Yeshua was constantly rebuking the Pharisees

The faith that is known as Judaism today was never called thus.

 

Rabbi Adolph Moses in collaboration with Rabbi H.G. Enlow explained clearly in “Yahvism and Other Discourses,” that: “Among the innumerable misfortunes which have befallen… the most fatal in its consequences is the name Judaism… neither in biblical nor post-biblical, neither in Talmudic nor in much later times, is the term Judaism ever heard…”

And what was it called before?

Rabbi Louis Finkelstein stated in his book “The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith” that: “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name . . . the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered . . . From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered . . . demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement . . .”

Judaism is actually Pharisaism, and therefore it is a misnomer since it is neither the doctrine of Judah nor the doctrine that Christ the Judahite practiced.

“Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future,” explains the Jewish Encyclopedia.

The term Judaism was first coined by historian Flavius Josephus as he described the history, the civilization, the language, the poetry, the religion, the art, the science, the manners, the customs, the institutions, and the demise of the Ancient Judahites. It was not coined with the intention of starting a religion, and nor is Judaism even mentioned in the Bible.

The people who first seized the term Judaism and its historical content were first-century Christians. They were using it as an educational tool to acquaint themselves with the true Judahite Hebrews who practiced the doctrine of Yeshua. Such a mechanism allowed them to better comprehend the Epistles of the Apostles.

As a result, they were able to grasp two important facts that have eluded today’s Christians:

a) that the Judahite Hebrews who became Christians were the true Israel of God, whom God spared the Great Tribulation during the Apocalypse of AD 70 –

b) that those who followed the Pharisees were not the true Israel of God and therefore were not spared during said catastrophe that saw the genocide and the end of the Hebrew race.

In effect, those Judahite Hebrews who followed the Pharisees were the seed of the Devil, a truth the Apostle John was trying to convey in Revelation by calling them “Babylon.”

As for the word “Jew,” Jewish-born historian Benjamin H. Freedman explained it thus:

Again, here’s historian Benjamin Freedman:

“The present generally accepted ‘secondary meaning’ of the word ‘Jew’ is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word ‘Jew’ today, to the preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestable historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song ‘Yeshua was a Jew’. It actually now approaches a psychosis.

“Countless Christians know today that they were ‘brain washed’ by the Christian clergy on the subject ‘Yeshua was a Jew‘… (They) are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’ throughout the world for three centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the ‘Judeans’ in the time of Jesus were ‘Jews’ rather than ‘Judeans’, and that ‘Yeshua was a Jew’.”

The forced evolution of the word “Jew” is similar to the evolution that befell the word “gay.” Gay=Merry became Gay=Homosexual. Try telling someone who’s happy (and who’s not a homosexual) that you’re glad he’s so “gay” and see what happens.

Another example is when many Christians today interact with a Jew they just met, their immediate reaction is to say, “Oh, Yeshua was a Jew too.” What they’re unwittingly saying is, “Oh, Yeshua was a Pharisee too.”

Oh, the blasphemy!

A word is what it is according to the meaning of its time. The word “Jew” today is so entrenched in describing one who follows Pharisaism (or Judaism) that it’s been completely emptied of its original meaning. Hence it no longer describes a Judahite or Judean, the actual word in the non-translated bible. That is why it needs to be struck from the translated bible, because all it does is create confusion in the Christian mind; and that very confusion is exactly what the demonic forces want in order to unseat Christians as the new Chosen People – chosen to love and to do good – and to calumniate Christ as a Pharisee.

Once the words “Judaism” and “Jew” were commandeered, they became the immediate revisionist words that historians endeavored to apply to everything “Jewish,” especially as such impetus was spurred on by that well-financed group historian Benjamin Freedman mentioned. See How the Ashkenazi Jews conquered the West.

As a result, the words that were previously used to describe the adherents of Pharisaism and their religion were sanitized. This in turn caused compromised writers of all stripes to follow suit, as they searched for any excuse to exploit the word “Jew” in reference to proselytes of Pharisaism.

For example, pre-18th century playwrights employed the word IEWE (Iewe is old English and means Jehudite/Judahite or Judean) in their work, but unlike the word Jew it was pronounced Yee-hoo-wee, stretching its best to imitate the original Hebrew phonetic of Ye-hu-wdiy. Its usage was never meant to describe a JEW in the sense of the religious person we know today, but that didn’t matter to those who had revisionism in mind.

As a case in point, in The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare’s Shylock the Iewe was a fictional creative construct that borrowed its obvious tautology from the biblical Judahite money changers, whom Yeshua whipped and chased out of the Temple. Its creation was not intended to mimic Rabbinists of Shakespeare’s time. Nonetheless, it’s been widely and erroneously interpreted to mean a “JEW” in the modern sense.

In “Was Shylock Jewish?” Professor Emma Smith clarified it thus:

“That ‘Jew’ (Iewe) might be an adjective rather than a noun – an attribute of a person which does not always or only denote religion or race – is common in its deployment in early modern English… In the early modern period, the signifier ‘Jew’ (Iewe) had become at least partially detached from the racial or religious signified with which it is now firmly associated… R.H. Tawney – along with Shakespeare’s own biography – demonstrated long ago that Elizabethan money lending was ‘not a profession but a bye-employment’. Thus the early modern association between Jews and money lending was almost always a knowing fiction…”

However, Shakespeare was not anti-Jew as some allege, and nor was Shylock created to malign those who today are known as Jews, especially when he was penned at a time when “Jews” were called Rabbinists (followers of the Babylonian Talmud), and everyone knew they were not of the tribe of Judah.

And that’s why one should always be suspicious of the cry-wolf accusation of antisemitism, as “Jews” are not even Semites.

