Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview is a hoax (A Subject; Not Our Emphatic Position)

If one carefully reads the Rosenthal interview, and then compares it to Hitler's Mein Kampf, on the section about Jews, one can easily discern that the Rosenthal interview is a hoax crafted by an anti-semite to slander the Jewish people. ...

Source: Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview is a hoax.

It is possible Harold Wallace Rosenthal read "Mein Kampf" and other anti-Jew writings and like many Jews, saw a certain amount of "reality" in them. Most people who believe the Rosenthal interview (www.rense.com/general66/rosen.htm) is real also highly suspect that he was eliminated by the Mossad for having a big mouth. Of course, he could have been more insane than even the interview suggests.

R. Listen, White, if you're going on any further, my time is money. We made an agreement and you're extending it beyond reason. You have it all on tapes and remember that we agreed for you to take whatever you want from the tapes and your notes — but no reproduction of the tapes under any circumstances. They are to be destroyed. If you violate this White, we'll cut your balls off.

W. Who are WE?

R. Just get smart and you'll find out. You don't want any trouble and I don't either. You keep our agreement and no one gets hurt!! Now give me the rest of my money. Okay?

W. I intend to keep our agreement to the letter and you have my word of honor that these tapes will not go any further than my use in the preparation of the story. There is no misunderstanding. We agree on that and I'll keep my word. You'll get your money in a minute.

That's all troubling in terms of disproving the allegation that the interview is a hoax.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Regardless of the authenticity of the interview, it would be interesting if some of the alleged could be true and proven, moreover with all respects to the capacities of the Mossad it seems unlikely they would carry out an extremist assault on their own airline in a basically friendly country with very high penalties for such acts

    • Terry Gabrich

      The Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview is not a hoax. I have read it several times, and it is far from being a fake. The Jews are waging war against Christianity. They hate God and Jesus Christ. The jews will be destroyed. They will be taken out of this world and thrown into the Lake of Fire.

      • john doe

        You need to be in a mental institution.

        I am a Jew. I am waging NO war against Christianity. I love God and, of course, I am a Jew, so I do not believe in Christ.

        I'm fairly certain that either diabetes or old age will be what destroys me.

        There is no "lake of fire".

        You need serious psychological help.

        • "john doe"?

          You are aware that there are millions of atheists who believe you too need psychological help, right?

          Yours is a faith. Mine is a faith. You can't know that there is no proverbial "lake of fire." That lake means a very negative after "life" experience as a direct consequence of choices made in the here and now before the body "gives up the ghost" (soul/spirit), as stated in the Christian Gospels.

          In addition, not all Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

          You left two other comments that were not up to even what many would consider the low standards I allow. If you are going to comment or reply here, please don't simply quip something at a number of people about needing mental help.

          Your thoughtful comments and replies will be approved.

          Thank you for your cooperation.

    • Ken

      From the idiot at the top,

      "moreover with all respects to the capacities of the Mossad it seems unlikely they would carry out an extremist assault on their own airline in a basically friendly country with very high penalties for such acts"

      9/11 was done by Mossad you idiot and the USS Liberty and the Levon Affair and the Kind David Bombing and the Holocaust Lie etc...

      Esau/Edom = Jewry

      • I've seen the "Esau/Edom = Jewry" around, but exactly what is the conclusion based upon?

        Jew to my understanding is short for Judaism the root of which is Judah, the son of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Anyway, Jacob repented about his treatment of his older, half-brother Esau; and Esau forgave him in turn.

        I think that's one of the most underrated/ignored points in the Bible. Esau forgiving Jacob is climatic. Jacob didn't know whether Esau would kill him.

        It also means that all the stuff that went down between them before was total crap (the inheritance, the blessing). However, everyone takes that crap as if it was valid when it was happening and still is. Stupid!

        • mike green

          It is based on the New Testament admission, by the Jews themselves, that although they were descended from Abraham, they were "never in bondage to any man" (John 8:33). Jesus Christ acknowledged their descent from Abraham, but made it clear that they were not "Abraham's children" (John 8:37,39).

          Christians tend to spiritualise that little phrase "Abraham's children". In so doing they ignore the fact that Paul goes out of his way to explain it in Romans chapter 9, and it is not a spiritual matter. He explains that it is not sufficient to be a descendant of Abraham to be considered his "children", but that only the "children of the promise" are counted as the true seed, ie Abraham's descendants through Isaac and Jacob-Israel (Romans 9:3-8, but read on for a full picture of who's who).

