Does anyone recognize this hand sign?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
You are asking me to prove something that I never said.

Right.

What I said:

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Jesus, by nearly every historical account, was Jewish.

What you said:

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
'Jews' or Ashkenazi Jews? Because there is a big difference.

There were no Ashkenazi Jews in the time of Christ. Your comment implies that there were and is irrelevant.

What I have said, is that the people we think of today as Jews are really Ashkenazi...

Who cares? I was obviously not talking about Jews of today or people's opinions of today.

I do not care for your opinion on either site; I am asking for refutation of the evidence provided therein, if you can not provide that, fine, we will move on.

Asking me to prove biblebelievers and hiddenmysteries wrong is comical. They are wrong because the do not cite any peer reviewed sources.

What about my link : Palestinian Myths?
What about my ex-quote of Aristotle from the Jewish Encyclopedia? Aristotle - JE

What about it? It says nothing about Ashkenazi Jews in the time of Jesus which your assinine interjection in the first place implied.

Your entire two line post was totally and completely irrelevant as it does not diminish the fact that Jesus would have self-identified as Jewish, not some pseudo-nonsensical crap you are peddling from even more laughable websites which only serve to appease your confirmation bias with their uncited sources.

Originally posted by Rosha
Sorry to pop the bubble..he wasn't.

...

The second diaspora didn't happen until 66 CE - so Jews were still in Jerusalem during his lifetime and were only exiled after had been dead 30 years....some, not all to go on to become Zionists,

Are you disputing that Jesus wanted a free Jewish state not under the dictates of Rome? Zionism, not the name but the concept, of a free Jewish state existed in Jesus' time and catastrophically (for the Jews) manifested in Rome's eventual sacking and destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent diaspora.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Asking me to prove biblebelievers and hiddenmysteries wrong is comical. They are wrong because the do not cite any peer reviewed sources.

YOU NEVER EVEN READ THE SITES!! Jesus frickin Christ, is it that hard to make you do a little research on your own, or does it always have to be spelled out for you? They are not 'articles' written by the websites, they were posts on a forum, JUST LIKE ATS ALLOWS, which linked to verifiable facts, if you would get your head out of the clouds for a moment, and put that beer down to read a few minutes, you might know this....

The reason I asked if you meant 'Jews' or Ashkenazi Jews, is because I wanted to make sure that there was a distinction made between the Jews of today and the Jews of Jesus time.

Just saying Jesus was a 'Jew' shows no distinction, between the people who lived in Roman Judea during Jesus time, and the fraudsters posing as their descendants today...This would mean that those people are not just 'Jews', they have a better distinction for that. And as the other articles provided information, they are actually Palestinians, BECAUSE ROMAN JUDEA IS PALESTINE!!!!

!*(@&!@*(&

Somebody is gonna bust a blood vessel in here...No critical or abstract thinking skills at ALL in this world...

Aristotle believed that the Jews came from India, where he said that they were known as the Kalani. en.wikipedia.org... Could the Jewish people have come from India? The hook noses in both cultures are a bit of a give away to me.

Also, the men from the East who came into Sumer and started building the Tower to God, must have spoken the same language as the people already there, because God thinks their ability to all communicate is a threat. The Jewish religion might be tied into the IVC, where they find no conclusive evidence of palaces, temples or the like. The priest King of India statue is the only thing that says they may have had a preistly caste too.

He wears the Sun symbol on his headband. Monotheism is tied into the worship of the Sun as the only God, like the Aten. If not, why would Aristotle say such an outright statement?

Hebrews And Vedic Brahmins Dr. Samar Abbas, Aligarh, India EDITORIAL, Jul 14 (VNN) A Review In 1979 the Oriental Institute at Baroda published a paper entitled "The Hebrews belong to a branch of Vedic Aryans." This was a follow-up to a previous article on the same topic published by the same author, Prof. Madan Mohan Shukla, in the Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal in 1976. The basic thesis of these papers is that the Hebrews represent an offshoot of Vedic Brahmins.