“…it is impossible to change the genetic make-up from Caucasian to Semitic. Which automatically nullifies their claim to be returning to Israel, the land of their forebears, because their forebears were never in Biblical Israel,” explained Benjamin Disraeli, a former Jew who converted to Christianity and a Victorian Prime Minister of Great Britain, referring to his fellow Ashkenazim who were migrating from Russia and Eastern Europe to Palestine, with a view to turning the Arab country into Israel.

(As submitted to us by Mr. Larry Silverstein)

You must ALWAYS say Talmudic Jew and Talmudic Judaism, when speaking about Rabbinism (Pharisaism):

(1) Yasna – the book of sacrifices, which contains seventy-two chapters among them the Gatha passages (the oldest and most hallowed writings of the Zend-Avesta)

(2) Vendidad – twenty-two chapters on the laws regulating evil spirits.

(4) The Vispered – twenty-four chapters (a supplement to Yasna).

(5) Khorda – an abridged edition of the laws in the Zend-Avesta.

OTHER ELEMENTS

To attempt to detail every point where the Talmud draws upon the Zend-Avesta would take a book. The following section will detail some of the more prominent concepts:

The matter of benedictions, or the saying of grace over something that is eaten is of Persian origin (Vendidad II.112)
The entire marriage ritual, with its special blessings, ceremony and rites is fully delimitated in the Zend-Avesta (II.157, 158, III.228)
Vendidad II.130 and Midrash Tehillim both contend that the righteous who dwell in Paradise are as luminous as the stars.
Vendidad 18, 166 and Masekhet Sanhedrin 17 state that the art of magic does not come from the Evil Power, and all wise men (in the case of the Talmud the men of the Sanhedrin can practice it).
Both the Zend-Avesta (according to the Persians) and Torah (according to the Talmud) are able to repel demonic influences, merely by their recitation (c.f., Seder Eliyhau, Zuta 82, Masekhet Megillah 31, and Masekhet Ta‘anit 27).
The passage in the Zend-Avesta where Ahura Mazda speaks to Zoroaster of the life of virtue that follows death has been copied directly into the Talmud (Masekhet Avot 86).
The disciples of Zoroaster are assured of a heavenly existence, so the Talmud says of the nation of Israel (Masekhet ‘Eruvin 10).
God is with him who studies and mediates in the night (Vendidad 18, Masekhet ‘Avodah Zarah 3, Masekhet Berakhot 30).

The Persians believed that life is but a passing, unimportant state of existence, only after death does one truly begin to live, so Midrash Qohelet Rabba. Zoroastrians were loath to convert others to their faith, so too is found in the Talmud a discouragement to prosetylization (Masekhet Qiddushin 70).

Though the Zend-Avesta was unknown before the coming of Zoroaster, the righteous who had lived before him were aware of it, and followed the precepts it contained. The Talmud, in this vein, contends that the Patriarchs perfectly observed the Torah even though it had not yet been given (Masekhet Yoma 28).

Truly, all of the enjoinments concerning demons and spirits detailed in the Vendidad may be found in the Talmud. It is as if the authors of the Talmud sat down and copied the Vendidad into the Talmud. Many of the laws of Yasna: sacrificial arrangement, rendering of divine service, and regulations of cleanliness form the major portion of Talmudic law in these matters. The list goes on and on, to the extent that one begins to wonder if Rabbanites are unwitting disciples of Zoroaster.

There is a misconception about Judaism common among Christians and Muslims. This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a ‘biblical religion’; that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same central place and legal authority which the Bible has for Protestant or even Catholic Christianity. The legal interpretation of sacred texts is rigidly fixed in Judaism – but by the Talmud, rather than by the Bible itself (Shahak 1994).

The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible may be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient that it pre-dates the Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. The New York Times wrote,

“The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way.”[1]

Because they are not versed in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state. It is the natural consequence of Jewish belief of considering the Talmud superior to the Torah. The Talmud states,

Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

“My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah.”

Rabbi Adin Even Israel Steinsaltz is the founder of the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, and has enjoyed the backing of Israeli presidents and prime ministers; he is a recipient of Israel’s highest civilian honor, the Israel Prize. He is currently translating the Talmud into English, French, and Russian. He writes,

“If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct.”[2]

“Historically speaking, the Talmud is the central pillar of Jewish culture. This culture is many faceted, but each of its numerous aspects is connected in some way with the Talmud. This is true not only of the literature that deals directly with the interpretation or continuation of the Talmud, but also of all other types of Jewish creativity.”[3]

The importance of the Talmud and its authority can be understood by what the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states,

“The Talmud is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable literary productions of all times. It is an encyclopedia covering the whole scene of human life. It is almost impossible to convey to one who has not spent years in the study of this complex work an idea of its true nature, as even the most exact translations cannot catch the inner spirit of the Talmud … As a repository of the Oral Law, the Talmud’s authority is regarded as divine by Orthodox Jews, and hence it is held to be binding and immutable. Conservative and Reform Jews, however, do not recognize the absolute binding power of the Talmud, although they acknowledge the great part it has played in determining Jewish religious ideas and observances.”[4]

Herman Wouk is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author of eleven novels, three plays, and two works of nonfiction. In his book, This is My God; the Jewish Way of Life, serialized in the New York Herald-Tribune in 1959, he wrote:

Footnotes:
[1] N.Y. Times: Sept. 29, 1992, p.4
[2] Rabbi Adin Even Israel Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, page 3
[3] Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, trans. Chaya Galai (New York: Basic Books, 1976) 266
[4] Herschel Revel, Librarian of the Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, New York, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Talmud,” Volume 10, page 165.
[5] Herman Wouk, This is My God; the Jewish Way of Life quoted by Elizabeth Dilling in The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, page 2.
[6] “Talmud and Midrash.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006.