          This is why only a minority of the Jews believed on Jesus, ie the majority were not Israelites, and that is why they were plotting to kill Christ and steal His and Israel's inheritance from Him (the parable of the wicked husbandmen).

          Jacob may have forgiven Esau, but God has not. If you are in any doubt about this read Obadiah, who tell us that Edom is to be "cut off forever" (Obadiah 10). That is why Jesus said to them "How can you escape the damnation of hell?", in other words, they couldn't.

        • Mike Green,

          Paul did spiritualize it. It's the whole point of his message. He did talk about grafted versus not, but those who were Israelites who did not accept Jesus were still not a part of the body. Jesus spiritualized it before Paul did, but I won't go into it.

          Certainly not all Israelites accepted Jesus as Christ, the Messiah. Furthermore, Moses married outside the tribes. Was his wife not made part of the mundane nation of Israel by virtue of that marriage? She was.

          As for Obadiah, if his prophecy is fixed as you claim, then how is it that Jesus overturned Moses law commanding that people be stoned to death? You don't think all the law and the prophets go together and that all are determined in their efficacy according to Jesus Christ? "For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matthew 13:17) You think that a genetic descendant of Esau who accepts Jesus will nevertheless be cut off forever?

          Jesus opened the scripture as never before. He showed where those who came before him were lesser and that not everything those others said and did was ultimately correct. How is it that Jesus said, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:43)?

          These are things that a Christian must reconcile. I think you are too Pauline in your views of Christianity and perhaps have taken in too much Dispensationalism (so-called Christian-Zionism).

        • mike green

          Sorry, you are wrong about me Tom. I am no more a Christian-Zionist than you are. Neither am I a Judeo-Christian by the way, an oxymoron if ever there was one. I am a Bible believing Christian, one who allows the Scriptures to say what they mean and mean what they say. It seems there are not a lot of us around.

          Can you show me where the Scriptures tell us that Jesus overturned any Law? Would this not mean He was a Hypocrite? Did He not say that not one jot or tittle of the Law would be done away with while there was still a heaven and an earth?

          Jesus did not overturn the Law regarding adultery and stoning. Note that the Jews were doing this to tempt Jesus, they were trying to catch Him out. But He, of course, knew the Law better than they did, for it belongs to Him. Have you ever wondered what He was writing in the dirt? I wonder... What Jesus did was to show the Jews up for not knowing or obeying the Law themselves.

          Let's look at the scenario regarding this woman. For one thing we are told that she had been caught "in the very act", therefore both the man and the woman had been caught. The Law requires both to be stoned. Where was the man in this scenario? He was not present. Furthermore, the Law required two witnesses to be present before the accused could be condemned. By pricking their consciences, Jesus had caused every last one of the Jews to leave the scene. Jesus then said: "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" And the woman replied "No man, Lord". As there were no witnesses to condemn her, the Law could not be fulfilled. That is why the woman could not be stoned, a very different thing from Jesus "overturning" the Law, which very thing He said could not take place while there is still a heaven and an earth.

          No genetic descendant of Esau can accept Christ and escape the prophetic statement contained in Obadiah 10, otherwise that prophetic statement is wrong. And why would Jesus have said to the Edomite Jews: "Ye generation [properly translated "offspring"] of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" In other words they could not escape it. And why did Jesus say that the Jews would be held accountable for the murder of Abel, thereby linking them to Cain? It was because they were Edomites, the descendants of Esau who had married Canaanite women who were, in turn, descendants of Cain (remember Canaan, the son of Ham, had joined himself to the Kenites (Cainites) through marriage).

          Can I ask you a serious question Tom? Why did Jesus speak to the multitudes in parables?

        • I did not say that you are a Zionist. I said perhaps you have taken in too much Dispensationalism. For you to then say I am wrong isn't how I would have responded had I been in your shoes. I would simply have clarified.

          That the man was not present is irrelevant.

          There were witnesses who condemned her. Moses's law made zero exceptions for consciences. Jesus showed the real, full law that made Moses's law moot, void, non-existent, not to be adhered to. You don't appear to be understanding the meaning of Jesus's words within this context. He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17). He fulfilled Moses's law by showing the hypocritical aspect(s) and doing away with it. Stoning is not legal in Christianity, period. It is still legal in Torah Judaism. Do you deny it?

          You quote Paul, while Moses's law required circumcision and Paul got the others to agree that it was not required.

