Friday, August 29, 2008

Apologetics Links

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Terri Schiavo Remembered - 1 0f 4

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech

The Benjamin Freedman Speech

From BluWiki

Twenty Five Lies of Benjamin Freedman

NOTE to BlackBay: I don't debate here. I debate at rodoh.us -- come there and offer your counterarguments, OK?

Daryl Bradford Smith makes a big deal out of this speech on his Web site. Here are twenty-five lies told by Freedman -- and repeated by Daryl Bradford Smith:

(1) "In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes."

In the forty-six years since this speech was delivered, not one U.S. soldier has fought in Israel or the Palestinian territories.

(2) "[T]he United States will trigger World War III."

Hasn't happened yet.

(3) "[T]he Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists."

There was never a Palestinian government to resurrect. Nominal political control over the Palestinian people had been exercised by Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but this was during the period that Palestine was still a British colony. That mandate expired on May 15, 1948, and the same day, Israel declared its statehood. The Palestinians, by contrast, when the war was over, were occupied by either Egypt (in the Gaza strip) or Jordan (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). Neither power offerered the Palestinians autonomy, much less statehoof. King Abdullah of Jordan never even entertained the idea. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made moves toward an "All-Palestine Government," but didn't act against Israel militarily until 1967 -- six years after Freedman gave this speech.

(4) "Within two years Germany had won that war [World War I]: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually."

Freedman claims that before August 1, 1916, Germany had won the World War I. This is simply not true.

Germany was fighting a two-front war during World War I. Plus it had soldiers deployed in the Middle East to assist the Ottoman Turks, who were losing badly and would continue to lose until all their territory was gone. During the period that Freedman is discussing, Germany was fighting the combined forces of France and the British Empire (Canadian, Indian, South African, and ANZAC troops were there also) at the Battle of the Somme. The battle went from July 1, 1916, to November 18, 1916, and was declared a stalemate. Losses for both sides were about equal, which means Germany actually lost more troops because it was fighting alone on its own side. At the same time, beginning before the Battle of the Somme and ending afterwards, the Germans lost to the French at Verdun, though they sustained fewer casualties. The losses for Germany were so severe that she changed her position on the Western front from offensive to defensive, which remained the case until surrender in November 1918.

Germany did rather better on the Eastern Front, driving into Poland and ultimately leading to the tsar's overthrow in March 1917. But Germany was still fighting Russia in the summer of 1916, as well as in the Middle East with the Turks.

(5) "At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed."

Neither the French troops nor the Russian troops had mutinied at the time Freedman says they did. French losses at Verdun were around 150,000 -- not 600,000, as Freedman claims. If the Italian army had collapses, that would be a surprise to the Italian soldiers at the Battle or Gorizia, where the Italians defeated Austria-Hungary in eleven days.

(6) "[T]he Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: 'Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.'"

There's a staggering amount of disinformation in here. First, there was no German peace offer, and if there were, it would have been coming from a position of weakness to better fight on their Eastern Front.

(7) "They [Zionists] told England: 'We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.'"

This is very interesting given the actual state of affairs in the Middle East at that time. England and France had already divided up the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. In fact, they had done so the previous year -- with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement). It hadn't promised Palestine to anyone -- it had left it an issue to be decided in the future.

(8) "However, they [the British] made that promise, in October of 1916"

I have no idea where Freedman gets this date, given that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been signed in May 1916, and it contravened the only other possible offer on the table at the time, which was the promise by Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein of Mecca (father of Abdullah I of Jordan) that Arab nationalism would be realized with the defeat of the Turks. However, none of McMahon's correspondence ever promises him Palestine.

(9) "Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany."

Actually it was six months later, on April 6, 1917, and it was Congress that declared war, the President not being allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December, with less than a year left in the war. Notably, the U.S. never declared war on the Ottomans? Why not? Because they were finished by then. Given that it was the Ottomans who controlled Palestine up to this point, how could U.S. entry have secured this if it came so late?

The answer is that it couldn't.

Moreover, Freedman completely ignores the importance of the Zimmermann Telegram, a communique sent by the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Mexico, urging it to form an alliance against the U.S. This was the smoking gun that led the U.S. into the war. Interventionism was the result of the fear of the Germans (who, remember, were not winning the war -- the telegram dates from January 1917) that the U.S. would enter to stake territory for its Allies. There was, after all, already an Allied Expeditionary Force of American soldiers fighting in Europe.

(10) "After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration."

So according to Freedman's chronology, in October 1916, the British promise the Zionists Palestine, it takes them six months to get us into the war, but the Balfour Declaration still wasn't issued until seven months after we declared war on Germany. This doesn't add up.

(11) "Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know."

Well, Bernard Baruch was certainly at the Paris Peace Conference, but where this figure of 116 other Jews as a separate delegation (Baruch was with the American delegation; after all, he was head of the War Industries Board). As for Freedman being there, I have yet to see a single independent source that verifies he was there. Not one.

(12) "The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, 'How about Palestine for us?'"

Well, first of all, the land that was cut out of Germany was land that was, with very few exceptions, populated by non-German people, e.g., Poland. Austria ceded Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, these being Slavic nations whereas Austria was and is a Germanic nation.

But the real kicker is that the "Jewish delegation" demanded Palestine at this point. While it is true that an important agreement on Palestine was made at this point, it was not made between Bernard Baruch and the British government, as Freedman would have us believe. Rather, the agreement was made between Chaim Weizmann and the leader of the Arab delegation. Weizmann was of course a Zionist but a British citizen -- not one of these virtually nonexistent German Zionists that we're told about.

Freedman doesn't tell us about the Arab delegation, but it was led by Sharif Hussein's other son, Faisal, who would become the first King of Iraq. You can read the agreement here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html

So Britain didn't hand Palestine over to the Zionists. Ultimately, it was Faisal that did.

(13) "And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, 'Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.' And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."

Given that the New York Times published news of the Balfour Declaration a mere twelve days after the declaration was issued, it was a known agreement by the time of the Paris Peace Conference. (There were two more stories in the Times alone before the Peace Conference began.) In other words, Freedman was lying.

Notably, it is on the basis of this lie that Freedman then argues that the Germans were justified in their hatred of Jews. He ignores all evidence of German anti-Semitism between 1871 and 1919.

(14) "When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition."

In 1933, the only people in concentration camps were political prisoners and not Jews. More on this below.

(15) "They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time."

That's an exaggeration obviously, but even more so for 1933 in Germany. The KPD (Communist Party) in Germany was led by Ernst Thaelmann, a Gentile. He was arrested and put in Dachau in 1933 and kept in solitary confinement until Hitler had him shot in 1944. But Jews in Germany tended not to vote for the KPD, despite its quite excellent returns in the elections between 1929 and 1932 (it always polled in the top three parties). Most Jews in Germany voted instead for the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. This was not a communist party.

An illustrative example can be made with the situation in the Soviet Union, where far more leaders of the Communist Party there were Jews. Even conceding that this is the case, the vast majority of Jews in Russia between March 1917 and November 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, were not in communist parties. They tended to be either in Zionist parties or in the Jewish Bund or the PSR (social democrats). These latter two parties were the only parties in the USSR condemn the Bolshevik coup in the Congress of Deputies that had been established after the tsar had been overthrown.

Germany had even fewer Jews and, given the explanation already given that their living standard was better in Germany and that they fled there from Russia in 1905, it is not unreasonable to conclude that fewer Jews were communists in Germany than in Russia, particularly in 1933.

(16) "Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days."

As already demonstrated, the KPD existed in Germany, as did the SPD, and their platforms were so different, in fact, that the KPD refused to join SPD-led governments.

(17) "Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words 'made in Germany' on it."

The Untermeyer boycott was so incredibly ineffective that Germany had experienced complete economic recovery by 1937.

(18) "The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that."

The largest Christian organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. In his 1965 encyclical Nostra Aetate, Pope Paul VI wrote, "The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people."

I think the Pope probably can speak on greater authority on these matters than Freedman.

(19) "The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars."

While there is no doubt that the Khazarian Empire adopted Judaism as its official religion and that this empire stretched into parts of Eastern Europe, there was still a settlement of Jews along the Rhine Valley that pre-dated the Khazars. They did not emigrate to Poland and points east of there until the 16th century, long after the Khazars were gone. These Jews spoke Yiddish, which is based on German, whereas the Khazars spoke a Turkish language.

Furthermore, genetic tests conducted in the last two years indicate that the vast majority of Jews derive from only four women, and that the priestly tribe of Jews, the kohenim, share a Middle Eastern common ancestor.

(20) "When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void."

The Kol Nidrey nullifies only vows made to God. This is one of the oldest libels against Judaism and has been disproven repeatedly.

(21) "And further than that, the Talmud teaches: 'Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that.'"

The Talmud says no such thing and I challenge any person to prove otherwise.

(22) "There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', 'jew'. At the time, there was no printing press."

Freedman's linguistic analysis of the word "Jew" is so terrible it would make a real linguist laugh in hysterics. Suffice it to say that, yes, there was no letter J in the Roman alphabet, but they did not pronounce their word for Jew (Iudean) with the /j/ phoneme at the beginning.

(23) "Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews."

Well, Jews are Semites, but that's beside the point. The word coined by Wilhelm Marr nearly a century before Freedman's speech was Antisemitismus and it was coined to apply to Jews only -- not to Arabs.

(24) "They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion."

Jews were consistently persecuted only on religious grounds until the 19th century. Before then, the charge was "Christ-killer." That is a religious basis.

