It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debunking the 'Fake Jew' AKA The 'Khazarian Jew' Myth.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 07:17 PM
Me just wants to say to cutie pie that there is no "claim" to land. People do not "own" the Earth because of "divine" destination or some rumor from the past that became a novel. Land is part of nature and this planet.

Words are irrelevant, guns and nukes on the other hand truly determines who "owns" your land or my land.

But don't worry, Jews or not, Israel will expand exponentially within the next century.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by DantesLost


Thanks to everyone else for their posts. I do read them all even if I don't reply to everything.

Hello Ashley,

I have a question for you. Do you believe in the "end times prophecy" and the "rapture"? In the sense of Dispensationalists do with a time of tribulation?

Please explain if you can.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

Yes to the first question and approximately 90%+ leaning towards the positive to your second question but I'm not 100% absolutely 'case closed' positive about it. I believe the doctrine has biblical support but can also acknowledge the possibility I might be interpreting the passages wrong. It's one of those things I believe will happen if it happens or won't happen if it doesn't.

I think your question may ultimately be trying to figure out if I am a Christian Zionist? It's an honest question if so.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Yes, you are correct, and please forgive me if I am inaccurate or mistaken as I am no expert. But from what I understand perhaps Israels biggest supporters are Christian Zionists who wish to see Israel go back to its expanded biblical borders and have some pure red heifer or something be born, and a temple rebuilt to help usher in the second coming of Christ. Again I am no expert.

Are you a Christian Zionist? and does what I wrote above make sense or would you recommend I stop repeating it?

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:31 PM
i cant stand the sycophantic behavior of the christian zionist movement. the ashkanazim have as much claim to the land of israel as i do, and my ancestors came from germany and ireland.

it is a fact that the khazars converted due to political reasons. the mizrahim are real jews, though even that can be disputed as lineages and genetics become obscured by time. but at least if the mizrahim created the state of israel it might be vaugley historically correct. they did not however, because many of them were still living in israel. why would they create a state when they had lived peacfully with the arabs there for centuries?

the people who created the state of israel are the ashkenazi descendants of the khazars. ive been to israel and i have seen first hand how rascist that government is. if you arnt an ashkanzi jew you are a second class citizen.
they treat arab muslims like crap.
they treat arab christians like crap.
they treat the arab jewish mizrahim like crap.

they are some of the most elitist rascist people on earth.
why is there a double standard where every race of people on earth has to accept every other race exept for the jews? what if i told my daughter she could only marry a blond haired blue eyed guy of germanic descent? id be called a rascist! but jews do it all the time and it isnt a big deal.

im just tired of the doublethink. and the ashkanazi have NO claim to israel. they have as much a claim to israel as i would have to japan.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

Beliefs differ with various groups.

For instance, some believe the temple has to be built and a red heifer has to be born in order to build the temple before. Others believe the Messiah (Jesus, according to Christianity and the future Messiah, according to Judaism) will do it upon His return (Christianity) or his initial arrival (Judaism). Same thing goes for the borders. Just me personally, I do not believe Israel's borders are important at this time but I am willing to be proven wrong. It seems like a non issue to me regarding the borders and time line. But if someone can provide evidence that I am wrong and that borders are an important issue at this point of time, I will humbly stand corrected.

And to answer your question, yes, I am a Christian Zionist in the sense of solidarity with the Jewish people and the state of Israel but there are several things I disagree with when it comes to the movement. In a general, summarized sense, I agree with most of the theological aspects (like Israel fulfills prophecy and Israel's right to exist) but disagree with some of the political aspects (like those who attempt to manipulate events or those who use the Jewish people just to benefit their side of the prophetic scenario).

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:15 PM
Read the Seven Daughters of Eve by Brian Sykes. Europeans are all descended from one of 7 women who lived in regions between Spain and Persia. Go back farther and there is a common ancestor - one woman who crossed from Africa into Europe.

Most biblical patriarchs have now been identified as Egyptian Kings including Joshua, Jacob, Abraham, Cain, Abel, David, Solomon and quite a number of the lesser known.

Egypt seems to have had a presence throughout western Europe and definitely in Ireland.

1. The remains of two Egyptian ships have been found in the Humber Estuary at Ferriby. These are identical to the ships found buried next to the Great Pyramid.