It may be instructive to review Shukla's papers as they serve to illustrate the common origin of the Jews and Brahmins. As Shukla's papers are very difficult to obtain both within and outside India, and are virtually out of reach for laypersons, I am reproducing extensive tracts from them for reference purposes. 1. VOCABULARY One of Shukla's strong points is the considerable vocabulary shared by Hebrew and Sanskrit. Indeed, M.M. Shukla has concentrated on providing a large list of of words which are common to Hebrew and Sanskrit. Thus, he provides the following examples: "The word, 'Svah' means 'heaven' or 'paradise' in Sanskrit. This word, written as 'svam' may assume the form, 'Sam-yim' which means, 'sky' and/or 'heaven' in Hebrew, while it may become 'Asvah' under the influence of the principle of vowelization. Sometimes, the sound 'a' may change to 'ya' and thus, the derivation, 'Asvah' or 'Asuah' may change to 'Yasuah' which is nearer to a Hebrew word, 'Yasuah' (salvation).... It may be mentioned that 'Appa' is a Marathi word. The derivation 'Appa' may further change to 'Abba', which is a Hebrew word... Now let us consider the root - word 'Svas'.

It may change first to 'Vas' and thence to Bas or 'Bes' which is a Hebrew word though with different meaning, ie. 'daughter'." (Shukla 1979, p.45) He also suggests that Surios gave rise to Kurios, or Kur (ibid., p.48) Shukla notes that 'Abru' and 'Uparohita' exist in Persian and Avadhi Hindi, distinct from Skt. bhru and purohita (Shukla 1979, p.44) Describing the process of vowelization, he notes, "the Punjabis would pronounce the words station, putra and Krsna as satation, puttar, and Kishan respectively." (Shukla 1976, p.41) Building upon this, he writes, "the word Joasava may be transformed into Joasaph, from which the derivation of the word Joseph is a simple matter. Thus we can see that the Biblical name Joseph can be derived from an ancient Indian name, jayasva." (Shukla 1976, p.42) Continuing in this line, he notes, "Adam. This word seems to have been derived from the Sanskrit word A-dityam, from the Vedic pronunciation of this word as A-ditiam." (Shukla 1976, p.45) In addition, "The meaning of the root-word as in Sanskrit is 'to eat', and 'to enjoy' or 'to be merry'. Hence if we pronounce the term upasana as 'upasana', then it would mean, 'Eating before God', and 'Being merry before God.'"

(Shukla 1976, p.46) Another striking similarity exists with regard to script: "Now, the Hebrew script, like those of Arabic and Kaithi, does not use the word signs to indicate the pronunciation of its consonants." (Shukla 1976, p.44). 2. PRIESTHOOD One of the strongest points for a common Brahmin-Jewish origin is the fact that in both communities have been endogamous priests from the earliest times of their recorded history: "Chosen People of God: It may also be observed in this respect that the Hebrews, as well as their Indian counterparts, Brahmins, consider themselves as the "Chosen People of God".

The Hebrews started their corporate career in history as a "Kingdom of Priests" (Exodus/19/6). Likewise, the Brahmins have also been a "Community of Priests" since the dawn of their history." (Shukla 1979, p.54) The colonialists were the first to notice the similarity between Brahmins and Jews, namely that Brahma not only corresponds with Abraham, but that his consort Sarasvati corresponds to Sarah. Shukla also notes the story in Genesis 29, 32-33, 20/12.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Rosha
Sorry to pop the bubble..he wasn't.

...

The second diaspora didn't happen until 66 CE - so Jews were still in Jerusalem during his lifetime and were only exiled after had been dead 30 years....some, not all to go on to become Zionists,

Are you disputing that Jesus wanted a free Jewish state not under the dictates of Rome? Zionism, not the name but the concept, of a free Jewish state existed in Jesus' time and catastrophically (for the Jews) manifested in Rome's eventual sacking and destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent diaspora.

edit on 15-8-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

Are you aware of how royally dumb this question is? Sorry but how the heck would I know? All you have there is assumptions....unless you have a time machine or a hotline to his intimate thoughts? Given he was killed on order of the local jewish population, given he stood up to school them so often, given he was a leader of the house of Israel not just the tribe of Judah, I,d say there's a fair to reasonable chance he may have had more important things on his mind.....from what is available for analysis, its clear enough his main call was that Israel turn to its faith in God not start a new faith,in Zionist political processes aka faith in man. Even so, still just speculating....neither of us were 'in the room' to ask or see for ourselves.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
YOU NEVER EVEN READ THE SITES!!