(25) "But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe."

Freedman is referring to a hoax of an anti-Semitic quote attributed to Ben Franklin that was actually created by William Dudley Pelley in 1933.

Back to Daryl Bradford Smith

____________________________

From http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Other_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech

Twenty-Five More Lies of Benjamin Freedman

(1) "I am very honored to be here. I don't know how to start to thank Col. Dall for making it possible for me to address you. But I hope that things work out so that you will feel grateful to him."

Just to be clear on who "Colonel Dall" was. He was retired at the time of this speech, but he had been an army colonel. He also had been the son-in-law of FDR. At the time of this speech, he was a close associate with Willis Carto and the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, and extreme far-right, racist, nativist organization. Willis Carto founded the Holocaust denial "think-tank" the Institute for Historical Review.

(2) "In that book, in those two volumes, the first English dictionary ever published by Dr. Samuel Johnson, (about whom, many of you know) the word, Jew, does not appear!"

That's because it appears under the listing "IEW," with an "I" at the beginning instead of a "J." J was the last addition the English alphabet (Shakespeare's folio and quarto editions do not use the letter "J" in The Merchant of Venice, where there are prominent Jewish characters, or in the final lines of Othello, where it is unclear of Othello is speaking of an "Indian" or a "Iudean" because of the reversal of the letter "n" or "u" in the second position in the word.

The Oxford English Dictionary dates the word "IEW" to Shakespeare's usage of the term in the Merchant of Venice (1596). The first apperance of the word "Jew" according to the OED is Richard B. Sheridan's The Rivals (1775). Johnson's non-inclusion of the word in his dictionary, which was first published in 1755 -- not 1797, is obviously because of the differing dates of publication. The next significant use of the word is in an 1820 work of Lord Byron, Johnson had died sixteen years earlier.

All of this is really beside the point, however. There has existed a word in languages other than English to refer to Jews since, at least, the composition of the books of Kings in the Bible, where the term first appears in Hebrew. That, according to the OED, the word did not take on its current spelling in common until 1775 is meaningless. There existed words before then to refer to Jews, and everyone knew who was meant, because language is primary a spoken phenomenon and not a written one. To wit:

(3) "They say Shakespeare used it. They cite all the people who used it. It did not exist."

Shakespeare *did* use it. See above. He just spelled it according to the alphabet that was used in his time.

(4) "Now, in the Middle East, you know the situation. The United States has been supplying, since the end of World War II, 32 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. 95% of that 32 billion dollars was used by the Congress of the United States, after you paid that money into the Treasury, to make the United States the accomplice, the ally, of thieves and murderers; to aid and abet them to hold on to their stolen loot -territory that they acquired by invading Palestine and driving the indigenous population out of the country that they had inhabited for 2,000 years!"

This is a terrible exaggeration. First of all, when this speech was given, we had only began really monetarily supporting Israel the previous year, during the Yom Kippur War. We did not aid Israel in the 1967 war -- in fact, we had explicitly warned Israel via Robert McNamara that any escalation of the conflict by Israel would have serious repercussions to the American-Israeli relationship.

Anyway, let's accept Freedman's figures for the moment: $32 billion dollars over twenty-nine years (1945-1974). That comes to an average of about $1.1 billion per year in aid to Zionists or Israel or what have you. Now the peak aid given to Israel was during the Reagan-Bush years, and that came to, at most, $5 billion per year. If Nixon had given the greatest amount of aid ever given to Israel in the year prior to this Freedman speech, Freedman would still be $28 billion off the mark. Certainly we provided some aid to Israel, but there is no way that it amounted to $32 billion in twenty-nine years. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel was far too volatile earlier for us to be funding them. We nearly went to war against Israel in 1956 over the Suez crisis and, as already noted, we were very angry about their actions in 1967.

Given a close reading of history, Freedman's figure simply isn't possible.

(5) "You have been told that by every media of mass information, including the pulpit, including every other means by which they can shape your thinking: "That it is your Christian duty to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their promised land."

What's funny about this statement is that between 1969 and 1985, I was a Roman Catholic, attending mass every Sunday. I don't recall the priests every talking about Israel in church. And Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in not only the U.S., but the entire world.

(6) "But you will find that the Khazars were an Asian nation; they were a Mongoloid, Turko-Finn tribal nation in Asia. And they had so much trouble with the other nations there, who finally succeeded in driving them out of Asia, across the border, into what is known today as Russia, in the area of the Ukraine. They found, there, a lot of peaceful agricultural people, mostly Slavic, and they conquered them. They did the same thing then as they are still doing in the Middle East! They took them, for no reason at all, except the people weren't trained to fight! They established there, the Khazar Kingdom."

This is directly at variance with what Arthur Koestler, who Daryl Bradford Smith so shamelessly promotes on his Web site, writes in The Thirteen Tribe. Read Part IV of the book here: http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/k113.html

What Koestler says is that Khazars requested the right to settle within the Russian Empire and were granted that permission. Nowhere does it say that they "conquered" the Slavic peoples there. And there was no Khazar Kingdom in Eastern Europe. According to Koestler and most other people, the Khazar Kingdom was in the Caucasus, between Russia and Turkey.

Again, all of this is beside the point, because the most recent genetic studies confirm that most Jews are not descended from the Khazars but are indeed Semites. Even the anti-Semitic "evolutionary psychologist" Kevin MacDonald says so in his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: "Recent genetic studies have con-firmed the genetic integrity of Jewish groups discussed in Chapter 2 of PTSDA. These studies confirm the Middle Eastern origins of Jews and show that Jewish groups remained genetically separate from the peoples they lived among over the last 2000 years. Based on Y-chromosome data, Hammer et al. (2000) found, that various Jewish populations (Ashkenazi, North African, Kurdish, Yemenite, and Near Eastern) were not only closely related to each other, but also closely related to other Middle Eastern groups (Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians) and quite separate from European groups. On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation. This level of genetic admixture is consistent with supposing that there has been essentially no conversion of Europeans to become mating members of the Ashkenazi gene pool. The very low levels of genetic admixture with Europeans may well have come from clandestine matings and rape. Two other recent Y-chromosome studies also found that Israeli Jews derive from the Middle Eastern gene pool (Nebel et al. 2000, 2001). Nebel (2000) found that 70% of the Y chromosomes of Jews and 82% of the Y chromosomes of Palestinians belong to the same chromosome pool, suggesting a common ancestry. However, Nebel et al. (2001) found evidence that Jews are even more closely related to the Kurds. Muslim Kurds were located near Kurdish Jews and between Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews. When compared with European populations, Ashkenazi Jews were more genetically distant from European populations than they were from Sephardic Jews, and they were also closer to Arab populations (e.g., Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese). Sephardic Jews were genetically distant from both Spaniards and North Africans despite having lived among them for centuries. Indeed, they remain very close to Kurdish Jews, a finding the authors attribute to genetic continuity with Jews exiled by the Assyrians in 723 B.C. and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Kurdish Jews remained closer genetically to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews than to Kurdish Muslims, a truly remarkable finding, since it indicates no detectable genetic admixture between Kurdish Jews and their hosts over approximately 2700 years. Finally, despite some differences, there is a great deal of genetic affinity between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish groups, confirming the findings of Hammer et al. (2000)."

Another point is that the Khazar kingdom became well known amongst jewish communities during that time as being the only jewish kingdom in the world. It became a safe haven for jews. Jews flooded into Khazaria from asia minor and the surrounding areas where they were fleeing from persecution. While the Khazar kingdom began as non-semetic it ended up with a large semetic population who then intermarried with the locals. This is why their descendents (majority of ashkenazi) are genetically related to other semetic groups. So it is totally false that descendents of Khazarian jews are not semetic, or not jewish by blood relation.

(7) "Now, those three pages in that Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 15, the 1911 Edition tells you who they are, how war-like, how savage, how barbarian they are, and that they succeeded in sweeping across Europe to the gates of Paris, and to Finland. They controlled all Europe - these Mongols known as Khazars! They did that from maybe the fourth century to the ninth century. And they were the most brutal people. They enslaved these people and exacted tribute from them, while holding them under their control - practically all Europe."

Here's a link to the 1911 edition of Britannica's article on Khazars: http://82.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KH/KHAZARS.htm

Does it say what Freedman says? Nope. Paris isn't mentioned in the article. Neither is Finland.They most certainly did not conquer all of Europe, consider the almost complete absence of Jews outside of Spain, France, and Germany in Europe during this period.

(8) "Until in the 8th century, a man by the name of Rurik. a Varengian, who came from across the water, from what is known today as Sweden, - he organized these people. They were living as people interested in agriculture. They didn't want any politics, they didn't want nations or governments. But he saw what they were subject to, this treatment by their Khazar conquerors. And he organized the principality of Rokh, which became the Russian Empire. He organized them, and started to drive these Khazars back. And he finally succeeded to where they came into Europe for the first time, in the area of the Ukraine, where they continued their Khazar Kingdom."

Again, Freedman's account is rather different from Koester's: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trib03.htm

(9) "Now, they were Phallic Worshipers. Anyone who doesn't know what Phallic worship means, I am not going to go into detail, but they were Phallic worshipers and they were so degenerate that when the king, their ruler, heard that there were such things as monotheistic forms of religious belief, (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) he sent for representatives of the three of them, and asked them to tell him the merits of their faith."