2. Egyptian faience jewellery (beads) has been found in Irish Barrows. I have since found that these beads have been found all over Britain, so might have been a common form of currency that was manufactured in Egypt.

3. Egyptian religious signs in the form of Sun Disks and Solar Ships have been carved on the rock walls of some tombs.

4. Skeletons of so-called 'Iberians' have been found in Irish graves. They are notable for their long skulls and are therefore referred to as being dolichocephalous. The term 'Iberian' is used to indicate that they are a people originating in the Mediterranean basin and not just from the Iberian Peninsula. They are thought to have been of a dark complexion. The 18th Dynasty kings YmnTwtAnkh and Smenkhkare both had the same long skulls.

5. A comparison of the following extracts leaves us in no doubt that Irish legend remembers the invaders from their distant past.

Extract from Celtic Myths and Legends by T.W. Rolleston ISBN 1 85958 006 8
Page 103
"The Coming of the people of Dana
We now come to by far the most interesting and important of the mythical invaders and colonisers of Ireland, the People of Dana. The name, Tuatha De Danann, means literally 'the folk of the god whose mother is Dana."

Extract from Ancient Egypt Myth and Legend by Geddes & Grosset ISBN 13:978 1 85534 353 5
Chapter 12, page 140, para 2.
"An interesting contrast is afforded by the two great rival religions of this period of transition. While the theology of Heliopolis was based on sun worship, that of Memphis was based on earth worship. Ptah, the creation elf of the latter city, had been united with Tanen (or Tatanen, the earth giant, who resembles Geb. The dwarfish deity then assumed gigantic proportions and became a 'world god', or Great Father. A hymn addressed to Ptah Tanen declares that his head is in the heavens while his feet are on the earth or in Duat, the underworld." (This has been copied into Acts 7:49 "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool..")

It is interesting to see the same interchange between hard and soft consonants, 'T' and 'D' that occurs when Egyptian is transliterated into Hebrew, e.g. Aten and Adhonai; Twt and Dwd (David).

Duat or Tuatha was the Egyptian Netherworld, and Tatanen or De Danann one of the gods. Whilst at first glance the latter was a Father God to the Egyptians, but a Mother God to the Irish, a touregypt webpage about this god does say that the Egyptians sometimes saw him as a mother god.

6. Language – Extract from Celtic Myths and Legends – page 78.

"Approaching the subject from the linguistic side, Rhys and Brynmor Jones find that the African origin – at least proximately – of the primitive population of Great Britain and Ireland is strongly suggested. It is shown here that the Celtic languages preserve in their syntax the Hamitic, and especially the Egyptian type. (Note reading – "The Welsh People," pp 616-664, where the subject is fully discussed in an appendix by Professor J. Morris Jones. "The pre-Aryan idioms which still live in Welsh and Irish were derived from a language allied to Egyptian and the Berber tongues.".


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by Malankhkare


7. Extract from Myths of the Celtic Race – page 114:

"Kian, the story goes, was sent northward by Lugh to summon the fighting men of the Danaans in Ulster to the hosting against the Fomorians. On his way, as he crosses the Plain of Murthemney, near Dundalk, he meets with three brothers, Brian, Iuchar, and Iucharba, sons of Turenn, between whose house and that of Kian there was a blood-feud. He seeks to avoid them by changing into the form of a pig and joining a herd which is rooting in the plain, but the brothers detect him and Brian wounds him with a cast from a spear. Kian, knowing that his end is come, begs to be allowed to changed back into human form before his is slain. "I had liefer kill a man than a pig," says Brian, who takes throughout the leading part in all the brother's adventures. Kian then stands before them as a man with the blood from Brian's spear trickling from his breast. "I have outwitted ye," he cries, " for if ye had slain a pig ye would have paid but the eric [blood-fine] of a pig, but now ye shall pay the eric of a man; never was greater than that which ye shall pay; and the weapons ye slay me with shall tell the tale to the avenger of blood."

The legend goes on to tell how Kian is slain by the brothers by stoning to death.

