A name is a name: its descriptive. It can be as easily drawn from the region the people of the faith inhabited as anything else. The word Jew relates to racial Jews primarily & then those of them who practice Judaism. Confusing, but this is a fairly unique situation, but that’s how it is.
Those Jews who stop practicing the religion of their ancestors, as outlined in the Torah, fall into apostasy & either become heretics, like the Sabbateans & their successors the Frankists or secularists, the former largely paving the way for the flourishing of the latter hand in hand with its derivative political ideolgy Labor Zionism, which Hitler allowed to flourish from 1933 while crushing all other forms of Zionism – around 250 other organisations banned. This Labor Zionism being Marxist-inspired & thus of a materialist nature & also being the advance guard for the creation of Israel for the benefit of Rome.
So we have racial Jews who can be observed as being either religious Jews, secular Jews or heretical Jews. In fact this can be seen as a circle with overlaps.
Religious Jews are Torah-faithful Jews.
Torah-faithful Jews who are also observing the Talmud encyclopedia of Babylonianism then fall into one end of heresy from Torah-faithful Judaism. They are Talmudic Jews.
The other side of the heretical Jewish segment is Frankist-Sabbateanism which survived via the Donmeh of Turkey & has connections with the Ottoman Turkish Freemasonry (derived from the Rite of Memphis) associated with Rudolf von Sebottendorf later a leading Thule Society member & founded the German Workers Party which Hitler turned into the Nazis.
Kind of going off on a tangent here, but it has been claimed that CIA asset Fethullah Gulen & Harun Yahya now lead two competing branches of Ottoman Turkish Freemasonry, which as leading Muslims (& in the case of the latter publicly an antimason – as was the high-level Mason Hitler, who targeted Blue lodge Masonry) shows how the infiltrating elite have one system for themselves & another for everyone else & do away with any leaders who truly have any empathy with the common people faithwise & in terms of unhindered social potential.
Sabbateans can take the outward appearance of Jews, Catholics, Muslims & possibly even Protestants – although the latter is less likely as the black lodge papal-loyal Masons & Jesuits have that covered.
Secular Jews – if of the elites – are at the highest levels descended either ideologically & often genetically from the Frankists & Sabbataians. They can be either Ashkenazim or Sephardim, mostly Ashkenazi though. If of the common people, then they are usually merely lapsed & not vehement heretics per se.
This is a mental-visual aid for referencing the scheme that I outline above.
A circle divided into four main segments, with vague overlaps as individuals from one group infiltrates or takes the guise of another & with more or less intense strict adherence to one worldview or another.
top right: Talmudic Jews
bottom right: Torah-faithful Jews
bottom left: Secular Jews
top left: Sabbateans/Sabbataians
Note that in this visualization, we find in the top two segments the political & spiritual power manifested from the twisted knowledge of the Sabbateaan & the Talmudic elites.
The left & right sides of the visualization also corresponds to Israeli political tendencies, in not too lose a fashion.
Labor Zionism, the political outgrowth of the Sabbateans, is considered the Israeli Left. Even when not in power they essentially control Israel via its adherents dominating academia, the media & the rest. As with Bushco & the CFR (both Reps & Dems) lot in the US, they seek to destroy Israel from within. Via Shimon Peres & Yossi Beilin, in an appended arrangement to the Oslo Accords of 1993, they handed over much of theEast Jerusalem holy sites to the Vatican, as later leaked to the press in Europe.
For more on subsequent happenings arranged by Papal-Loyal Zionists see the 8 pieces that I posted on February 29th on the two pages of blog links at:
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/category/p…court-zionists/
The Talmudics steered by the Rabbis of Rome & Jerusalem providing the overt spiritual leadership counterpoint to the Rome-alligned political elite. The non-Rome alligned political class are mostly dupes as they are largely ignorant of the Rome connection, they lead to both the Secular Jews & the Torah-faithful Jews on both sides of the temporal/spiritual spectrum, as they too are largely ignorant of Rome. However, the Torah-faithful Jews (& some Talmudics) are less ignorant of this as can be witnessed by the actions of the Sephardic Council to expose the betrayal of the Jews by the Israeli power brokers in favour of Rome.