Phallic worshippers are penis worshippers. Anyway, the Khazars were phallic worshippers. They were Tengriists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengriism

Note that a search for the words phallic, phallus, and penis in the text of The Thirteenth Tribe turned up no hits. Again, Freedman's account is entirely different from that of Koestler: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=phallic+phallus+penis+site%3Abiblebelievers.org.au&btnG=Google+Search

(10) "And after listening to them, like a child would play "Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo" to pick out the one that they favored, he listened to the three of them, and said, "I'm going to become a Jew and adopt the religion known today as Judaism."

This is not only against Koestler, again, but it's entirely wrong. The Kagan of the Khazars chose Judaism because it was neither Christianity, the religion of its northern neighbor, the Byzantine Empire; nor was it Islam, the religion of its southern neighbor, the Arabs and Turks. Knowing that the religion of Judaism received some respect from both religions, it seemed the neutral move to chose Judaism.

(11) "The Khazars are carriers of a disease that no other people in the world have. Here's the circular that they got out. It's called, "Kasak Disease" (The Jewish Disease - Tay-Sachs). I have known about it for years. The New York News newspaper had a full page on it, called "The Jewish Disease."

Actually, Jews are not the sole carriers of Tay-Sachs. It appears in surprisingly high numbers among French Canadians, Cajuns, and Irish-Americans. I can find no references whatsoever to Tay-Sachs ever being called "Kasak disease." Freedman's speech is the only document on the entire Internet that uses the term.

(12) "When one Khazar marries another Khazar: (I don't say so, Mt. Sinai Hospital, the Jewish Memorial Hospital, the Rockefeller Foundation, they've all done a lot of work on it. They published these figures and these statistics . . .) that one out of four children, when one Khazar marries another Khazar, or of that ancestry, that child can't live beyond three years. And the death that that child suffers is too miserable to describe to you. Out of the others, two of them become carriers, and one is clear."

One thing Benjamin Freedman was not was a scientist. One in 30 Ashkenazic Jews is a carrier of Tay-Sachs. Even if two carriers marry, there is still only a one in four chance that the child will get Tay-Sachs. There is a 50 percent chance the child will be a carrier, and a 25 percent chance that the child will be perfectly healthy. Freedman suggests that this is the case for all Jews. It is only the case for 1 in 30, or far less than 1 percent.

(13) "Now, you have these people, organized, and all of a sudden, something developed. The last revolt that they started was in 1905. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the word, Bolshevism, one of the five rules for their revolt was: Never start until the armies of the country are engaged otherwise. And in 1905, when Russia was at war with Japan, in the Far East, they started their last revolt, - and they were slapped down, like every other one since the 11th century."

Again, the 1911 Britannica is online. There is no listing for Bolshevism: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/index/BOK-BOR.htm

Furthermore, the 1905 Revolution was not a revolution by only the Bolsheviks. Several other parties took roles, some more prominently than the Bolsheviks, and in fact, it was a much more widespread revolution against the tsar than either of the 1917 revolutions. It was a genuine popular uprising.

(14) "Mr. Schiff, with two young men, went down to see Mr. Taft, and he said, "Mr. Taft, . . . (I am not telling you this out of my memory. I almost know this by heart, because the books are here, in the Congressional Library. The people who were in the room with President Taft, at that time, and President Taft were told by Jacob H. Schiff) . . . "We want you to cancel the Most Favored Nation Treaty with Czarist Russia, and we want you to recall our Ambassador." The President told them, "Mr. Schiff, things are not what you represent them to be. My ambassador tells me differently." So, Mr. Schiff told him, in so many words, "Is you is, or is you ain't - going to do it?" When the President said that he would not do it, Mr. Schiff said "We will put a political party and a president in Washington, to whom we can dictate what they should do.""

What's interesting is that the President in 1905 wasn't Taft -- it was Theodore Roosevelt. That point aside, let's assume this meeting took place, and that it took place during the Taft Administration (1909-1913). Let's give Freedman a large benefit of doubt and say they met Taft at the very beginning of his presidency. So they put the Democrat Woodrow Wilson into the White House to do their bidding. Keep that in mind.

(15) "They got Woodrow Wilson, the man who had more ego than any man I have ever read about, they got him to head the Democratic Party. And they got into difficulties! Because the Democrats only got the Electoral votes in the South; where the people in agriculture wanted cheap goods from Europe. But the North wanted the Republicans. They found out they could not elect a President in the United States. So, I handled the money; I was the leg man, the errand boy (I was only a boy then.) They trotted Theodore Roosevelt out of the political "moth-balls" (He was then an editor of a magazine). They told him, "You are the indispensable man. You are the only man who can save the United States." And with his ego they formed the "Bull Moose Party" and Mr. Jacob H. Schiff and the Jews throughout the world - they got plenty of money from England - they formed the Bull Moose Party. And in that way they split the Republican vote between Roosevelt and Taft, and Mr. Wilson walked in with a minority of the popular vote - the lowest man, (and I knew the inside of his private life, which I don't want to go into here)."

Actually, with 41.8 percent of the popular vote, Wilson had a plurality. No other candidate has as many votes. Roosevelt and Taft each took about 25 percent of the votes. If this would seem to make Wilson's election illegitimate, consider that the following presidents have all been elected not by majority but by plurality, and some not by popular vote at all: John Quincy Adams (actually elected by the House of Reps); Polk; Taylor; Buchanan; Lincoln (first time); Hayes (fewer popular votes, won by electoral college); Garfield; Cleveland (both times); B. Harrison (fewer popular votes, won by electoral college); Wilson (second time); Truman; Kennedy; Nixon (first time); Clinton (both times); G.W. Bush (first time, fewer popular votes, election decided by Supreme Court).

(16) "When a vacancy appeared on the Supreme Court, Mr. Untermeyer recommended Mr. Brandeis. Mr. Brandeis was the number one Zionist in the United States; the head of them all, and he became very friendly with Wilson. And when the war with Germany broke out, the war between England, France, Russia, and Germany and Austria, the United States had nothing to do with it."

A few things don't add up here. First, as per usual, Freedman can't actually prove any of what he says. He merely says, "I was there," and we're supposed to believe him.

Anyway, why wouldn't the Jews that were so concerned with getting Wilson into the White House begin leaning on him immediately to break trade ties with Russia?

(17) "The Germans had brought out the submarines, and the Irish gave them two bases on the coast of Ireland, and they were sinking everything that brought food and ammunition to England, which under International Law is correct. Now, when they saw that Great Britain was going to lose the war, the Jews were very much excited, because, up to that time, Germany was their best friend."

It's difficult to add it all up here, mainly because Freedman conveniently doesn't provide us with any dates. One thing we know for sure is that Germany did not turn to unlimited submarine warfare until January 1917, and even then they were deployed primarily against France. Yes, incidents such as the sinking of the Lusitania happened, but the key to winning on the Western Front, for the Germans, was not England but France.

All of Ireland was part of the U.K. in 1917. How it could have supplied bases for Germany, thus, is beyond me. It's possible Freedman is thinking of World War II.

(18) "So, when I was in Germany, 50% of the pupils in German schools were Jews from all over Europe." Unless he's talking about universities, and even then it's a big stretch, education was compulsory for all citizens in Germany, and with a Jewish population of less than 1 percent before 1933, it's impossible for half of German students to have been Jewish.

(19) "Even the private bankers, the Hohenzollerns, were Jews."

Hohenzollern was the surname of the royal family of Germany. They were not Jews.

(20) "So, England was offered a Peace Treaty by Germany..."

I've already dealt with this, so I'm not going to belabor points already made, unless they're colossally stupid.

No peace treaties were offered. In fact, Germany changed its position to defensive in 1916. They were not doing well, withdrawing to the Hindenburg line within six months of when Freedman says they offered a peace treaty to England.

As noted elsewhere, England was already killing the Ottomans in the Mideast, and all the wartime correspondence indicates this.

(21) "Now, the United States got into World War I. How did they get in? They didn't know how to get us in, because the Germans leaned backwards."

Actually, they did no such thing. The Zimmermann Telegram, sent in January 1917, is proof of imminent attack by Germany via Mexico against the U.S.

(22) "A message was sent to Washington, that the S.S. Sussex, a ferry from Dover to Calais, had been torpedoed in the Channel and 38 Americans lost their lives! I'm not going to string this out, because I've got a lot of other things to tell you!"

Of course he's not going to string it out. Because it isn't true. Which he says a few minutes later. But where was this HMS Sussex thirteen years earlier, when Freedman addressed the American Nazi Party in Washington? He didn't mention it. Was it a new discovery? Maybe, but he never mentions the Zimmermann Telegram.

Furthermore, why get the U.S. into a war against Germany if the goal is to bring down Russia?

(23) "Pontius Pilate wrote on the crucifix on which our Lord and Savior was to be crucified, "Jesu Nasarenus Rex Iudoreum" which, translated, anybody that has had one year of Latin, knows that means "Jesus, the Nazarene, the Leader of the Judeans." "Leader of the Judeans," the genitive plural and "Rex" comes from "Rego" - "To lead."

No, Pilate wrote "Iesu Nasarenus Rex Iudoreum." There was no "J" in the Roman alphabet. "Rex" means "king," by the way, and "rego" means "I rule." The infinitive Latin form is "regere" -- "to rule."

(24) "Now, they were trying to "frame" our Lord and Savior, claiming that he was influencing the people not to pay taxes so that gold couldn't be shipped to Caesar. And that constituted rebellion. That's why the trial was held, and that's why Pontius Pilate put that up on the crucifix, "Leader of the Judeans" who were revolting against Rome."