Nor do I intend to. Either post verifiable facts or get used to me not giving biblebelievers and hiddenmysteries the time of day.

The reason I asked if you meant 'Jews' or Ashkenazi Jews, is because I wanted to make sure that there was a distinction made between the Jews of today and the Jews of Jesus time.

Who cares if you wanted to make a distinction? It was totally irrelevant to my point.

Just saying Jesus was a 'Jew' shows no distinction, between the people who lived in Roman Judea during Jesus time, and the fraudsters posing as their descendants today...

See above, irrelevant.

Still waiting for you to link to a verifable source that said Jews of Jesus' time used the word 'Ashkenazi'.

Originally posted by Rosha
Are you aware of how royally dumb this question is?

It is only 'dumb' if you put little to no thought in it as you have just done. Jesus was obviously anti-establishment, both to the Pharisees and to the Roman magistry.

...Zionist political processes aka faith in man.

A Jew residing in Roman Judea who wanted self-governance would want something akin to political Zionism (an independant Jewish state), not some pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo like 'aka faith in man'. The Jewish revolts were for such a state but Rome was much stronger and the result is historically evident.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Rosha
Are you aware of how royally dumb this question is?

It is only 'dumb' if you put little to no thought in it as you have just done. Jesus was obviously anti-establishment, both to the Pharisees and to the Roman magistry.

edit on 15-8-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

Actually according to his own words, he wasn't..." Give to God what is Gods..to Caesar what is Caesars" - seems very much to be a declaration about accepting the state for what it is and isn't.... not a call to arms against it....this statement would also suggest he was a man who knew his priorities..saw the bigger picture...one could even speculate reasonably it was a statement about the Jews needing to accept the environment for what it was and wasn't..and instead to focus instead on their eternal life, on prioritizing God before mans temporary power and money struggles....whose to know?

Again neither you or I being in the room at the time means neither of us could say for certain...no one can as he never wrote anything down in his own hand about how he felt about roman Occupation..never stood for political office etc to share his personal views..You're generalizing..and calling assumptions facts so they suit your argument...doesn't make them facts...and you have no argument.

Again though, there was no NEED for a Zionist movement in the time period stated.. Sionism's focus developed from the desire and idea of RETURNING to Israel TO create a Jewish state......the 'plight' of the exile...and given there was over 500 years since the first temple destruction and diaspora and Jesus birth and death..given there were Jewish people living and ruling in Jerusalem albeit under Roman occupation..there was no need to 'return' anywhere.

And for the record...the kind of self governance Jesus alluded to....had very little to do with externals and via words and statements attributed to him, was more about rising above the state and the petty.

Originally posted by Rosha
Actually according to his own words, he wasn't..." Give to God what is Gods..to Caesar what is Caesars" - seems very much to be a declaration about accepting the state for what it is and isn't....

You do realize the people who he gave that quote to were considered by Jesus to be hypocrites and were trying to ensare him in a word trap? There had already been numerous tax riots in Judea and this would be one of the main components of the eventual revolt. Jesus deftly avoided outright offence at the poll tax by the use of this metaphor.

...no one can as he never wrote anything down in his own hand about how he felt about roman Occupation..

He never wrote anything down, period, that is still in existance and that is arguement by absentia.

Again though, there was no NEED for a Zionist movement in the time period stated..

Then why were there numeorus Jewish revolts at that time aimed at producing a soveriegn Jewish state not governed by Roman Authority?

..given there were Jewish people living and ruling in Jerusalem albeit under Roman occupation..there was no need to 'return' anywhere.

That is called rule by proxy and is basically a puppet state. Stop using your modern interpretation of what you feel Zionism means anjd view it in the historical context of an independant state, which Roman Judea certainly was not.

And for the record...the kind of self governance Jesus alluded to....had very little to do with externals and via words and statements attributed to him, was more about rising above the state and the petty.