Khyan was an Egyptian King who was preceded by a King called Iucheber. The YY or IU prefix is a god name and when dropped leaves us with Heber. There was no letter 'L' in Egyptian so HBR was the usual way to write a foreign name containing the letter 'L' – refer Wallis Budge. Genesis 4:8 transliterated from Hebrew into English letters names the brothers HBL and QYN. Interestingly Laurence Gardiner reads this verse quite wrongly and claims that Abel killed Cain, as in the Irish Legend.

If the Irish legend really does have its roots in Egyptian history then who was Brian? Only possible King would be one listed by Manetho as BAION and this king was also known as Ma'ibre which with reversed syllables as is often found, becomes Ibram and IbraMam.

8. The Gaelic name for Jesus is 'Iosa' – see Gaelic Gospel of Mark on line. The Egyptian Ever coming son of God was also called 'Iwsa' pronounced 'Iosa' or 'Iusa'.

9. Celtic Myths Extract pages 77/78:
"There is very strong evidence of the connexion of the Megalithic People with North Africa. Thus, as Sergi points out, many signs (probably numerical) found on ivory tablets in the cemetery at Naqada discovered by Flinders Petrie are to be met with on European dolmens. Several later Egyptian hieroglyphic signs, including the famous Ankh, or crux ansata, the symbol of vitality or resurrection, are also found in megalithic carvings. From these correspondences Letourneau drew conclusion "that the builders of our megalithic monuments came from the South, and were related to the races of North Africa.

Page 79:
"The classical writers felt rightly that the Celtic idea of immortality was something altogether different from this. It was both loftier and more realistic; it implied a true persistence of the living man, as he was at present, in all his human relations. They noted with surprise that the Celt would lend money on a promissory note for repayment in the next world. That is an absolutely Egyptian conception. And this very analogy occurred to Diodorus in writing of the Celtic idea of immortality – it was like nothing that he knew out(side) of Egypt. (Note Book V.)

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:21 PM

Egyptians were Israelites. Britons have blood from the Egyptian conquest so must be related to Israelites

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 07:02 AM
What well written and neatly displayed gibberish. So, if Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are DNA related, then that "legitimizes" a group of people to claim title to a land? Then be ready to move when the Native American comes knocking on your door, sister.

I can give you links showing there is a DNA divide between the two groups, and links that state you are correct. (how come you don't provide the source of your "links"? Neither of the two wikipedia links you say state Jews fled to Khazaria have any mention of that ) But those same links state that Sephardic Jews are more closely related to Kurdish Muslims than to Ashkenazi Jews, so does that mean Kurds get Tel Aviv?

Basically, you would like to convey the impression that the Bible "legitimizes" a people gone from a land (if they were ever a "kingdom" remains a mystery, as there is no archaeological evidence for any "kingdom" of David or Solomon, nor any large "kingdom" until Ahab. With the wife that worshiped B'al) to return and commit genocide on the existing population. Because "the one god said so."

Well, then please explain this:

This would be a pottery shard, from the 800s B.C., depicting your "one god" cavorting with his pals B'al, El, and Asherah, his girlfriend/wife.

So much for the "one god" Judaism. So much for "legitimate."

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by AshleyD

Thank you for your reply.

My other argument begs this question,why are people treating a religion like a race?

You cannot convert to another race,but you can convert to a religion.

Which makes a Jew a person who follows Judaism.
It does not make them a race all of their own.
If this was true then it could be argued that Christians,Muslims,Hindu's etc are races too.But everyone knows that they're not.

So why the difference with Jews?

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:45 PM
To everyone who keeps professing the unimportance of debunking this conspiracy theory in relation to Israel's current right to exist, to those who keep saying the scientific evidence linking Ashkenazi Jews to Semitic ancestors should be a non factor, and to those who keep bringing up the 'religion or race' issue of Judaism, please consider this:

This thread is a response to those who keep saying such things. Your gripe should be with those who keep bringing up these arguments in an effort to dispute Israel's right to exist or the Jews currently residing in Israel. If you feel the points I am debunking are such a 'non issue,' consider the fact it is the critics who continually use these 'worthless' things to support their position. I am merely debunking the points the critics of Israel and the Jews have frequently used.

If they are such a 'non issue' then ask them why they keep using them to support their case and repeatedly attack their ethnic links.