See Mark 15:2

(25) "Now we all know everyone of you heard, hundreds of times, that at this trial, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

Jesus didn't say this at his trial. He said it earlier in the week, to a Pharisee and a Herodian. See Matthew 22:21

Retrieved from "http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Other_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech"

Sunday, July 20, 2008

David J. Stewart on America

From http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/in_your_face.htm

In Your Face America!

By David J. Stewart

David Rockefeller is NO friend to God, America, freedom, or Christianity! He is a monster, like the rest of his family. David Rockefeller is Chairman of the godless, anti-American, Anti-freedom, and Anti-Christian--Council on Foreign Relations--committed to the destruction of America's sovereignty. He is also the founder and Chairman of the Trilateral Commission. To no surprise, he is also one of the founders of The Bilderberg Group. David Rockefeller openly admits to conspiring AGAINST America, and yet most people ignorantly scoff at the mention of such evils...

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

-SOURCE: David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

In your face America! These global criminals even admit to selling us out! They admit to being part of a SECRET CABAL WORKING AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. Please read, The UN Plan For Global Migration by Berit Kjos. Still not convinced?... Listen to what Mr. Rockefeller said, while keeping the 911 attacks in mind...

"Now, as the United Nations approaches its 50th anniversary, business support for the numerous internationally related problems in which it is involved has never been more urgently needed.... With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the opportunity for enlightened American leadership is, perhaps, even greater than it was in 1939, at the beginning of the Second World War, or in 1945 when the Cold War began. But this present 'window of opportunity,' during which a truly peaceful and interdependent World Order might be built, will not be open for long... We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order (emphasis mine)"

-SOURCE: (address to the 28th Annual United Nations Ambassador Dinner, September 14, 1994, as quoted in the Business Council for the United Nations Briefing; Vol. 8, Issue 2, Winter 1995, page 1).

Their diabolical plan is working wonderfully, as Americans sell their souls into slavery in hopes of obtaining security from those phantom terrorists. The only terrorists we need to fear reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. (i.e., The White House). Our highest leaders are mere puppets for such evil people as the Rockefellers. There is NO War on Terror! The 911 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush Administration (video), and the Saudi Arabian Carlyle group (video). The plain truth is in our faces, but most people reject it, just as they do the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Woe unto America!

Occult Inspired Evil men Rule Satan's World

David Rockefeller is also a lifelong member of the Satanic Bohemian Grove in California. The following in from WIKIPEDIA, which openly exposes the group as being of the Devil...

The Cremation of Care was devised in 1893 by a member named Joseph D. Redding, a lawyer from New York. During the ceremony, which serves as the opening to the Grove encampment, a mock human sacrifice representing "dull care" is cremated to symbolize the liberation of the participants.

Today, the ritual consists of hooded members accepting the effigy representing "dull care" from a ferryman traveling across a creek. Music and fireworks accompany the ritual, for dramatic effect. The mock human sacrifice is placed on an altar and set on fire. The ritual represents the act of embracing the revelry of Bohemian Grove while setting aside the "dull cares" of the outside world.

The ceremony takes place next to a 45-foot (15 m) high concrete owl statue. During the ceremony, audio plays through nearby speakers providing the illusion of a speaking statue. -SOURCE

Mock human sacrifice? Wikipedia does little justice to expose the realities of just how Satanic the Bohemian Grove is. Prepare to be shocked as you watch Alex Jones' video exposing the evils of Bohemian Grove (1 Hour, 50 Minutes). Mr. Jones secretly infiltrated the Satanic group and obtained video/audio recordings of their wickedness. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Both George Bushes, and Clinton are all members. Click on the demonic photo below of Bohemian Grove to hear an ACTUAL recording of the Cremation of Care Ceremony from July of 2000. This is straight from Hell folks! This is how your so-called "Christian" president, George W. Bush, worships his god. This is the exact SAME Canaanite Moloch worship that existed in the Old Testament, i.e., sacrificing humans to a false god.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God" -Exodus 20:3-5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun Control and the Bible

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9902.htm

A view about the Talmud

From
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/talmud.txt

[Sis. Tracy's note:
I received this message as an email forward on
Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:25 PM]

> > >>From: "Irv Spielberg"
> > >>To: spielberg3@hotmail.com
> > >>Subject: Fwd: "Hate" vs. Jesus
> > >>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:04:07 -0500
> > >>
> > >>> THE ORIGINAL "HATE" CRIMINALS
> > >>> by Irving Spielberg
> > >>>
If you can't guess the people I have in mind, I'll give you some
clues---clues found in a major world religion that is many centuries
old. I'll call it Religion X.
Religion X traces its roots back to the First Couple, Adam and
Eve.
They were on earth before any other form of worship---before Islam
(appearing 14 centuries ago), before Hinduism or Buddhism (appearing
25 centuries ago), before even the worship of various gods in
Mesopotamia (60 centuries ago).
Early on, Religion X'ers were told by their God: "Love your
neighbor---and even the stranger who dwells among you---as much as
you love yourself." But it wasn't long before Religion X began rebelling
against the laws of the One who had blessed and preserved it so much.
In response God warned: "All those who hate me love death."
After centuries of hating their God (which predictably led to
hatred of fellow humans, God's creations), Religion X'ers were allowed by
God to be conquered and transported to ancient Babylon where they
experienced a 1,600-year-long "vacation."
If you haven't guessed yet, the religion I'm describing is
Judaism, the religion of my people. But don't stop reading. The most shocking
stuff is just ahead!
While in Babylon, the "wise men" among our people began
formulating new laws which supposedly supplemented and explained the time-tested
Old Testament writings. But the new rules actually contradicted and eventually
replaced the original laws!
The "new and improved" laws are collectively known as the Talmud.
Even though rabbis are Talmudic experts, probably not one Jew in a
thousand (and not one non-Jew in ten thousand) knows what is in the Talmud.
Without further delay, here's some of the Talmud's "wisdom" (plus sources):
(I) THE TALMUD HATES SCIENCE:
Hyenas turn into bats after seven years, and later on turn into
thorns and demons (Baba Kamma, 16a).
Being naked in front of a lamp causes epilepsy (Pesahim, 112b).
There's medicinal value in dirt found in an outhouse's shadow,
also in a white dog's excrement (Gittin, 69a,b).
(II) THE TALMUD HATES FEMALES:
The birth of a girl is an unhappy event (Baba Bathra, 16b).
It is never good to talk too much to women including one's own
wife (Aboth, 1.5).
All women are "temperamentally light-headed" (Kiddushin, 80b).
It is okay to divorce your wife if she spoils your food, or if you
find a more beautiful woman (Gittin, 91a).
(III) THE TALMUD HATES CHILDREN:
It is lawful for a girl three years old to have sexual intercourse
(Abodah Zarah, 37a; Kethuboth, 11b,39a; Sanhedrin, 55b,69a,b;
Yebamoth, 12a,57b,58a,60b).
When a man commits sodomy with a boy under nine years of age, it
"is not deemed as pederasty" (Sanhedrin, 54b,55a).
Sexual intercourse with a boy under the age of eight is lawful
since it isn't fornication (Sanhedrin, 69b).
(In other words, Religion X became X-rated! Is it any wonder that
many Jewish persons today are liberally involved with the current sexual
revolution and are even favorable towards legalization of adult-child
sex?)
(IV) THE TALMUD HATES ALL NON-JEWS:
Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are
bastards (Yebamoth, 98a).
When a non-Jew robs a Jew, he has to pay him back, but if a Jew
robs a non-Jew, he doesn't have to pay him back. Moreover, when a Gentile
kills a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, but when a Jew kills a Gentile,
"there is no death penalty" (Sanhedrin, 57a).
It is okay to "use subterfuges" in a court of law in order to
cheat a non-Jew (Baba Kamma, 113a).
(V) THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS:
Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, "Jesus"; Yebamoth,
49b). Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and "played the harlot with
carpenters" (Sanhedrin, 106a,b).
Jesus "practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy" (Sanhedrin, 43a).
Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in "boiling
hot excrement" (Gittin, 56b,57a).
Christians will go to Hell "and be punished there for all generations"
(Rosh Hashanah, 17a).
Those who read "the works of the Judeo-Christians, i.e., the New
Testament" will end up in Hell (Sanhedrin, 90a).
The books of the Christians "may not be saved from a fire, but
they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in
them" (Shabbath, 116a).
(Now you know what's been inspiring many of the anti-Christian
attitudes and actions these days.)
By roughly 500 A.D. Jewish scribes had completed the voluminous
Talmud, the written version of what had long been the Jews' oral
tradition---the tradition that Jesus condemns in the 23rd chapter of
Matthew and other parts of the New Testament.
Whenever anyone claims that for 1500 years the Talmud needlessly
aggravated Gentiles (who in turn put Jews into ghettos and even the
Holocaust), Jews can look at even earlier history and claim that the
"anti-Jewishness" of the New Testament forced Jews to hit back with
their printed version of the Talmud.
Actually the New Testament, like a newspaper, merely reflects the
true condition of Judaism at that time. If someone could prove that
damaging descriptions of Jews never appeared before the New Testament, that
would be one thing. But during many centuries prior to Jesus or any
Christians, Jews were saying and doing the same things that we find them still
saying and doing during New Testament days!
If the New Testament record of their words and works is "anti-Semitic,"
is the Old Testament record of the same rebelliousness just as "anti-Semitic"?
A while ago I was talking with a young woman in Los Angeles who is
training to become a rabbi. I asked her about the Talmud. (She seemed
shocked I should know so much about it already!) "Oh," she said, "I
don't think it's as relevant as it once was." When I told her that the
"hate" movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" was an amazingly accurate
reflection of the Talmud---and that more such "hate" films are in the
works because Hollywood takes the Talmud seriously---she had no
explanation.
In the future when "hate" laws are passed, will the incredibly
hate-filled Talmud and some hate-promoting film studios be swept
under the rug?
You know what? I found out that some of the past leaders of my
people lied when it came to science, women, children, non-Jews, and
Christianity and its leader. I found out that Jesus is the only Messiah and
Saviour for everyone on earth. I found out a lot when I prayed to Jesus and
said "If you really are who you say you are in the New Testament, please
reveal yourself to me and I will follow and trust you forever."
Guess what. He did and I have been. Sure there are cheap
imitations of the real thing (anything of value is counterfeited), but once you
really connect with Jesus, you'll know everything you need to know about
salvation---your own salvation!
Not only is genuine salvation free, it makes a person free!