          If you are not a Zionist or Judeo-Christian or dispensationalist, per se, why is it that you don't believe that the spirit "grafting" overturned circumcision and that those "grafted" in were then a part of the Chosen replacing, superseding, those of the genetic Israelites who rejected Jesus? Are you claiming that no genetic Israelites rejected Jesus?

          As for God rejecting those who accept Jesus, that would make God the hypocrite, as Jesus is God and does not reject anyone who accepts him, which acceptance requires following Jesus's New Commandment to the best of that one's abilities. Jesus is merciful and forgiving. He has his limits, but rejecting an Edomite who accepts Jesus and who lives according to Jesus's commandments better than Israelites who also accept Jesus and whom Jesus accepts would be the height of hypocrisy on Jesus's part.

          If you are right, Jesus is a hypocrite. Obviously, I do not think you are right. I pray you are not right.

        • Furthermore, there is nothing in the verses indicating that the Jews who brought her to Jesus were Edomites versus Israelites. Paul had been a Pharisee. If all Pharisees were Edomites and all Edomites were and remain damned forever, then Paul cannot inherit the kingdom. Pure nonsense.

        • mike green

          I am only going to answer this point for the time being, as we need to get this sorted out before we can address anything else.

          I did not say that all Pharisees were Edomites. Paul was an obvious exception. Nicodemus is another possibility. And I am sure that there were others. However, if you read Josephus, who was writing in around 69 AD, you will find that he clearly states that the Pharisees and Sadducees were "not Jews by birth" (The War Of The Jews, Book II, Chapter VIII, Sec. 2) That is because the Pharisees and Sadducees were mostly Edomites, appointed into their positions by their kinsman King Herod the Great, son of Antipater the Idumaean (Greek for Edomite). His son and his grandson followed suit. The Herodians were Edomites Tom, not Israelites, so they looked after their own.

          We can only begin to understand the society that existed in Judaea in the Lord Jesus's day if we understand what took place in the several hundred years leading up to His arrival. It seems that you are unaware of that important history, so I will summarise it here.

          When the House of Israel and some 200,000 of the Tribe of Judah were taken captive to Assyria, the Assyrians brought foreign tribes in to occupy the land of Samaria (II Kings 17:24). This was to prevent the House of Israel returning, and they never did. These people became known as the Samaritans.

          Following the removal of the remainder of the House of Judah by the Babylonians, the Edomites, who had actually assisted the Babylonians in capturing the Judahites, moved in to occupy the land if Judah, as did many other Canaanite tribes.

          Ezra tells us that only a tiny remnant of the House of Judah, less than 43,000 in fact, returned to Palestine following their 70 years in captivity in Babylon. That is less than one per cent of the total number of Israelites taken away captive (around six million based on the number of fighting men). They were members of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

          When this tiny band of Judahites arrived in Judaea, they found it to be a very different place to that which they had left 70 years before. Indeed Ezra tells us that "fear was upon them" (Ezra 3:3) because of all the foreign peoples that were now living in Judaea, and even lists them for us (Ezra 9:1 - note that Esau had joined himself through marriage to the Canaanites and Hittites, among others). There was so little room in Judaea that most of the Benjamnites among them had to leap-frog Samaria, which was also full of foreign tribes, and settle in the land of Galilee, which was almost unoccupied at that time.

          In 126 BC, John Hyrcanus, the last but one true Judahite heir to the throne of Judah in Palestine (except for the Lord Jesus of course) defeated the Edomites militarily, and ordered all Edomites in Judaea and Idumaea (Edom) to circumcise themselves and convert to Hebrewism, the Israelite religion (there was no such thing as Judaism in Old Testament times - as the Jewish rabbis and Jewish Encylcopaedia 1906 will confirm, Pharasaism, the new, man-made, Babylonian religion being preached by the Pharisees, "supplanted" the Old Testament religion of the Israelites as given to them by YHVH God and administered by the Levitical Priesthood, and only much later did this NEW religion of Pharisaism become known as Judaism). The Edomites complied, and from that time on they became part of the nation of Judah. However that did not make them Israelites. Although known as Judah by name, they were still very much Edomites.

          This was a disastrous decision for the House of Judah. The Edomite governor, Antipater the Idumaean, became procurator of Judaea, Galilee and Samaria. Through collusion with the Romans, he got his son, Herod the Great, an Edomite, onto the throne of Judah. Herod killed all of the Levitical priests bar one, rebuilt the Temple according to his own requirements and specifications (not God's) and appointed his Edomite brethren into the Sanhedrin and the newly instigated sects known as the Pharisees and Saducees.