Hope everyone now understand where I'm coming from. This is not me saying 'This is why Israel is justified.' Instead, this is me saying, 'The reasons critics are using to justify their position are erroneous and here's why...'

[edit on 1/5/2009 by AshleyD]

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by AshleyD

just ran across another person...with a lot more public stature than myself...
who shares the conclusion that this thread topic is about.


(his Editorial comes a few days (6 Jan) after the OP thread has wound down...but it is succinct & appropos non-the-less)

anyone who dares criticize Israel is at once denounced as an anti-Semite.

But the Zionists who run Israel are not Semites. The Ashkenazi Jews that rule Israel have no legal, moral, historical or religious ties to Israel. Their origins are in the Kingdom of Khazar, they converted to Judaism in the 8th Century. The Palestinians are Semites; the Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites. So by attacking the Ghetto at Gaza, the Zionists have become the biggest Anti-Semites of all times

Let me give you some facts no American media will provide you with. The Gaza Ghetto is 139 square miles, about the size of Philadelphia or Seattle. Within the Ghetto 1.5 million people live in abject poverty with an unemployment rate of 65%. It’s one of the most densely populated areas on earth. Israel maintains a total and complete blockade on the Ghetto (In comparison, the Warsaw Ghetto contained only 500,000 people)

The blockade is illegal but seeing as how Israel has ignored hundreds of UN Resolutions regarding their illegal treatment of Palestinians, it’s just one more war crime on their part.

I realize Mr Moriarity is thinking in absolutes, which is incorrect to say all Jewish leadership in modern Israel are Ashkenazi related Jews...
and therefore all of modern Israelis are not correctly ''semites'
He also makes a correct but contorted determination that the Ashkenazi Jews are not 'religiously' tied to Israel. (we must define does he mean the modern state of Israel or the religious heritage of the progenitor Israelites.

all-in-all, it goes back to the confounding of sensibilities for the deliberate selection of the name Israel for the zionist land which by all rights should be correctly named Judah...the zionists chose the confusing name Israel because that name evokes scriptural prophecies...
and because the zionist leadership decided against a Judah
because Israel, in a sense was a 'secular' name when compared with Judah which stands for the tribe of the Jews

the rest of the editorial mostly concerns the bashing of the blockade and massive force invasion of Gaza....which is another topic,


posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 04:31 PM
this is from
When the Khazars in the 1st century B.C. invaded eastern Europe their mother-tongue was an Asiatic language, referred to in the Jewish Encyclopedia as the "Khazar languages". They were primitive Asiatic dialects without any alphabet or any written form. When King Bulan was converted in the 7th century he decreed that the Hebrew characters he saw in the Talmud and other Hebrew documents was thereupon to become the alphabet for the Khazar language. The Hebrew characters were adopted to the phonetics of the spoken Khazar language. The Khazars adopted the characters of the so-called Hebrew language in order to provide a means for providing a written record of their speech. The adoption of the Hebrew characters had no racial, political or religious implication.

Before it became known as the "Yiddish" language, the mother-tongue of the Khazars added many words to its limited ancient vocabulary as necessity required. These words were acquired from the languages of its neighboring nations with whom they had political, social or economic relations. Languages of all nations add to their vocabularies in the same way. The Khazars adapted words to their requirements form the German, the Slavonic and the Baltic languages. The Khazars adopted a great number of words from the German language. The Germans had a much more advanced civilization than their Khazar neighbors and the Khazars sent their children to German schools and universities.

The "Yiddish" language is not a German dialect. Many people are led to believe so because "Yiddish" has borrowed so many words from the German language. If "Yiddish" is a German dialect acquired from the Germans then what language did the Khazars speak for 1000 years they existed in eastern Europe before they acquired culture from the Germans? The Khazars must have spoken some language when they invaded eastern Europe. What was that language? When did they discard it? How did the entire Khazar population discard one language and adopt another all of a sudden? The idea is too absurd to discuss. "Yiddish" is the modern name for the ancient mother-tongue of the Khazars with added German, Slavonic and Baltic adopted and adapted numerous words.

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 04:37 PM
this is the only reason any so-called Hebrew characters in are in Yiddish

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by Ownification

Even the Muslims who you guys portay as terrorist have more understanding, not even them call it ancestral claim over the land, they call it injustice. They say We lived amogst Jews and Jews lived amongst us. Why did they force thousands of Jewish migrants on one land as if the world doesn't have enough space. Injustice is the only word, ancestral claim is for uneducated.