See:
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…to-the-vatican/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…t-your-friends/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…can-nov-7-2005/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…le-nov-13-2005/
The likes that they are up against include this US lot led by Gary Krupp & Rabbi David Rosen of the Papal Order of St Gregory (the Order that US Rabbi Mordechai Waxman & Protestant convert to Catholicism, Rupert Murdoch belongs to – see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St._…table_members):
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…-jewish-people/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…ewish-traitors/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…i-of-jerusalem/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/02/29…bi-david-rosen/
Be aware that as demonstrated in the second to last article above the links with Islam & the Arab world a close & this partial-charade (only partial because the masses are being slaughtered in their chess games). The royals & Presidents of countries such as Yemen, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia & others no doubt, are members of the Papal-loyal Order of Constantine, the Franco-Neapolitan branch under Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, the disputing head of the House of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies.
He is in dispute with the Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria, also disputing head of the House of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies & leading the Hispano-Neapolitan branch of the Constantinian Order. Both are massively powerful. Every SMOM Grand Master since 1879 has been drawn from the senior ranks of the Constantinian Order.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi & Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples – both exposed as being P2 members in the list found at Licio Gelli’s Villa Wanda in the 1981 raid – are Knights of that Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order. Cardinal Egan – who as I’m sure you know is the Archbishop of New York & top US SMOM – & Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, who is Archbishop of Westminster (in London, he is the “English Pope” to Egan’s “American Pope”) & Fredrik-Crichton-Stuart, the Grand Prior of the SMOM in England, are all members of that same branch of the Constantinians as the Europeans & Arabs.
As is that Dame of Malta, Princess Michael of Kent – wife to the Grandmaster of mark Master Masons, Prince Michael of Kent: the Queen of England’s fist cousin, who’s brother – the Duke of Kent – is GM of the United Grand Lodge of England & thus “regular” Freemasonry throughout the world, that Duke’s son Lord Nicholas Windsor got married at the Vatican in 2006. All loyal to the Pope!
This is tangential to our discussion above, but essential to understand & is the area that my research is currently most focussed on.
Much more can be found at:
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/category/c…antinian-order/
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/category/knights-of-malta/
Particularly the postings that I have made from September the 5th, which has uncovered much new vital info in this area.
Between the Sabbatean Labor Zionists of Shimon Peres & co. & the ubiquitous though little-known Constantinian Order, the Jesuits & the Vatican have most of the Jewish & Arab world under control, despite the Chaos caused down below onto which the Order is to be imposed.
Oh & crucially: concordat-creating pro-Fascist Pope Pius XII was a member of the Constantinian Order:
http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/09/09…ntinian-knight/
But getting back on topic:
How do we know that Jesus is of the seed of David?
Five verses before the conclusion of the last book of the New Testament, in Revelation 22:16 we read:
|
“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and the OFFSPRING OF DAVID…” [Emphasis added].
|
Completely in accord with the first verse of the new Testament, in Matthew 1:1 we read:
|
| “… Jesus Christ, the SON OF DAVID, the son of Abraham”. [Emphasis added] |
|
| “… God… his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the SEED OF DAVID according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power…” [Emphasis added] |
Also: the geneaology in Matthew (from 1:2) is Joseph’s (Jesus’ legal father) & in Luke (from 3:23) is Mary’s (see the thorough explication of this below). Jesus had the right to the thrown via both, as Heli – Mary’s father – clearly had no male progeny, otherwise they would be the rightful heirs to the throne.
Consider too: That the female egg was only discovered in 1827, and until this time (and for a while after it) people believed that the male’s sperm contained the whole human being.
Thus the eyes & ears reading & hearing records of lineages were given to placing far more weight of importance on male lines, thus the appearance of Jesus’ legal father Joseph’s lineage at the start of the New Testament in Matthew.
Now if someone goes: Hey, backtrack a little bit: You left out a bit at the end of that Revelation 22:16:
Irrelevant as it is to our discussion of Jesus & Judaism – which is good enough reason to not to give the some excuse for others to DIVERT from the matter at hand, if they are making no headway there.
Revelation 22:16:
|
| I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. |
|
Jesus is the morning star? Sorry. I thought that was Lucifer. Jesus equals Lucifer. Isn’t that masonic doctrine there?
|
Er… No!