          So by the time Jesus appeared on the scene, the Edomites had control of the land (through sheer numbers), the throne and the Temple. That is why Jesus had so many heated altercations with these people and called them a "generation [offspring] of vipers". It is also why the Jews never once claimed descent from Jacob, only ever claiming to be the seed of Abraham. As Edomites they could rightly make that claim, but that was it.

          As for the parables, which I will address here as it is very relevant, Jesus Christ was asked the question "Why do you speak unto them [the multitudes] in parables?" He replied that although it was given unto the disciples to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom, to the multitudes it was not given. He even tells us the reason, and that was (and these are Jesus's words) in case AT ANY TIME they would be converted and turn to Him and be healed. This was in fulfillment of the very prophecy we have been talking about in Obadiah 10, that the nation of Edom was to be cut of from the Kingdom "for ever" ("lest AT ANY TIME they be converted"), and that was because of what they had done to their Israelite brethren, as Obadiah tells us.

          One last point. Jesus was quoting from Isiah 6:9-10. If you look there you will find that this was an act of God, not a matter of personal choice.

        • You aren't saying they were all Edomites, but your position concerning the Adulteress is based upon that those who brought her to Jesus were.

          Look, you've said nothing here concerning which I was unfamiliar. Your interpretation concerning what you've read is different from mine.

          You are the type of person who believes he can separate out people by bloodlines when, in fact, there has been intermarrying down through the ages such that you'd have to rip many Israelites "in half" to remove the Edomite in them -- something you don't have the scientific or technological ability to do and something God won't do for you if you ask because there would be nothing gained by it if that person or those people would be no more likely to accept God and Jesus, as I've already addressed above by other words.

          It doesn't matter what you say, Jesus is not going to reject someone who accepts Jesus and who is seeking righteousness in earnest. The one and only way what you say will happen could happen is for no Edomite or partial Edomite to do that.

          In addition, there is no Obadiah 10. You've meant 1.

          You are a literalist. I am not. If you take the Bible literally to the nth degree, then for instance, all the numbers used in the Bible must be exact rather than rounded. There have been whole books, even series of books, covering this sort of thing. I won't regurgitate it all here, but I've read countless pages on the subject (some of which I disagree with).

          There is zero chance that I will come over to your interpretation that Jesus came without knowledge that was wholly unknown to the prophets, that he came with no new law, new to reveal.

          You are Old Testament to my New. You likely believe Jesus will return and slaughter people or have them cut to pieces before him, not knowing a son of man from the son of man.

          The keys are passed. What is loosed here is loosed there. I choose, as do you, per Jesus. The keys were not Peter's alone.

          We will reap what we sow. I will not reap what you sow.

          Let me ask you, are you a racist by any chance? I'm not saying you are. I'm asking. Are you ethnically bigoted against Arabs? Are you ethnically bigoted against anyone? Do you think Jesus is, or does Jesus take people spiritually as his family based upon what he said: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12:50)

          Was he speaking regardless of ethnicity there?

          What did Paul have to say about such things: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:11)

          That doesn't sound inherently anti-Edomite to me. Would he have had to list off every ethnicity to satisfy you that the Old Testament way (Mosaic law, etc.) was replaced, superseded, enhanced to the point of making it impossible for anyone of conscience?

          And to think that between the two of us, I'm not the Pauline one. Hmmm.

          Is 1 through 4 Maccabees holy scripture? Is it part of the Bible that you take the way you've indicated you take the rest? If not, why not?

          My questions are quickly becoming rhetorical in my mind, as I don't feel much Christian spirit coming through from you. I'm open to being surprised though.

        • mike green

          Tom, clearly you are not prepared accept historical facts or believe the words that are written in your own Bible, so I am going to leave the discussion where it is. You are welcome to have the last word. I will just finish by clearing up a few points.

          My position on the adulteress has nothing to do with Edomites, it is exactly as I stated in my response to you raising the issue in the first place. My position has not changed.

          With regard to Obadiah, the relevant verse is verse 10, not much point putting 1:10 when there is only one chapter as you say.

          I am not a literalist, I am a truthist. I simply read what my Bible says and allow it to mean what it says without having to dream up all sorts of interpretations to make it fit what some pastor or commentary SAYS it means. The Scriptures are of no private interpretation, they interpret themselves, and do it very well too if we will only allow them to. It is because people will not do that very thing that has resulted in all of the contradictory interpretations we have today.