Who are 'you guys'?

This is getting way off topic. I would humbly suggest that:

a) If you want to explore the possible historical injustices perpetrated against Muslims, create a thread for it.

b) Use clarity in your accusations so that it is clear who 'you guys' are. Without that clarity the reader is forced to assume that you are setting up a false us vs. them dichotomy.


Sometimes in language you have to make assumptions. If one such as me should go to the extend of clarifying every statement I state than for god sakes, you should know, it wouldn't fit within ten posts.

If you read my sentence, it should be obviouse who I mean by 'you guys', it doesn't in anyway mean everyone who reads it. 'Muslims who you guys portray as terrorists', who do you think I'm referring to? Is it not obvious?

[edit on 103131p://31b1 by Ownification]

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by AshleyD

Instead of getting into the 'ancestral claim' argument which is an excellent discussion in and of itself, I'm going to tie my answer directly into the topic. And that is, if ancestral claim should not be an issue (opinions will differ regarding the importance and fairness so I'll respect the right of everyone to have their own view of this), why the need to invent false accusations regarding a segment of the Jewish population's ancestry?

If we're to stay on topic, then the question is not 'do or should the Jews have ancestral claim to the land.' Instead, if critics claim ancestral rights is not even an issue, why are these critics trying to disprove their ancestral claim by attacking their ancestry if its such a non issue? What they should be doing is disputing the claim to ancestral right fairly, logically, and historically- not fabricating arguments which is what they are doing in this case.

Yes I agree with you. Why would one fabricate such arguments? Is it not obvious? The whole reason why Jewish migrants were sent from all across the world to Palestine by the Zionist organization was based on the ancestral claims. The world watched this injustice and accepted it, meaning they have accepted the fact that ancestral claims are generally accepted so one can't argue against ancestral claims therefore forced to produce fabrications such as these. Am I wrong?

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

And to answer your question, yes, I am a Christian Zionist in the sense of solidarity with the Jewish people and the state of Israel but there are several things I disagree with when it comes to the movement.

This diagreement is what makes the difference between you and jews. Not to animostically but did you stop by merriam-webster before calling yourself a zionist?

In a general, summarized sense, I agree with most of the theological aspects (like Israel fulfills prophecy and Israel's right to exist) but disagree with some of the political aspects (like those who attempt to manipulate events or those who use the Jewish people just to benefit their side of the prophetic scenario).

It is better to be jewish 100% in this thing. The right to genocide belongs equally to both sides.

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by rightwingnut
This diagreement is what makes the difference between you and jews. Not to animostically but did you stop by merriam-webster before calling yourself a zionist?

First of all, there are some rather big differences between the Jewish and Christian Zionist movements. Second, I never meant to imply I was a Christian Zionist but I just went and reread my post you are referring to and see how it could have come across. My previous post was meant to show I agree with some of their beliefs but not all. So 'in a sense,' like I wrote above, I can understand some of their concerns and beliefs and would be considered a Christian Zionist but in other cases, I strongly disagree with the movement. I'm not politically or financially involved in the movement or anything.

Here is an analogy to help clarify:

It would be like asking an atheist if they are a Christian. They might say yes in the sense that they follow Christ's teachings but they are not a Christian in the sense they do not believe in God or Jesus as being God in human form. See: HERE.

So although I agree with some of their ideologies, I am vehemently opposed to other aspects of the movement. And no need to look it up on MW. I'm familiar with what Christian Zionism entails and was able to see that was the direction in which another poster was heading based on the questions they were asking me.
Hope that helps. Sorry about the confusion. I wasn't intending to say I was a Christian Zionist as I have some rather severe issues with the movement.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Many debates here are based on misinformation. For example in support of the argument of universalism, the statement is made that Ruth was not an Israelitess. in fact the source for knowledge about Ruth is the Bible which quite clearly states that she was an Israelitess from the Plains of Moab which were part of the territories selected tribes had occupied across the Jordan and which had been completely emptied of their original inhabitants for centuries.
Such misleading issues are employed to build a case based on deception aimed at influencing a modern day power bloc holding to cherished religious beliefs. By this technology, uninformed minds are swayed into accepting that the current political scenario must be what God has ordained and therefore resources must be diverted to sustain it, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Further concerning Israel, a careful reading of the source documents will show the following:

There were 13 tribes not 12 (Joseph = 2)
12 tribes held land titles (regional territories)
1 tribe (Levi) did not have land inheritance rights but was funded out of regional treasury to perform religious and civil administration duties.

