10:21):
They occupied or they assaulted the Byzantine Empire in the East
for 700 years. From the time of the rise of
Islam to the time of the fall ofCount Constantinople was
actually more like 800 years. It took them to accomplish that,

(01:10:44):
but that's their vengeance. And historically the Jews went
when the Jews in Spain were, were, well, I'm not going to say
suffering when they were pretending to be suffering
because it was really only vengeance.
Under the the Spanish Reconquista, they found their

(01:11:05):
allies where in the Turks. The Jews and the Muslims have
always historically been allies everywhere but in Palestine in
recent times, they've always been close allies against
Christians because Jews created Islam so that they could have

(01:11:25):
the the manpower to assault Christianity.
Summarise everything you've said.
Jews are not Israelites or Hebrews.
It it's very simple. It's demonstrable in history.
It's demonstrable in Scripture if Christians want to.

(01:11:47):
If Christians claim to be Christians, they should believe
Christ. Christ often quoted from Isaiah
and from Malachi. They should believe Malachi and
Isaiah. They should believe these things
and accept them and consider thetheological consequences.
Because these modern Jews are not Israelites, they do not

(01:12:09):
merit any claim to the promises made to Abraham, period.
When would you argue Judaism began and who were the Jews of
the Bible? Right.
Judaism began as a corruption ofthe religion of Moses in the 2nd

(01:12:32):
century BC. That's when the change became
permanent. And when the people who were
cursed in the Old Testament became Judeans, they eventually
became known as Jews. I don't know why.
And it's so hard for people to understand it.

(01:12:57):
It's it's. Probably because it's it's
because of that whole quote unquote Judeo Christian
paradigm. Yes, it's horrible poison.
It's actually poison. It gives Satan a right to rule
over us is what it does. And that's why Satan developed

(01:13:20):
it, because from the very beginning, Jews persecuted
Christianity. Jews leverage Rome, Pagan Rome,
to persecute Christianity for 300 years.
This is in writing in 4th century writings, 3rd century
writings of Tertullian, a Christian Bishop of Hippo or

(01:13:42):
Cottage, and Minutia's Felix, another Christian apologist of
that time. They both wrote that it was Jews
who were persecuting Christianity, using Rome to do
so. And we see that same pattern in
the in the ministry of Paul of Tarsus, in the book of Acts,
that the Jews would go out and get the Greeks, the lowlife

(01:14:04):
Greeks, the the common riffraff from the markets to attack
Christians. So this has been going on and it
went on for 300 years. But when Christianity was
finally accepted by Rome, the rabbi's set themselves up as the
authorities on the Bible. And Christians appeal to rabbis

(01:14:27):
to understand the Hebrew Old Testament.
They should have never had to dothat.
They should have never done that.
So Jews became the authorities of what they persecuted, and
they have been ever since. But Jews have no authorities.
The New Testament itself explains to us Paul of Tarsus,
First Corinthians. I'm sorry, maybe it's Second

(01:14:50):
Corinthians chapter 3. I believe Paul of Tarsus
explains that unless you have Christ meaning his words and his
explanations, you cannot understand Moses.
How can my audience follow your work?
Christogenia.org. That's Christ.
Christ OGENEA. That's 2 words that can mean

(01:15:16):
race of Christ, or birth of Christ, or anointed race,
however you want to say it. That's three possible
definitions. There might be 1/4.
Peter tells Christians that theyare an anointed race, a holy
priesthood. That's first Peter.
I think it's chapter 2. It might be chapter 1.

(01:15:39):
I forget I'm bad at that. But that that's Peter, the
apostle and companion of Christ,telling Christians that they are
the anointed people and the chosen people, these Jews, these
Edomites, or never be anointed people or the chosen people.

(01:16:03):
They were the people of God's curse.
If Christians believe their Bibles, they would believe that.
William Fink, thank you for joining me the changes.