          I am not at all Old Testament, I take both as the Word of God. Remember Jesus preached from the Old Testament, as did Paul and the other Apostles, and much of the New Testament is directly quoting from the Old. We are commanded to study ALL Scripture, and rightly divide the word of truth. That is all I ever try to do.

          If you want to know what Jesus intends to do when He comes back, I recommend you read the parable of the tares and His own explanation of it (Matthew 13). It doesn't sound like much of a party for the tares to me.

          As for "Greeks" and "Jews", the translations of these words are incorrect. It should read "Judaeans" and "Grecians". The Koine Greek words abused here were not ethnic terms, they were geopolitical terms, referring simply to where a person lived. All of these people were Israelites (in the case of the Grecians we have letters between them and the rabbis in Jerusalem to prove it). Paul referred to them all as His "brethren", as he did the Galations, Corinthians, Ephesians et al. Look at his definition of the word "brethren" in Romans 9 and you will find that it refers to his "kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites". And note that he says that the promises, the blessings, the ADOPTION (explain that one), the covenants (plural) etc still belonged to them, even after the Lord Jesus Christ has been and gone. Also look at who the books of I Peter and James are addressed to.

          The Apryphal books were removed from Protestant Bibles in the late 1800s, not long after the word "Jew" first appeared in them. I would suggest that the reason they were removed was to keep us in the dark as to the facts that I listed in my previous post, and which you are clearly determined to ignore.

          Thanks for your time Tom.

          God bless,

          P.S. You asked the question, I was simply attempting to provide you with the answer. As you won't believe me, perhaps you will believe the Jews themselves when they say "Edom is in modern Jewry." (Jewish Encyclopaedia 1925).

        • Mike, long before you showed up, I had already been all through all of this. You write as if I haven't even read the Bible, let alone plenty of outside material on the subject.

          Of course I had known that Herod was not an Israelite. He was also not a Jew in my book. It doesn't matter what Talmudists claim about him. (Yes, I know about the issues concerning the Torah versus the Talmud(s).)

          The reason I can say that is because I don't subscribe to the amorphous "Jewishness" concept where even "Jews" can't tell who is and who is not a Jew because of religion and genetics and the various schools of thought within the culture, as many of them view it.

          You, on the other hand, seem to imagine that you have a lock on these things, that you can read the Bible and comprehend it all flawlessly and without it raising any questions in your mind.

          You say you aren't a literalist, but do you believe in 6 24-hour days of Creation, days that started out without the Sun even in existence, the Sun upon which human beings define a 24-hour period we call a day? Do you just ignore where the Bible says that something is spiritual, meaning within context, figurative?

          How do you handle transubstantiation? I don't believe in it but understand completely why Roman Catholics do. I don't believe their Christianity rises or falls on it either.

          The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children for 3 or 4 generations. However, the law states and clarifies that the children will not be punished for the sins of their fathers (ancestors). You, however, quote Obadiah and forget that.

          Edom as a nation was destroyed. It is not necessary that every last strand of Edomite DNA be filtered from the human genome nor would it be ethical to punish or kill any person with any amount of Edomite DNA who is a professing Christian and seeking righteousness in earnest.

          You need to be careful about what sins you lay at God's doorstep when you claim that your interpretation is the correct one.

          I doubt very seriously that you know what to do with this verse: "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (Exodus 32:14)

          You just take everything written, but you don't interact with it. What did Moses do vis-a-vis God, keep silent? He did not. What did Jesus mean when Jesus said not to tempt God? Was it just some narrow thing concerning whether God would uphold a believer, or was it also that God is an emotional being who can have thoughts concerning which God repents? Obviously, you can't deny the word "repent" there and still maintain your position that you take the words to mean what they say. I will note, however, that you appeal to non-scriptural sources quite often in defense of your interpretation. I do that too, but I don't do it from the starting place that you do, which position of yours suggests that going outside the Bible shouldn't be necessary.

          Don't you realize that the Bible is an evolutionary text? Enlightenment unfolded in it. Everything Jesus came and did and said was not spelled out in advance. It was foreshadowed, but not one prophet had a full and clear vision of Christ. He had to come and do and say before anyone knew here on Earth. Furthermore, he said and did things that were not recorded in the text. The text itself says that.

          You don't appear to realize what the true law was and is. You appeal to this: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18) You think Jesus would be a hypocrite if he outlawed stoning the way I said he did. He also outlawed an eye for an eye. He outlawed violence.