(You're free to reproduce and distribute this no-hate paper)

Israel's Mirrored History

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/mirror.html

Sunday, July 13, 2008

The Roman Catholic Church by Jim Searcy

From http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/whore.htm

Roman Catholic Church
By Jim Searcy

Jesus Christ, Yeshua THE Messiah, God the Son, The I AM, The Alpha & Omega, The Creator and Redeemer, The One Whose Name is called The Word of God, Inspired His chosen Apostle, by His Holy Spirit of Truth to tell us that - There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. AND ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

These Next PROFOUND Words of the Lord Jesus Christ will either be understood by His Word being given understanding by His Holy Spirit of Truth, NOT some priest, NOT some bishop, NOT some prophet, NOT even by the pope - but understood ONLY by His Holy Spirit of Truth giving the understanding. If the understanding of this next profound verse of Scripture comes from any source other than His Holy Spirit of Truth, it it is certain you will be deceived and STRONGLY DELUDED. The importance of understanding this next verse, John 20:23, by The Holy Spirit of Truth, and NOT by any catechism, or even the Pope, will very probably mean the difference between heaven and hell. It will mark the difference between being one of The Lord's undeceived very elect, or being deceived by a religion that most likely will lead to hell. Yes, It is that important to understand by the Holy Spirit of Truth, and not by any man, not by any priest, any saint, any pope, or any catechism.

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The key to understanding this verse is found in verse 21 - As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. How had the Father sent the Son into the world? To speak His own words? Jesus said - For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Yeshua said again in John 12:49 - I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And in John 8:28 He said - I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. In John 8:38 He said - I speak that which I have seen with my Father. And again in John 6:38 - For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Clearly then, Jesus sent His disciples as the Father had sent Him. They were not to speak their own words, but His. Paul said that he was only an ambassador for Christ. An ambassador does not speak his own words, but the words of the one he represents. Now we will see in full context what Paul meant in that we are all called to be Christ’s ambassadors in 2 Cor 5:18-20. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Please notice that, as an ambassador for Christ, one can carry only His Word to the people. And that word of reconciliation which He has given for the people is that their trespasses are not imputed to them. This is the only way anyone can remit sins. He can pass along what the Lord Jesus Christ said about forgiveness and assure them of acceptance as they meet the requirements of that word.

In John 20:23 we see our Lord give to the Apostles His work of public teaching. Now the Apostles were to teach the Doctrine of Christ, which is one and the same as the Doctrine of the Apostles. This was the main calling of the Apostles. Those Twelve men who had been taught directly by the Lord like Moses, were called and chosen to establish the Doctrine of Messiah. We certainly do NOT need new apostles with new doctrines. It is finished. We have the doctrine of Messiah, and that is the SAME as the Doctrine of the Apostles found in the New Testament of the KJV Holy bible. It is exactly as the Apostle Paul wrote to the first century Messianic Jewish believers - God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Yes, now, today, harden not your heart, for you MUST hear His voice by His Holy Spirit of TRUTH giving understanding of this most profound verse. You are encouraged NOW to pray directly to Jesus, the ONLY mediator between God and man. He will hear you. no matter what shape you are in, if you ask Him for Wisdom on this verse. He will hear that prayer, for wisdom, by His Holy Spirit of Truth on this most important scripture, if you will only now ask Jesus and by faith receive the TRUTH about John 20:23 by His Holy Spirit of Truth.

The words of the Lord regarding this commission of John 20.23, are very important and require close attention and study. The meaning of these words was the equipping of the ministers of the gospel with the gift of discerning of spirits. By this gift of the Holy Ghost, Paul could pronounce blindness upon Elimus the sorcerer, as surely as Peter could announce the immediate physical death of Annanias and Saphira for lying to the Holy Ghost.

Upon true Gospel ministers called and ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ is where we most often find this gift of discernment given by the Holy Ghost. To my knowledge this gift of discernment has NEVER in history been given to any Pope of Rome. If any pope of Rome ever had the gift of discernment, such a pope would IMMEDIATELY renounce the titles of Holy Father or Vicar of Christ applied to any man. Anyone who has that gift of discernment by the Holy Spirit of truth will KNOW that anyone who would dare to usurp such titles belonging to God the Father and the Holy Ghost, boarders on blasphemy.

It is by the Holy Spirit empowerment gift of discerning of spirits by which true Gospel ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ are enabled to declare authoritatively whose sins are forgiven and whose sins are not forgiven. To my knowledge NO pope has ever manifested evidence of this gift. However almost all of the popes have tried to usurp and wrest control of people by claiming, even exclusively, to have this gift.

Remember that Constantine was the first pope and NOT Peter as the scripture and any history outside of Vatican Roma's control and revision, will clearly show. The evidence of scripture and honest history outside of Vatican Roma's revision shows, that Peter was NOT the bishop of Rome. All of the scripture and historical evidence outside of Vatican Roma’s control, wresting, and revision, says Peter never set foot in Rome. Does the pope lie? Yes, ABSOLUTELY he does, when he claims to be the Holy Father, or the Vicar of Christ, or to have the EXCLUSIVE power of binding or loosing, remitting or retaining sins. That is one great big pope LIE.

Historically the popes have been antichrist usurpers, as they would dare to proclaim and profess themselves to be the mediator of between God and man. That is antichrist according to 1 Tim 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. The pope becomes antichrist when he would lead people to believe he holds that position exclusively, which Christ Himself holds exclusively. The pope in reality has absolutely no right to declare whose sins are forgiven, and whose sins are not forgiven. To my knowledge NO pope ever had such God given power to pronounce who was pardoned because they paid the pope's fee, paid the pope's homage, or Peter’s pence. Some popes maybe had power of force, maybe power of coercion, maybe power of priestcraft, but NONE had God given power to pronounce who is pardoned, and who is not. That requires discernment gifting of the Holy Spirit, which would have caused any pope with the gift to renounce such titles as Holy Father and Vicar of Christ by any mere man, pope or ortherwise.

The popes actually have been quite a contrast with the God ordained authority of the Jewish high priest before Christ, and TRUE Apostolic authority after Christ was manifested in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil. What is true Apostolic authority? Those having true Holy Spirit gifting of discernment have always understood true apostolic authority to mean true apostolic doctrine. True apostolic authority and true apostolic doctrine means the written Word of the Apostles, as it was contained in the Scriptures, in accord with the Old Testament, and given final revelation by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the very same I AM, who taught Moses.

Those with the discernment gifting of the Holy Spirit will always repudiate and reject the strange notion of the popes of Rome, that the Lord deputized the Apostles, or any other human beings, with God's the power of absolutely pardoning or not pardoning, absolving, or not absolving, the sins of anyone. It was not the pope’s holiness that was offended by the sin of any sinner. It is God’s holiness that is offended by the sin of any sinner. The true gift of discernment by the Holy Spirit is righteously indignant by such popery and priestcraft, and Nicolaitine spirit of control that Jesus said He HATES. (Rev 2:6 & 15)

The power of forgiving sins, in Scripture, is always spoken of as the special exclusive right of God. The popes are NOT God no matter how much the pope may like to have men think that the popes are God, or that popes can take the place of God. Even the Judean Jews, associated with the temple mount complex, themselves admitted this when they said, ‘Who can forgive sins but God only?’ (Mark 2:7). Yet, the popes continue to be more vain, more self-exalted, and more presumptuous, than the religious rulers who delivered Christ to be crucified on a Roman cross. It is monstrous to suppose that our Lord meant to overthrow or change this great principle that ONLY God can forgive sins, when He commissioned His disciples. Yet, this is the teaching that Vatican Roma demands all to believe or be exterminated by their inquisition powers. Vatican Roma's popes have held the leadership position in the religious murder of perhaps 50 MILLION saints, who would not bow to this monstrous popery and priestcraft, during the 600 years of the inquisition between 1203 and 1805.

The language of the Old Testament shows conclusively that the prophets were said to do certain things when they declared them to be done. Thus Jeremiah’s commission runs in these words - I have this day set thee over the nation and over the kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant in Jer. 1:10. This can only mean to declare the rooting out and pulling down - just like Ezekiel says I came to destroy the city in Ezek. 43:3.