As some are more familiar with 5-10 minute YouTube clips than the Bible – why don’t people go to the source? For example: Michael Tsarion’s knowledge of the Bible is atrocious, yet he speaks as an authority & people hang onto every word! – Well, we shall have to quote the passage that they are presumably refer to (but seldomn can name, as it’s usually third-hand info:
Isaiah 14:
|
[9] Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
[10] All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
[11] Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
[13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
[15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. |
|
| “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” |
|
| “I Jesus… am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star”. |
So: close – but no cigar! And again we have it that Jesus IS the offspring of David, as testified in Matthew 1:1 – geneaology or no geneaology.
The translations of the use of the word “Lucifer” in Isaiah – the only book where it appears – as “morning star” is Romanist propaganda in nature, as used in the NIV, which has Jesuit Cardinal Martini on the board:
|
| How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! |
These are the subtle ways of Rome’s continuing Counter-Reformation designed to corrupt Christianity & the Bible of the Reformation. The publication & distribution of which brought about the freedoms to discuss this matter even, which is well & good, but don’t those who try to using Rome’s weapons to fight Protestantism stop to consider that they are actually shooting them-SELVES in the foot? I guess it depends what one’s agenda & rationale is.
Now, too fully understand Jesus’ geneology in Luke & how it is laid out, also bearing in mind the preceding point, please read the following, from an Islamic website even!:
|
| http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html
Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read “Jesus … was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli.” The support for this view is
impressive.
a. Placing the phrase “so it was thought, of Joseph” in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph’s name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph’s name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary’s progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke’s account of Jesus’ conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).
b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.
In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent
rather than to jumps to collateral lines.
c. Matthew’s interest in Jesus’ relation to the Old Testament and
the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph’s
really descent from David through Solomon – a descent that is
also Jesus’ legal descent – and thus gives him legal claim to
the Davidic throne.
d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity
with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is
fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human
descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then
traced back to Adam.
e. The objection that Mary’s name is not in Luke’s version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
to Jesus.
f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding
Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph’s ancestor and David’s descendant
through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the
Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally
promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal
representative of that line of descent for which eternal
perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.
24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and
no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne
(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through
whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne
properly should be traced. Solomon’s throne had already
been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah
will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that
throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be
fulfilled?
First, notice that Jeremiah’s account neither indicates
Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah’s line
has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The
legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah’s line, and
Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew
preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes
clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.
He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph
(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to “Joseph,
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” In the
English translation the antecedent of “whom” is ambiguous.
But in the Greek text, “whom” is feminine singular in form
and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of
Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,
through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus’ legal father,
Joseph’s legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was
not actually Jeconiah’s seed, although of actual Davidic
descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped
the curse on Jeconiah’s seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.
Thus the problem is resolved.
What we have then are two different genealogies of two people.
Probably even the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are
different persons. This view does not depend on conjecture, rests
with evidence within the texts themselves, fits the purposes of the
evangelists, and easily resolves the problem surrounding Jeconiah.
Of this view L.M. Sweet appropriately wrote, “Its simplicity and
felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely
its recommendation.”
Although it is not, strictly speaking, a harmonistic problem, one
other difficulty of lesser significance found in Matthew’s record
of Josephs’s genealogy needs discussion here. In 1:17, Matthew
divides the generations from Abraham to Christ into three groups of
fourteen generations; from Abraham to David, from David to the
deportation of Babylon, and from the deportation to Christ. In part,
this was likely a device used by Matthew to aid memory; it does not
imply that he mentioned every progenitor. At least five names are
omitted: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, and Eliakim. As
previously stated, this procedure was not unusual and presents no
real problem.
With three groups of fourteen generations, however, one does expect
to find forty two different names. But there are only forty-one.
Although one set has only thirteen different names, the problem is
only apparent. Matthew does not speak of forty-two different names
but of three groups of fourteen generations, which he divides for
himself. David’s name concludes the first set and stands first in
the second set (cf. 1:17). In other words, David is counted twice
and is thus given special prominence in the genealogy that shows
Jesus’ Davidic throne rights through his legal father, Joseph.
Another means used for increasing the focus on David is the title
assigned to him in Matthew 1:6. He is called King David, and is
the only person in the genealogy to whom a title is given. Possibly
the Davidic emphasis is even further enhanced by the number 14.