The 12 formed a "Union" and elected a leader to set up a central administration based on the model of the nations which surrounded them. The tribe from which their earliest dominant leader (David) came eventally gained the ascendancy and defaulted to being their "royal" family in a "kingdom" structure incorporating all 12 tribal territories.
The "royal family" gradually became an oppressive ruling ogligarchy.
This caused civil unrest and finally lead to a confrontation between the 11 regions and their centralised rulers.

Following a breakdown of negotiations over taxation issues, the 11 withdrew from the "kingdom" to form a new republic in the north.
They appointed an ex-guerilla leader as their first president and in due time under several successive Presidents (kings) changed their laws, religion and customs to complete their separation from the southern kingdom and all it represented.
The Bible records their separate development through time listing their rulers parallel with the southern nation up until their captivity and exile by the regional empire.
In the Bible, the new Republic is called by translators as "Israel", sometimes ,the "House of Israel" and following their later capture and permanent exile by Assyria, as "The lost sheep of the House of Israel".
They themselves did not call themselves by any reference to the name "Israel" and ancient historical documents from that period reveal their actual common name was known to the countries which surrounded them as something quite unrelated to anything biblical. They had completely lost their sense of historical identity and went into exile as "gentiles".

The city of Jerusalem belonged to one of the 11 (Benjamin).
Benjamin was recovering from near decimation and through trade, was closely aligned almost to the point of being assimilated with southern neighbor Judah who maintained the shadow "royal family" residence in Jerusalem. Judah has become associated with ownership of Jerusalem although those same scriptures which are claimed to justify the present occupation also specifically deny their right to it. Another inconvenient truth.

The source documents state that Benjamin was "loaned" to Judah so Judah could retain the illusion of rulership function and because of the significance of Jerusalem as the appointed capital of the "kingdom" against future signficant events.
This arrangement with Benjamin was further stated to be a short term arrangement until such time as the Appointed Ruler would appear in history from Judah. At this time Benjamin was to take his place with his brethren of the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" as the Christ called them. From that time Judah was no longer to be a ruling elite but one of the tribes. Many have "wailed" because of the perception that the kingdom was lost to them but for them Shiloh had not come.
The new contract is foreshadowed in Jer 31:31-33 where it is extended to the House of Israel but carefully excludes the House of Judah for a time until the "House of David" are again isolated and are able to consider the work of their hands (Zech 12:10), an event which clearly has not happened yet.

Rev 2:9 and 3:9. The scripture typifies the present world political situation as the climax of the conflict between Esau and Jacob. Esau as part of Edom meaning the whole alien banking/political NWO conspiracy scenario designed to impose world government on an unsuspecting and careless Jacob to return this planet to a world state which once existed. Being achieved through deception, fraud and treachery where Esau masquerades as Jacob where it suits his purposes.
Within this analogy it is of interest to consider Ezekiel 35 and 36 which acknowledges that Esau has gained control over the high places meaning the government institutions/banks of the world power. Esau believes nothing can now stop him and note he intends to take control of the two nations of Israel (vs 35:10) because they are the key to his success.

Unfortunately, All-Israel's numbers were prophesied on the exodus from Egypt to increase 1000 times which makes them about 600M men at this time or about 2B total support population worldwide. After the wars to come in which the NWO is defeated, only a remnant of "Israel" survive of sufficiently small numbers to be able to return to their original lands. (Ez 37:22)

The DNA tests are inconclusive because at best they only establish descent from a common origin which is "claimed" to have been a particular identity and at worst for every test there are two opposing interpretations. What they also showed which is not recorded here is common origins which were an embarrassment to the present political situation. For this reason a new way of interpreting the results had to be invented.

Personally I have no idea how the clock works but I am quite certain it will strike the correct hour to show that everything was always under control for when the time comes.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in