There is not a single instance in the Acts or Epistles of an Apostle taking on himself to absolve, or pardon, any one. When Peter said to Cornelius Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins in Acts 10:43, and when Paul said, Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins in Acts 13:38, they pointed to Christ alone as the Remitter. Yes, Christ alone, not Peter, not Paul, and certainly not the pope.

John Calvin expressed this truth of the Word of God by saying - When Christ enjoins the apostles to forgive sins, He does not convey to them what is peculiar to Himself. It belongs to Him to forgive sins—He only enjoins them, in His name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins.

We can recall the scripture account of Peter and John going down to Samaria to inspect and authorize the work done through Philip in Acts 8:14. There we find that Peter said to Simon Magus - I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity in Acts 8:23. Paul wrote - To whom ye forgive anything, I also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ - 2 Cor. 2:10. That is clear and certain evidence of the unique authority and power of the apostles was that spiritual gift of DISCERNMENT by the Holy Spirit.

Sadly to many the question remains - Was this ministerial office and commission conferred on the apostles by Christ transferred by them to others? Without any hesitation, men of God who KNOW the Word of God by the Spirit of Truth, will say that in the strictest sense the commission of the apostles was not transmitted, but, was confined to them, with Paul being the one the LORD chose to replace Judas. It really is difficult for me to understand how any one would deny that the Apostles possessed certain ministerial qualifications, which were quite peculiar to them. Such special gifting and calling they could not, and did not, transmit to others.

Those unique Twelve men who will have their names written on the twelve foundations of New Jerusalem had the gift of declaring the Gospel without error, and with infallible accuracy, to an extent that no one after them did. Regardless of what the pope may want to declare otherwise, if he believes he has such infallibility, he is DECEIVED. Those Twelve men confirmed their teaching by miracles. I can remember as far back as Pius XII. Though I have personally witnessed most miracles found in the bible, I have not seen the pope do any miracle. Those Twelve men had the empowerment of discerning of spirits, such as to pronounce death or physical blindness and see it IMMEDIATELY come to pass by the power of God, rather than the force of men. The popes only have demonstrated power to religiously murder 50 million people who would not bow to them. In the strictest sense there is no such thing as apostolic succession. The closest thing we have is among those who live according to the doctrine of the Apostles, which lifestyle Vatican Roma mocks.

The keys to the kingdom given to Peter, was SYMBOLIC in regard to locking or unlocking sins. It has always been, and can only be, by the Holy Spirit gifting of discernment. That is the only possible way of demonstrating his authority in binding or loosing according to Matt. 16:19. Later we see clearly in Matt. 18:18 that same power was given to the rest of the apostles AND to the church as a whole.

It is NOT an exclusive gift to any one person or church. Yet, many still question regarding how sins are forgiven, and what is the relationship to binding and loosing relating to the sins of sinners means. The only meaning given by the Scriptures it that whatsoever shall have been forgiven on earth shall have been forgiven in heaven. Heaven sets the standard, earth follows heaven's lead. It is the responsibility of believers to have a forgiving spirit, and to teach the conditions of forgiveness. Few words could show how serious is the REQUIREMENT that the believer MUST have a forgiving spirit like what the Lord said in Mat 6:12 - And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Most never think about what they are really asking for when they pray those words. If they did think about that perhaps they would better understand the Fear of the Lord.

In John 20:23 Jesus said - Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. This means that the church is to proclaim the way of salvation and those who accept Him are forgiven, but those who reject Him are condemned. Binding and loosing as it relates to forgiveness of sins is the discernment gift of the Holy Spirit to discern and know the sinner's response. Sins have been washed, or loosed, ONLY by the blood of Jesus.

Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is THE faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, to HIM ONLY be all praise honor and glory for the forgiveness of sins and redemption of sinners. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Alleluia Yeshua. Praise the Lord Jesus.

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

There is another report dealing with What Is Behind Rome's Virgin. You may click the title to access it. What is Behind Rome's Virgin is probably just as important as the problems of papal infallibility and Lucifer's operations in the Vatican. However, the Virgin report may be too offensive for the Catholics who can not receive the truth of this first section. I was raised in a Catholic home. I have experiential knowledge of Roman Catholic faith and practice. Most of my relatives are Catholics. I most certainly DO NOT hate Catholics, but I have a greater love for the TRUTH. Yeshua, Jesus, is the TRUTH personified! My love for the TRUTH, Yeshua, makes all other loves pale by comparison. Unfortunately, the truth is often offensive.

The Pope is the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is considered the largest church in the world. The pope is known as the Vicar of Christ, going back to the eighth century. This Vicar of Christ title replaced an earlier title known as the Vicar of Peter.

By tradition and not by truth, the Catholic Church declares that the Apostle Peter was the first pope of Rome, appointed by Messiah Himself. The Catholic Church would tell us that Peter was also martyred in Rome. The scripture they use to verify Peter, as being the first pope, is: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ( Matt. 16:18 )

During the time of Constantine, in about 306 AD, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire and the persecution ceased. Rome was now considered the headquarters for this new church which mixed and merged paganism with Christianity to form the Roman Catholic church. The Catholic church was now accepted and it's doctrines organized into that religion. Anyone who went against it was now persecuted as much as the Christians went through earlier.

The title Pontiff ( Pontifex Maximus - pagan title of high priest ) was first given officially to the pope, by Gratian in 375 AD. This title was exclusively used by the emperor of Rome before the religion was accepted by Rome as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Proof is overwhelming that the Pontifus Maximus title is of a pagan origin.

Boniface III, a.k.a. St. Boniface, accepted the title of pontiff, making himself the supreme ruler, of the church. He is considered as the first official pope of the Catholic church. All preceding bishops, except for Gregory the Great, in about 600, refused the title. Since then the title pontiff has been used for the bishop of Rome.

The First Vatican Council, in 1870, established the dogma of the infallibility of the pope. This change, and new church dogma, was necessary because of the confusion that occurred earlier in the church. Many of the popes held contradicting beliefs. This embarrassment needed to be fixed. The pope has in some ways, been considered infallible throughout the years, in his doctrines. A new specially formed exercise of papal infallibility was concocted. The "ex cathedra," meaning from the throne, was developed. The new 1870 "ex cathedra, from the throne," deal means that when the pope speaks from this, "ex cathedra," it is accepted by the church, and is not dependent on the consent of the church, and is irrefutable, and unchangeable. A very slick way of resolving the contradicting beliefs and pronouncements of the previous "infallible" popes. A lot of dirty laundry was covered with the "ex cathedra" deal.

Other characteristics that have evolved for the pope are that he wears a crown, and is always loaded with gold and jewels. That he eats alone, because he is considered too exalted to dine with any other person. Anyone who is in his presence while he eats, must be kneeling and remain so, unless invited to stand. When leaving his presence one must genuflect three times. When he visits other countries he will bend down and kiss the ground. This symbolizes ownership of the land, since he is considered the ruler of the whole earth when he receives three gold crowns with the statement, "Know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings and viceroy of Jesus Christ to whom be honor and glory forever."

Is anyone interested in the Truth? Was Peter the first pope? Does the pope really have the powers he claims?

We ought to look at the Authorized KJV King Jesus Version Holy Bible for the answers to these questions.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:16-19)

In verse 16 Peter is answering the question Yeshua asked, "Who do you say that I am?" Which Peter answered by saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Revealing the fact that Yeshua, Jesus, is the Messiah, the savior of the world. Did answering that question give him superiority over the rest of the Apostles? Peter was only acknowledging the fact that Yeshua is the Messiah to which the others concurred. Verse 17 shows that Yeshua was pleased with the confession that Peter spoke of concerning who He is, by giving him a blessing. True believers, who acknowledge Yeshua as Lord and Savior, and who follow His Word are always blessed by Messiah.

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock." ( Matt.7:24 )

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,..." ( James 1:22 )

It was God who revealed this truth, and not by Peter's own reasoning.

The Christian religion is a revealed religion through God and His Word by His Spirit. True Christian FAITH is not by mans of wit, reason, or philosophy, but by the light of inspiration that comes from God. The Christian gives God the glory, and not any man.

"For ye are brought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." ( 1 Cor. 6:20 )

Then in verse 18 Jesus calls him Peter signifying a stone, for the second time. The first time was in John 1:42, where Jesus called him Cephas, meaning stone. "Thou are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

The truth is that Peter had no special authority or special place within the church, given him in Matt. 16:18. He is but a stone among others who are part of the church.

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22)

The rock in which the church is to be built is Yeshua Himself. Yeshua says He will build the church, not Peter. Yeshua is the cornerstone that which no man can lay.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Yeshua Messiah." ( 1 Cor. 3:11 )

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." 1 Pet 2:6

Peter wrote 1 Pet. 2:6. Peter realized that he is not what the church is to be built upon. Peter clearly tells us Messiah is the foundation. Peter was infallible when he wrote 1 Pet. 2:16, but he was not the pope.

Matthew 16:18 is a scripture upon which many Roman Catholic false teachings are based. The Roman Catholic misunderstanding of - "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - even forms the great international crime of "Biblicism" today. Matt 16:18 has been misunderstood by Catholics since the founding of Catholicism. One of the greatest false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is Believing that Peter is to be the rock and not Jesus.

Peter is not the rock of salvation, nor is the Catholic church.