          You have a hard time with, or just dismiss, my statement about the son of man and who that is as pertains to Jesus "returning." Jesus was not the only son of man. What makes you think that the son of man, or sons of men, to come are fully and only Jesus? Consider how difficult it is to be discerning about the matter when John the Baptist said he was not Elijah when Jesus said he was. Was he literally or figuratively or spiritually Elijah? He was not Elijah enough that he knew it about himself. Obviously, Jesus was not being literal. Elijah was at the Transfiguration. Was John therefore that Elijah at the Transfiguration? Clearly not. John had to ask whether Jesus was the one. The Elijah at the Transfiguration was in no doubt about it.

          But this is all easy for you because you have a handle on the whole of scripture and have nothing to learn from the likes of me.

          No, there is no private interpretation, but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of different interpretations and that yours is right.

          You tempt God to slice and dice people. I'll plead with God to find a way of separating out the essence of evil within his created beings.

          You didn't answer the questions about racism and ethnic bigotry. It appears that you want to believe that both Jesus and Paul were ethnic bigots. I sense an agenda, a White agenda. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your silence will be taken as assent.

          I will accept it that you did not intend to suggest that Edom, per se, had anything to do with the issue of stoning or not the adulteress. I had thought you were attempting to make a larger point.

          Jesus condemned the vipers not because they were Edomites, per se, but because they were rejecting Jesus and because they were going to continue repeating the errors of their spiritual father, Satan, the liar from the beginning. It was not a bloodline thing with Jesus. It was a spiritual thing.

          Prophecy is not dead. God is still revealing God.

          Of course Jesus preached from the Old Testament, but he told us to not take up the sword where the Old Testament said to wipe out whole nations. Your interpretation is highly compartmentalize. I believe that if you persist in it, it will be your downfall.

          I am very well acquainted with statements about the bottomless pit, outer darkness, and weeping and gnashing of teeth. You said Jesus would be a hypocrite were he to have said that the law would stand until everything had been fulfilled while also making parts of the law useless. You answered the question yourself though when you said Jesus knew the law better. I'm saying he knew it so well that he knew it was inconsistent and that only the consistent could stand in the end. Therefore, when Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek and to not take up the sword but rather to love our enemies, what law is it that then allows him to not follow his own teachings but rather return and not turn the other cheek but take up the sword and kill his enemies in hate, showing no mercy and no forgiveness when God has the power to right what is wrong within every being?

          Concerning Paul and ethnicity, your idea that he only went to preach to fellow Israelites is preposterous. He went to the Gentiles! "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." (Romans 15:16) That is not a geopolitical term there. That is referring to all non-Israelites, all who were theretofore considered non-Jews in the eyes of the budding Christianity. It includes me, a Gentile.

          To be consistent in your views, you'd have to be an Israelite by DNA to enter the kingdom of God. That is not how it is.

          As for the word Jew not being in the Bible before the late 1800's, check again. By different spellings, it's in plenty of Bibles, including Protestant, before that. Look at the Book of Ester in the KJV 1611 version for instance. That's not the first either by a long shot.

          Lastly, you said "John Hyrcanus, the last but one true Judahite heir to the throne of Judah in Palestine (except for the Lord Jesus of course)...." Perhaps you are right, but where did you get that? My readings have said that it is not known that he was the heir by direct lineage. Anyway, I don't put stock in bloodline dynasties. Paul apparently didn't either: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." (1 Timothy 1:4)

          You say people overly complicate the scriptures. I say that people give up too easily.

          It's been fun, but I really have other work to get done.

          God bless everyone.

        • As for parables, rather than respond to you any further, why don't you just say what you think on it. I've read what the Gospels say that Jesus said. You apparently think you may have some deeper insight on it than do I.

          So far, I haven't been enlightened by anything you've written here; but go ahead and give your interpretation.

        • "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:37-39)

          It is plain there that flesh (DNA; bloodline) and spirit are two different things, that the mundane and the spiritual are two different things.

          "And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?" (Luke 13:16)

          Jesus did not say there "a daughter of Jacob." He didn't say "an Israelite."