Considering Jesus preached that the Apocalypse could happen in his lifetime, 'rising above the state' would have been a non factor as God would have established a new 'government' in Israel and it would not have been the Romans. He could afford to make statements like 'render unto Caesar' as he felt God's justice was nigh and therefore he did not have to physically oppose the Roman Authority but through the power of his gospel caution those that God would overthrow the unjust and supplant them with the 'meek'.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Still waiting for you to link to a verifable source that said Jews of Jesus' time used the word 'Ashkenazi'.

AHHHH, why do you continue to present a strawman argument??


Drop the damn label...that word refers to a group of imposters that existed before that word, and exist as frauds today even after it's conception...The Jews of Jesus time, were NOT Ashkenazi's. Today's Jew's are. Which means the Ashkenazi went by a different name then, if they haven't been masquerading this whole time...

Jesus was a freakin' Palestinian....



Why is that so hard to get you to admit?

You have still not addressed the works of Aristotle and I am waiting on you to attempt to discredit it and debunk it, so that I can reprimand you for throwing the bath water out with the baby.... You can not live by a life originally promoted by Aristotelian philosophy, and then completely throw him out the window when you find something that is controversial to your belief system. That is almost a degree of cognitive dissonance, if it is not full blown.

Ashkenazi

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
The Jews of Jesus time, were NOT Ashkenazi's. Today's Jew's are.

Took you long enough to admit your initial post was irrelevant.

Jesus was a #ing Palestinian....

Palestinian is a nationality, Jewish is a religion. Stop being a toolbag.

You can not live by a life originally promoted by Aristotelian philosophy...

Who said I live by 'Aristotelian philosphy'?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I never inferred what you strawmanned that I did infer....Too much booze AM...

And again just incase you missed it...

JESUS WAS A FREAKING PALESTINIAN!!!

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Palestinian is a nationality, Jewish is a religion. Stop being a toolbag.

Actually again..no.

To be " Jewish" is to be "Of the Land of Judah" Go google what the words mean..what the history actual says..go read the Talmud orbetter still, ask a Jewish person.

The religion of Judaism is not a mandatory belief system for all Jewish people...the Talmud acknowledges the existence of and makes a clear distinction between secular and non secular Jews.

If you are going to keep posting on topics you seem to know so little about..well..you're going to keep getting spanked with real facts..not convenient ones.

Ro.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
JESUS WAS A FREAKING PALESTINIAN!!!

Which is irrelevant as I never claimed to know what nationality he was, I only stated that he was Jewish.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Rosha
Actually according to his own words, he wasn't..." Give to God what is Gods..to Caesar what is Caesars" - seems very much to be a declaration about accepting the state for what it is and isn't....

You do realize the people who he gave that quote to were considered by Jesus to be hypocrites and were trying to ensare him in a word trap? There had already been numerous tax riots in Judea and this would be one of the main components of the eventual revolt. Jesus deftly avoided outright offence at the poll tax by the use of this metaphor.

...no one can as he never wrote anything down in his own hand about how he felt about roman Occupation..

He never wrote anything down, period, that is still in existance and that is arguement by absentia.

Again though, there was no NEED for a Zionist movement in the time period stated..

Then why were there numeorus Jewish revolts at that time aimed at producing a soveriegn Jewish state not governed by Roman Authority?

..given there were Jewish people living and ruling in Jerusalem albeit under Roman occupation..there was no need to 'return' anywhere.

That is called rule by proxy and is basically a puppet state. Stop using your modern interpretation of what you feel Zionism means anjd view it in the historical context of an independant state, which Roman Judea certainly was not.

And for the record...the kind of self governance Jesus alluded to....had very little to do with externals and via words and statements attributed to him, was more about rising above the state and the petty.

Considering Jesus preached that the Apocalypse could happen in his lifetime, 'rising above the state' would have been a non factor as God would have established a new 'government' in Israel and it would not have been the Romans. He could afford to make statements like 'render unto Caesar' as he felt God's justice was nigh and therefore he did not have to physically oppose the Roman Authority but through the power of his gospel caution those that God would overthrow the unjust and supplant them with the 'meek'.

edit on 15-8-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

*double face palm*

Its not enough you speak for a man who has spoken clearly enough in actions and words that the physical political state is irrelevant to living a holy life in God...its not enough you try and turn assumptions into facts by proxy..now you're doing Jesus' personal thinking for him too?