2 Sam 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

The rock of your salvation better not be a stone. The rock of your salvation better not be the church, even the big Catholic church. The rock of your salvation better not be the sacraments. The rock of your salvation better not be the pope. The rock of your salvation better not be Peter, Cephas, a stone John 1:42. THE ONLY ROCK OF SALVATION IS YESHUA MESSIAH, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

Jesus then promises that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. We know that the church has enemies that will fight against it especially in these last days of great tribulation. Lucifer's kingdom forms the powers and policies to persecute the true Church of Yeshua Messiah.

What is Satan doing in the Vatican today?

Dark Dealings in the Vatican?
WILLIAM F. JASPER, The New American, March 3, 1997.

Although it passed completely without notice in the U.S. press; a bombshell that was dropped in Rome last November continues to send shockwaves that are being felt in political, and religious circles worldwide. The explosive charge was released by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo in an address to the Fatima 2000 International Congress on World Peace held in Rome November 18th-23rd. Addressing an international audience of bishops, priests, nuns, and laity, the archbishop charged that there are members of the Catholic Church hierarchy in Rome who are secretly involved in formal satanic worship.
Commenting on the growth of evil in the world and the need for the Church to appoint more exorcists to aid the many people who are possessed, obsessed, or disturbed by demonic activity, the archbishop stated:
Now, the third dimension [of evil] is the most dangerous. It is subtle and the most terrible.... I could not believe when I discovered this third dimension of evil. The third dimension is people who follow instructions in satanic sects....
Now with this third dimension, I'm sorry to say, our Church belongs to it. I'm very sorry, I could not understand myself, and even now I don't understand. But the only consolation I have is that, well, Judas Iscariot was one. Together with Jesus three years, he never changed, then I understand that the third dimension of evil existed not only now, but it existed even then. Because nothing could change the heart of Judas Iscariot nothing.
Occultic Clergy
The Most Reverend Emmanuel Milingo, formerly the Archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia, now works in the Vatican as the Special Delegate to the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Immigrants and Itinerants. The archbishop, who is an official Church exorcist, is the author of Face to Face With the Devil and other books, and travels throughout the world preaching and healing. The outspoken cleric accused fellow Roman Catholic clergymen of protecting Satan and his minions: "The devil in the Catholic Church is so protected now that he is like an animal protected by the government; put on a game preserve that outlaws anyone, especially hunters, from trying to capture or kill it. The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil-hunter in the Church the exorcist. So much so that the exorcist today is forbidden to attack the devil. The devil is so protected that the one who is the hunter, the exorcist, is forbidden to do his job." Understandably, shocking statements such as these from a Vatican "insider," a Prince of the Church, caused a commotion in the Italian press. Il Messaggero, the largest Rome daily, gave front-page headlines to the archbishop's accusations, as did many other major secular newspapers. Three days later the Zambian prelate held a press conference to clarify his remarks, causing a second wave of sensational media coverage. To the question, "Are there men of the curia who are followers of Satan?" Milingo responded, "Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy because I am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go." Il Tempo and other major dailies reported that Archbishop Milingo cited papal statements to back up his charges. "Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan had entered into the Vatican," the archbishop is quoted as saying, "but I have not heard that anyone has seen him leave. We must pray so that he will go away." The archbishop was referring to a 1972 statement by Pope Paul VI on the damage to the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. Surveying that wreckage, the Pontiff stated: "From somewhere or other, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."
Censorship and Suppression
Amazingly, nary a word of Archbishop Milingo's astonishing allegations made it into the American press. The U.S. media, ever attentive to the demands and fulminations of feminist nuns, apostate priests, prattling perverts, and heretical theologians, took a walk on this stunning story. It was not until mid-January, when copies of the Winter 1997 issue of The Fatima Crusader, a Catholic magazine, began arriving in mail boxes that the establishment media blackout was broken.
Published by the Servants of Jesus and Mary in Constable, New York, The Fatima Crusader is associated with the National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada, which sponsored the Fatima 2000 Congress in Rome. "Without a doubt, the single most electrifying moment of the Congress was Archbishop Milingo's startling assertion that satanism is being
practiced within the very walls of the Vatican," stated Father Nicholas Gruner, founder and publisher of The Fatima Crusader, in a letter accompanying the magazine. The Fatima Crusader added more fuel to the fire ignited by the archbishop with a statement from another Vatican "insider," Father Malachi Martin, a famous church historian and best-selling author. When questioned about Archbishop Milingo's statement, Father Martin replied: "Archbishop Milingo is a good bishop and his contention that there are satanists in Rome is completely correct. Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome." This confirmation from Father Martin is significant. As an exorcist, a former counselor and aide to Cardinal Augustin Bea, and a Vatican scholar of considerable renown, Father Martin is well qualified to comment on this subject. In Windswept House, his riveting novel published last year, Martin starkly portrays our world in the death grip of a monstrous, satanic cabal fast approaching the consummation of its insidious scheme for global dominion. In the opening pages of that book, Martin describes in frightful detail a demonic ceremony called "The Enthronement of the Fallen Archangel Lucifer," which allegedly was carried out secretly by a coven of Satanists including high-level Catholic clergymen on June 29, 1963 in the Chapel of St. Paul in Rome. According to the novel's account, the ritual conducted at the sacred site in the Vatican was a subdued ceremony disguised as a Catholic service, but through telephonic transmission was connected to and synchronized with a hideous, full-blown satanic service conducted in the United States. Martin had first made passing reference to the diabolical rite in his non-fiction 1990 best-seller, The Keys of This Blood. However, since publication of Windswept House, he has stated that the event has been documented. Contacted by THE NEW AMERICAN at his residence in New York, Dr. Martin confirmed that the "Enthronement of the Prince" did indeed occur as described in his novel. "Oh, yes, it is true; very much so," he said. "But the only way I could put that down into print is in novelistic form." "Are more members of the clergy becoming aware of this diabolical penetration?" we asked. "Yes," he replied, "they are beginning to scratch their heads and say that does explain things" such as the massive apostasy and dramatic decline in Catholic religious practice since the time of the "Enthronement" and the Second Vatican Council. And Archbishop Milingo? "He's merely like that actor in the movie Network, who got fed up and said 'I'm not going to take it anymore,"' said Dr. Martin. But clerics like the archbishop, he noted, end up "like those in the political realm who deviate from the Clinton point of view: you are marginalized, you're 'funny,' you're a madman, you are not 'mainstream."' Indeed, the outspoken archbishop appears to have been marginalized into near non-existence by the U.S. media. A Lexis/Nexis data search found not a single mention of his Fatima Congress statements, although several articles critical of him earlier in 1996 turned up. THE NEW AMERICAN called the Associated Press in New York.
After checking its database, a researcher at AP's international news desk informed us, "Oh, he's got a big old mouth" and is always spouting "a lot of insanity." The researcher could not be very specific, but she seemed to consider the archbishop's belief in the existence of Satan and belief in miracles as ironclad proof of his dementia. Still, we asserted, he is a bishop and a recognized exorcist. Does that alone not make his claims worthy of coverage? Well, we would have to call the Vatican AP bureau to find out why it wasn't covered, she informed us. At the AP's Vatican bureau we talked with reporter Dan Wakin, who repeated the generalized detractions and aspersions against the archbishop that we had already heard from his colleague in New York. Nevertheless, we insisted, why the total blackout in the U.S. press when the Italian media apparently thought him credible enough to devote considerable coverage to his charges on more than one occasion? Mr. Wakin had no answer. "We didn't cover it; that's all I can tell you," he replied.
Fiction or Fact?
Malachi Martin asserts that "there are more and more clerics who are finally saying what is apparent." No doubt, Dr. Martin's Windswept House has contributed greatly to that trend. Father Charles Fiore, in a review of the book in the Catholic Family News, describes it as "a novel in which actual persons and events are disguised as fiction." Windswept House is a gripping account that whirls from Rome to London, New York, Washington, DC, Brussels, Strasbourg, Jerusalem, Moscow, and other centers of worldly power, graphically drawing the organizational tentacles of a conspiracy against God and man which is perilously close to enthroning its malefic new world order. That unholy cabal has targeted for infiltration and destruction not just the Catholic Church, but other religions, institutions, and governments. Father Martin is not surprised that his latest book has not met the critical acclaim of his past writings. He is not surprised that it has been almost totally ignored, even though it is published by a mainstream publisher (Doubleday). The reviewers for the major media, he says, are "steering away from it. They don't know what to think about it; they don't know what to say." But that hasn't stopped Father Martin's message. He has been interviewed on 117 radio stations and continues to speak out. WILLIAM F. JASPER, The New American, March 3, 1997.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

2 Cor 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2 Cor 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This statement does not give superiority or security to any particular church. It does not say that the church will never err or be destroyed. It does, however,tell the true church of Yeshua Messiah, that in the main battle, it shall ultimately be more than a conqueror.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Here Yeshua tells us that He will give His true followers the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. The keys are doctrine and discipline. HEARING & DOING!

A disciple of Messiah is a disciplined one. He reads His Word. He HEARS His Word. He DOES His Word. All true disciples have the keys of doctrine and discipline. Their doctrine comes only from the scripture. Their lives are ordered only by the scripture. Their lives show what is acceptable to God and what is not acceptable to God, according to the scriptures.

Do we understanding the binding and loosing that Yeshua mentions here? Binding and loosing, in the common speech of the Jews at that time, deals with what is lawful and unlawful. To declare something was unlawful was to bind. To declare something was lawful was to loose. In all matters of binding and loosing, what is lawful or unlawful, the true disciple's ONLY guide is the written Word of God.