The sum of the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the name
David is 14. To the modern reader this might seem overly subtle,
but it was not necessarily so in ancient Semitic thought. The
numerical value of David’s name, however, is not necessary to the
resolution of this problem. Again, alleged discrepancies between
and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are shown to be
more apparent than real. Reasonable solutions to the problems exist
and even throw further light on the text.
|
Actually if you go to the source of the quote you’ll see that their sources are Christian!
|
Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With
Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus, 1969
pp. 139-256.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “The Genealogy
of Jesus Christ,” L. M. Sweet.
Waetjen, Herman C. “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according
to Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 205-230.
|
Let’s focus in on the analysis of that geneaology in Luke a bit closer:
|
Placing the phrase “so it was thought, of Joseph” in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph’s name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph’s name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary’s progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke’s account of Jesus’ conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39). |
|
The objection that Mary’s name is not in Luke’s version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
to Jesus. |
Reflecting upon the geneaological analysis presented I concur with L.M. Sweet’s words:
|
“Its simplicity and
felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely
its recommendation.” |
& the author of the quoted essay who concludes:
|
Again, alleged discrepancies between
and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are shown to be
more apparent than real. Reasonable solutions to the problems exist
and even throw further light on the text. |
Now Luke 3:23, which some quote from some Jesuitical Rome-corrupted (per)version as being:
|
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli |
But which can be correctly understood when read from the AV1611 KJV, especially when combined with the knowledge of Jewish custom referred to above:
|
| And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli |
If, however, some are insistent on interpreting this line as meaning that Heli was Joseph’s father, then the essay that I quoted from presents an alternate interpretation that reaches the same ends via different means of supporting my contention that the Luke geneology is Jesus’ mother Mary’s, not her husband Joseph’s:
|
“[Another] view suggests that the apparent conflict between the
two genealogies of Joseph results from mistakenly assuming
Luke is intending to give Joseph’s genealogy. Instead it should
be understood as Mary’s genealogy. Joseph’s name stands in for
Mary’s by virtue of the fact that he had become son or heir of
Heli (Mary’s father) by his marriage to her. This view holds
that Heli died with no sons, and that Mary became his heiress
(Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The first of these passages seems to
provide for the preservation of the name of the man who dies
with daughters but no sons. In the case of Heli and his daughter,
Mary, this could have been accomplished by Joseph’s becoming
identified with Mary’s family. Joseph would be included in
the family genealogy, although the genealogy is really Mary’s.
Thus the genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverge from David
on because Matthew traces the Davidic descent of Joseph, and
Luke the Davidic descent of Mary (with Joseph’s name standing in)”.
|
Consider also that ancient cultures all over the near & middle east had queens by birth as well as kings & that although due to Roman occupation Mary & her husband Joseph kept a low profile with their child & Jewish custom was based around the male line’s importance in matters of lineage, that this was a discrete yet effective way of conveying this information in an age where there was no knowledge among the people of the woman’s egg. It’s astounding that some give the Bible no credit for such subtlety. The AV1611 stands as the masterpiece that it is due to its preservation of such nuances that the profane scorn.
The least that those who may have argued that Jesus is not the offspring of David of the line of Judah could do is concede the possibility of the alternate analysis that I present immediately above. Either way, Revelation 22:16, Matthew 1:1 & Romans 1:1-4 make it clear that Jesus was the offspring, the son, the seed of David. Note that it it says son, in the same fashion as the first interpretation that I brought forth above & agree with: the SON of Heli, as he was the son of David.
My point here is that if you don’t believe the AV1611 anyway & when you do use Bible verse to support you, then a pro-Rome Latin Vulgate-based translation is preferred, then why should genealogical charts bother you anyway, as you think that they are all bunkum? I state that those passages confirm what it says in Luke as can be discerned from the two differing, though not incompatible methods that I provide above.
So my friends, if you are promoting one of the central, prime ambitions of the Jesuits & the Papacy: the Rome-created & sponsored distortions & fallacies that aim to subsume true Torah-faithful Judaism & true-Bible believing Christianity, then you can consider your goals to be one & the same.
Thank you -
Troy
3 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]