There is no legible argument here to respond to and I find it ironic that you'd say the man ( outside of loving his enemies) was in any way supportive of the very same people who he knew were to murder him.

Israel..was an entire nation of 12 tribes..not just the tribe of Judah. Jesus, it is written, clearly stated he was here FOR ' the lost sheep of Israel'..not the lost sheep of Judah..all of Israel...his would suggest his 'political' motivations if he had any, therefore were not in the immediate situation..but bigger picture....and not one shred of evidence exists to support any theory that he was born to, or trying to uphold the political power interests of the tribe of Judah during his ministry...in fact quite, the opposite.


Intellectual spanks to you...pls try not to impose your personal views as historical facts.


Ro

Originally posted by Rosha
Actually again..no.

To be " Jewish" is to be "Of the Land of Judah" Go google what the words mean..what the history actual says..go read the Talmud orbetter still, ask a Jewish person.

I know there is some serious reading comprehension issues going on here and I trully wish I could write this in block letter crayon for you.

Jesus was Jewish, no one gives a crap whether you feel it was mandatory or not. Jews in Jesus time, whether in Roman Judea, or not, were all treated the same and had the same poll tax (or 'Temple Tax' as it was know) regardless of where they resided. The Romans figured out who was a Jew or not two thousand years ago, get the with the program.

If you are going to keep posting on topics you seem to know so little about..well..you're going to keep getting spanked with real facts..not convenient ones.

It would appear that history is not your strong suit. Not all residents of Judea were Jews. Not all Jews resided in Judea. All Jews payed a poll tax. Jesus was Jewish. Jesus resided in Judea. Jesus preached that God would set up a new state of Israel in his time. Therefore Jesus was a Jew who resided in Judea and did not care for the Roman Authority.

I know this may be a hard concept to grasp but I have faith that eventually you may get it.


Maybe.

Originally posted by Rosha
Its not enough you speak for a man who has spoken clearly enough in actions and words that the physical political state is irrelevant to living a holy life in God...its not enough you try and turn assumptions into facts by proxy..now you're doing Jesus' personal thinking for him too?

There is nothing to speak for him, he did it himself. Do you think the Romans would be allowed into the new Israel God was going to create for those that Jesus preached to?

There is no legible argument here to respond to and I find it ironic that you'd say the man was supportive of the very same people who he knew were to murder him.

Who did I say he was supportive of?

....and not one shred of evidence exists to support any theory that he was born to, or trying to uphold the political power interests of the tribe of Judah during his ministry...in fact quite, the opposite.

It appears you are habitually unable to read even the most direct of sentences. Jesus claimed God was going to usher in his new Kingdom, in his lifetime, where the hell else would it be and who would be living in it? The problem is you are viewing this through the distorted lens of contemporary Christianity which has no relevance to what I am talking about.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Rosha
Actually again..no.

To be " Jewish" is to be "Of the Land of Judah" Go google what the words mean..what the history actual says..go read the Talmud orbetter still, ask a Jewish person.

I know there is some serious reading comprehension issues going on here and I trully wish I could write this in block letter crayon for you.

Jesus was Jewish, no one gives a crap whether you feel it was mandatory or not. Jews in Jesus time, whether in Roman Judea, or not, were all treated the same and had the same poll tax (or 'Temple Tax' as it was know) regardless of where they resided. The Romans figured out who was a Jew or not two thousand years ago, get the with the program.

If you are going to keep posting on topics you seem to know so little about..well..you're going to keep getting spanked with real facts..not convenient ones.

It would appear that history is not your strong suit. Not all residents of Judea were Jews. Not all Jews resided in Judea. All Jews payed a poll tax. Jesus was Jewish. Jesus resided in Judea. Jesus preached that God would set up a new state of Israel in his time. Therefore Jesus was a Jew who resided in Judea and did not care for the Roman Authority.

I know this may be a hard concept to grasp but I have faith that eventually you may get it.


Maybe.