          More of the same:

          And Jesus said unto him, "This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham." (Luke 19:9)

        • mike green

          Exactly Tom! In each instance these people are referred to as "sons", "daughters", that is "Abraham's CHILDREN" as opposed to simply Abraham's seed. I have already pointed you to Paul's straightforward explanation of who "Abraham' children" are in Romans 9, but you just ignored it / spiritualised it away as you do with absolutely everything. You are trying to make these into "SPIRITUAL children", just as the church claims to be "SPIRITUAL Israel". There is just one problem with all that. The word "spiritual" does not appear in the text. You are adding it in, something we are forbidden to do.

          I'm not shouting in what follows, the capitals are for emphasis only ;)

          Paul said "NEITHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN [exactly the point that Jesus made, now here is the explanation] BUT IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED." (Romans 9:7)

          What part of that simple statement do you not understand? He goes on to clarify further:

          "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED AS THE TRUE SEED." (Romans 9:8).

          He then goes on to tell us how the promises passed from Isaac to Jacob. The "children of the promise" are the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, not the descendants of Abraham per se, who include all sorts of other tribes to whom the promises were never given. That is the point Paul is making here, otherwise why even refer to Isaac and Jacob at all?

          And in case we are in any doubt who the promises belong to, Paul has gone out of his way to tell us earlier in the chapter, and they are "[HIS] KINSMEN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, WHO ARE ISRAELITES; TO WHOM PERTAINETH... THE PROMISES." (Romans 9:3-4)

          In every reference, whether prophetic or otherwise, to why Jesus had come we are told it was "to save HIS PEOPLE". He told us Himself:

          "This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a SON of Abraham [not just any old "seed" as the Jews could only claim to be]. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT [singular] WHICH WAS LOST." (Luke 19:9-10)

          That word translated "lost" is made up of two Greek words meaning "put away in punishment" or "exiled" as only Israel had been. Jesus said:

          "I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST [exiled] SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL... It is not meet to take the CHILDREN's bread, and to cast it to DOGS." (Matthew 15:24,26)

          The Canaanite woman, being a "dog" (a derogatory term for a non-Israelite), could not have the bread. However, as she acknowledged who Jesus was (she called Him Lord) and acknowledged Israel's position as her masters (plural in the Greek also), she was allowed some of the crumbs that FELL (they weren't even thrown) from the masters' table.

          Jesus also made all of this clear when He said to the Jews:

          "But ye believe not, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me..." (John 10:26-27)

          Notice He did not say they were not His sheep because of their failure to believe, as I hear people twist it all the time. Rather He said the EXACT OPPOSITE, that is they did not believe because they were not His sheep to begin with (Israel are described as His sheep dozens of times throughout Scripture).

        • Mike,

          You are such a mess. Everything you point to you have exactly backwards. As I said, Paul went to the Gentiles and said so himself. If Jacob's DNA descendants (rather mixed at this point) are the only souls who will make it, then what the Hell was Paul doing going to the Gentiles (non-fleshly descendants of Jacob)?

          You read Paul in little compartments to fit your scattered context. Only the descendants of Jacob who make it are those who do the commandments, per Jesus Christ. They don't all make it by virtue of their DNA. Got it? I doubt you do.

          The only way that they would all make it were if they were all to convert. However, those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit and are dead in the flesh have a major problem, also per Jesus Christ.

          Your pathetically twisted theology claims that it is absolutely futile for any non-Israelite to seek righteousness because none of them could ever enter in, as they are not genetically (worldly) Israelites. Your theology is about as bad as it gets: pure racism.

          You wrote the following line:

          "This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a SON of Abraham [not just any old "seed" as the Jews could only claim to be].

          The seed there is the DNA. The son there is both the DNA and the spirit. The Gentiles to whom Paul went and converted, who were not that DNA, joined that spirit.

          You completely missed the point concerning the Canaanite woman. What happened there was exactly the opposite of how you portray it.

          You have no clue.

          "And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, 'I will come and heal him.' The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, 'Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' And Jesus said unto the centurion, 'Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.' And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour." (Matthew 8:5-13)

          So Jesus heals non-Israelites and glorifies their faith but will keep the door shut on all such people? You're spiritually blind.

          "But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian." (Luke 4:25-27)

          "...Naaman the Syrian." Have you no ability to receive the message of Christ? Naaman was not an Israelite. Jesus did not say, and is not saying today, that he came solely for Israelites in the way you have compartmentalized it conveniently for you to then rationalize your racism and ethnic bigotry that I assume from your repeated aversion concerning my direct questions.

          Here's what I wrote to you: "You didn't answer the questions about racism and ethnic bigotry. It appears that you want to believe that both Jesus and Paul were ethnic bigots. I sense an agenda, a White agenda. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your silence will be taken as assent."