The purpose of the keys of doctrine and discipline, is to help the true disciple with his desire to be acceptable and pleasing to God. A true disciple of Yeshua wants please God rather than men. He knows that he has been redeemed. He wants to please God more than himself, because he has received and understands the love of God. He will be disciplined by the scriptures in word and deed. The Spiritual man will exercise the godly character of good and right judgment.

1 Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Rom 12:1-2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

The power of the keys makes it possible to discern that which should be in the church. The power of the keys of scriptural doctrine and discipline will reject that which is unrighteous from the church. These keys were not given to any particular church, but given to all who believe and live to make Yeshua BOTH Savior and Lord of their life.

The Bible also says nothing about Peter being in Rome. He ministered to the churches in Asia. (1 Pet 1:1) "Peter, an apostle of Yeshua Messiah, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," His mission was to go spread the gospel in the opposite direction, which was in Asia-Minor. The historical and scriptural truth is that Peter never got close to Rome.

Paul also mentions in Gal 2:7-8, that he was appointed to the apostleship of the uncircumcision, (Gentiles),as Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, (Jews). We understand that they were equal in this, and neither was greater than the other.

In Acts 1:15 - 26 Peter did speak out about having someone to replace Judas, but did not have any authority to personally claim anyone as an Apostle. It was a group decision regarding who would replace Judas. Paul became an Apostle without Peter's consent. Paul makes no mention of Peter when he writes to Rome. If Peter was made to be the pontiff, and was in Rome, it would be a grievous error on Paul's part not to give Peter such recognition. If Peter were in Rome when Paul wrote to the church in Rome, we may be sure that Paul would have saluted him. Paul rebuked Peter, in Gal 2:11-14. Not even Paul would rebuke the pope, if Yeshua ever made Peter a pope. The truth is that Yeshua HATES the Nicolaitane spirit of control, hierarchy, clergy and laity. We are taught by Yeshua that greatness in His Kingdom is by being a servant to all. We are to submit to one another in the Fear of God. The Nicolaitane spirit behind popery, or any church hierarchy, is something that Yeshua HATES! (Rev 2:6&15) Peter never led, chaired, called, or dismissed any council. He did not rule, exercise lordship, or pronounce any decision. He never claimed any of the powers which the Catholic Church claims for the pope.

The term pope is a Greek word meaning "father." Yeshua says - "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matt 23:9) Call no man on earth father in the spiritual sense of the word. Why are Catholic priests called Father? It is a direct contradiction of a COMMAND of the Lord Yeshua. Calling the pope, Holy Father, is almost blasphemous if one were to really think what Holy Father means, as Yeshua taught His disciples. God is our spiritual Father, for He is the only one who is able to forgive our sins. Only His Spirit can and will convict us of our sins. We are made new creatures, part of the family of God, by the grace, and the finished work, of our Savior Yeshua the Messiah. The only true Holy Father is the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua. The Holy Father, pope title, is somewhere in the range from disgrace to blasphemy.

Right after Jesus told His disciples that His church is founded upon the belief and truth that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, he told them about the suffering and death that He would soon endure. Peter tried to rebuke Jesus, saying that it should not happen. Yeshua replied in saying to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." ( Mat 6:23 ). If Peter was to be pope, he showed an irresponsible attitude toward Yeshua by trying to rebuke Him. Then Yeshua called Peter, Satan. Peter was just a man. He was not the founder of Yeshua's church. Yeshua is the founder and foundation of His Church. The only foundation is Yeshua. The only way the church could be built is on Yeshua, and not Peter, or any other man, as foundation or head.

Peter wore no crown. He ate with other people, even Gentiles when the Jerusalem Jews were not around. He wore simple clothes and had no one kiss any ring on his hand. He never received any pomp or ceremony. He did not sell any indulgences or special dispensations. He held no special mass. He did not pray for the dead other than the Kaddish. He certainly did not consider himself to be a ruler or owner of this world. Peter was poor as we see in Acts 3:6 - "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none;"

Peter would not take money, for what God could give freely.

And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostle's hand the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hand, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this manner: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Acts 8:18-21

Peter did not accept anyone to bow before him in reverence to him.

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-26

Cornelius wanted to worship Peter. No way would Peter accept pope style worship from Cornelius or anyone else. He rebuked Cornelius for doing it. Totally the opposite of what we see today in the Catholic church regarding homage paid to the pope.

According to the Word of God, the pope has no special authority over the church. Yeshua HATES the Nicolaitane spirit behind popery. No church is made special or has unique authority in dealing with man's spiritual life. The only church with true spiritual power and authority is a church founded on Yeshua Messiah. If a man is the head of a church it can have no real true spiritual power and authority. Yeshua, and ONLY Yeshua, must be the head of any church for that church to have true spiritual power and authority. The Nicolaitane spirit behind popery is something Yeshua HATES. I can think of only two things to say to anyone caught up in a religion in which any man believes his word is better or even equivalent to the Word of God - Come out of her, and from such withdraw thyself.

The true church is made of those who have humbled themselves and receive Yeshua as their Saviour and Lord. Only Yeshua can be the head of any true church with true spiritual power and authority.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yeshua;

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The second beast is the great whore apostate religious system which works with the antichrist political and economic system. The great whore is an apostate religious system. The false prophet will be the head of the largest religious group in the world. He will lead people to worship the antichrist and take the mark of the beast. All who take the mark of the beast in their right hand or forehead will according to Rev 14:11 spend eternity in hell. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1 Tim 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1 Tim 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The Roman Catholic Church, and really all of the cults, stands firmly AGAINST the Authority of the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church is AGAINST Sacred Scripture being the sole criterion of truth. Their view of things is that their Pope, or Pastor Poohbah, or Prophet Soandso, or Rabbi Whatsname, rules the world of religion, their hierarchy having the highest authority, the and NOT what God said. This is typical of all cults such as Joseph Smith's Mormons, Mohammed's Muslims, and Russel's Jehovah's Witnesses. They will write their own holy books and/or stand AGAINST the AUTHORITY of the Word of God. Characteristic of cults is putting authority in their traditions, and their leader, and NOT The Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is called the Word of God.

Roman Catholics are trained to ASK THE BIG QUESTION. The big question is designed to proselytize into their black witchcraft religion, keep people bound in their religion, and justify the blindness of their failures, sins, departures, and opposition to the authority of the Word of God. The big question of the Roman Catholics is designed to put down all those outside of Rome's control, and reinforce Rome's control of those bound in that religion. Their Big Question is very effective because sadly, most simply are NOT READY TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO THE CATHOLIC'S BIG QUESTION. Recently a Roman Catholic asked the big question very succinctly of the GJiGT. Perhaps you may find the GJiGT answer to the Roman Catholic's BIG Question helpful as you would seek to set someone free from such religious bondage. I think you will be edified, strengthened, and encouraged if you thoughtfully and slowly hear how the Holy Spirit will speak to you through this string of scriptures in answer to the Roman Catholic’s big question.

The Roman Catholic Asks -

If the Catholic church hierarchy is not from Christ's church and not the authority left by Christ to teach souls about Christ's warnings and teachings and instruction to salvation especially, the bible meaning and instruction, then who, or what is the teaching authority left by Christ to teach the meaning and instruction of the King James Bible?

If ten thousand people read the bible ten thousand interpretations will result. So again, who is the authority left by Christ to teach the truth given in the bible and explain its meaning for salvation?

GJiGT Reply to the Big Question of Authority -

Dear Friend -

The AUTHORITY is the Holy Sprit of TRUTH. There may be thousands of different interpretations among those Nicodemites, who do not have that Holy Spirit, who have not been born again. The Nicodemites indeed do have widely varied interpretations because they DO NOT have that One Same Spirit of TRUTH, the Sprrit of Messiah, because they have NOT been born again, or need to be born again, AGAIN.

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.

John 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

Acts 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Cor 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

God Who IS LOVE commends real love, NOT feigned affection, but real, genuine, love which:

1 Cor 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

1 Cor 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Cor 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

2 Cor 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

CHRIST IS THE HEAD - NOT PETER, Not Constantine, NOT THE POPE, Not Pastor Poohbah, Not Prophet Soandso, Not Rabbi Whatsname - CHRIST IS THE HEAD. ONLY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS THE HEAD. HE IS THE ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Phil 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Phil 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Phil 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Phil 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

THE POPES HAVE ALL BEEN NICODEMITES SINCE THE FRIST ONE, CONSTANTINE, WHO WAS THE FIRST PONTIFUS MAXIMUS, SUPREME PONTIFF, HIGH PRIEST OF PAGANISM. ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL REMAIN NICODEMITES UNLESS THEY ARE BORN AGAIN. MOST WHEN THEY ARE BORN AGIAIN HEAR BY THE LORD'S HOLY SPIRIT Rev 18:4 AND COME OUT OF HER.

To those who are born again and hear His voice by His Holy Spirit the interpretation of the KJV Holy Bible is consistent and often will be found to disagree with the thousands of interpretations of the Nicodemites in the history of the black witchcraft religions of Babylonian sun god worship complete with its Queen of Heaven idolatry. For those who are born again and not Nicodemites, who KNOW what Israel means, we say:

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I AM GLAD for those who have an UNCTION and sad for those who want to continue as Nicodemites.

Shalom & Simcha,
Jim Searcy

What is Behind Rome's Virgin?

Back to GJiGT Home Index

Other information

Friday, August 29, 2008

Apologetics Links

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Terri Schiavo Remembered - 1 0f 4

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Racism and Gun Control

Global Warming

Planned Parenthood