Not my strong suit? Hmmm. Well, not to float my own boat, but I have humanities degrees in Ancient History and Anthropology, with post grad research honors in Ancient History of Israel and Judea plus post grad Degrees in Strategic Studies and a diploma of International Relations..Ive worked in ME relations in one form or another for over 12 years and I recently retired only due to ill health..so I *think* I maybe have a little bit of a handle on the history and practices of of the whole political Zionism thingy......but..maybe not..I guess that all means squat and your assumptions are better than all the collected works of historical documentation ever written.

The *best* evidence Jesus was not Zionist is the fact that Zionist Jews REJECT Jesus and everything he stands for.....they rejected him then in offering him up to the roman authority for execution ( if they existed at all as a group at that time which is not historically documented) and they as a body, reject him now. That's simple fact..one you dont need a degree to discover ..just go ask a Zionist Jew.
www.jewsforjudaism.ca...

Also..considering pedigrees that qualify Jewish identity for a moment....as written in the flyer above..the Christian Bible actually claims that he did not have a "birth-father" from the tribe of Judah descending from David and Solomon (Matt. 1:18-20) which rules him out as a 'natural born Jew' in any case...unless you are of the group of Jewish people who remained by choice in Babylon after the diaspora and follows a matriarchal line predominance?

I think the phrase you were looking for is : "While it is true to say that all Jews are Israelites..not all Israelites are Jews".....being physically born in Bethlehem, inside the borders of the "land of Judah" yes, messianic pedigree requirements aside, this could reasonably make Jesus a birth member of the Jewish/tribe of Judah within the wider Israelite nation..but... that still didn't automatically make him a political Zionist or even a practitioner of Judaism the religion. That is speculation and is your specious reasoning and assumption in action.
The only time it is written that Jesus was in a Jewish Temple as a child, was to school the Rabi's there and as an adult, only once to remove the creeping capitalists off its doorstep.

Keep going though, I will go grab some popcorn.

Ro

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
It appears you are habitually unable to read even the most direct of sentences. Jesus claimed God was going to usher in his new Kingdom, in his lifetime, where the hell else would it be and who would be living in it? The problem is you are viewing this through the distorted lens of contemporary Christianity which has no relevance to what I am talking about.

Just an aside...The record states that " "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down " : Jesus said " The Kingdom of God is in side you and all around you ... "

To utilize your pattern of presumptive qualification -as- fact, then that statement, in essence, makes the earthly existence of Gods Kingdom already a present fact in JESUS's day as much as now.

Why do you think they offed him?

Every word he spoke was anathema to the future creation of a Jewish ruled, Jewish messiah led Zionist state acting as Gods temporal kingdom!

Gods Kingdom, according to Jesus's dictated words, was already 'here' and the Jews, Zionist or otherwise, didn't control that Kingdom..God did. Pointing that out..got him killed.

Another little point - I'm not Christian. My lens is scholarship and research, scientific,intellectual and spiritual honesty. Assume Jesus 's thoughts all you want..just don't assume to know the basis of mine.

Ro

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Then, don't call him a 'Jew'. People are beginning to associate Jew(religious term) with Jew (race/hebrew/culture). That is why I brought in the distinction between the race and the faith. He is a Palestinian, of Jewish FAITH.

He is no more a 'Jew' than I am, and I'm Scottish/Norse/Swedish/German, of a royal family that descended through those lines, to the Scottish clan. He may profess a Jewish belief, but as far race goes, he is not a 'Jew'. He is a Palestinian.

A major reason I drew this out as I did, was because I wanted it to be known he was a Palestinian, and therefore the whole war in the Near/Mid East, is a complete hoax...We have frauds attempting to force a holy people off of their land, so that they can attempt to take it over. Not right >.>

Who Is A Jew? - Wiki (Good Enough?)

Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used.

Which goes to show distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity is a big deal....Pfft, was it that hard?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

The Romans figured out who was a Jew or not two thousand years ago, get the with the program.

And this doesn't seem to be a problem with you considering that Italy was allied with the Adolf Hitler in the Axis Powers? Where is the RCC of Peter? Rome, Vatican City, Italy.

Hitler had a good idea knowing who was a Jew too when he exterminated like a good 6,000,000 of them with sodium fluoride, so that these fraud Ashkenazi's could take their places. You don't suppose the Romans had anything to do with that do you?

*end sarcasm*