          Now, here's the deal, Mike, take your racist dung somewhere else. Actually, take it to Hell where it belongs. It doesn't belong in Christianity, and it doesn't belong in the kingdom of God: Heaven. If you attempt to enter with it, you will be blocked for just cause.

          If you repent of it, then Hallelujah. If not, you did it to yourself. Jesus tried to penetrate your thick skull, but you refused.

          I will not tolerate racism on this site. If you attempt to post more of it, you will be blocked here and now and not just at the gate in the hereafter.

          I told you all you need to know to see through your perverted, clearly anti-Christ worldview.

        • "Now Naaman, chief of the army of the king of Aram, was a man of high position with his master, and greatly respected, because by him the Lord had given salvation to Aram; but he was a leper. Now the Aramaeans had gone out in bands, and taken prisoner from Israel a little girl, who became servant to Naaman's wife. And she said to her master's wife, If only my lord would go to the prophet in Samaria, he would make him well. And someone went and said to his lord, This is what the girl from the land of Israel says. So the king of Aram said, Go then; and I will send a letter to the king of Israel. And he went, taking with him ten talents of silver and six thousand shekels of gold, and ten changes of clothing. And he took the letter to the king of Israel, in which the king of Aram had said, See, I have sent my servant Naaman to you to be made well, for he is a leper. But the king of Israel, after reading the letter, was greatly troubled and said, Am I God, to give death and life? why does this man send a leper to me to be made well? is it not clear that he is looking for a cause of war? Now Elisha, the man of God, hearing that the king of Israel had done this, sent to the king, saying, Why are you troubled? send the man to me, so that he may see that there is a prophet in Israel. So Naaman, with all his horses and his carriages, came to the door of Elisha's house. And Elisha sent a servant to him, saying, Go to Jordan, and after washing seven times in its waters your flesh will be well again and you will be clean. But Naaman was angry and went away and said, I had the idea that he would come out to see such an important person as I am, and make prayer to the Lord his God, and with a wave of his hand over the place make the leper well. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not be washed in them and become clean? So turning, he went away in wrath. Then his servants came to him and said, If the prophet had given you orders to do some great thing, would you not have done it? how much more then, when he says to you, Be washed and become clean? Then he went down seven times into the waters of Jordan, as the man of God had said; and his flesh became like the flesh of a little child again, and he was clean. Then he went back to the man of God, with all his train, and, taking his place before him, said, Now I am certain that there is no God in all the earth, but only in Israel: now then, take an offering from me. But he said, By the life of the Lord whose servant I am, I will take nothing from you. And he did his best to make him take it but he would not. Then Naaman said, If you will not, then let there be given to your servant as much earth as two beasts are able to take on their backs; because from now on, your servant will make no offering or burned offering to other gods, but only to the Lord. But may your servant have the Lord's forgiveness for this one thing: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon for worship there, supported on my arm, and my head is bent in the house of Rimmon; when his head is bent in the house of Rimmon, may your servant have the Lord's forgiveness for this thing. And he said to him, Go in peace. And he went from him some distance. But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, the man of God, said, Now my master has taken nothing from Naaman, this Aramaean, of what he would have given him: by the living Lord, I will go after him and get something from him. So Gehazi went after Naaman. And when Naaman saw him running after him, he got down from his carriage and went back to him and said, Is all well? And he said, All is well: but my master has sent me, saying, Even now, two young men of the sons of the prophets have come to me from the hill-country of Ephraim; will you give me a talent of silver and two changes of clothing for them? And Naaman said, Be good enough to take two talents. And forcing him to take them, he put two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and gave them to his two servants to take before him. When he came to the hill, he took them from their hands, and put them away in the house; and he sent the men away, and they went. Then he came in and took his place before his master. And Elisha said to him, Where have you come from, Gehazi? And he said, Your servant went nowhere. And he said to him, Did not my heart go with you, when the man got down from his carriage and went back to you? Is this a time for getting money, and clothing, and olive-gardens and vine-gardens, and sheep and oxen, and men-servants and women-servants? Because of what you have done, the disease of Naaman the leper will take you in its grip, and your seed after you, for ever. And he went out from before him a leper as white as snow." (2 Kings 5:1-27)

          Naaman was not an Israelite, was not a DNA descendant of Jacob. He humbled himself and receive the spirit of the God of Elisha. That's how it works. Jesus said so, else he would not have said what he did to penetrate the thick skulls and hard, cold, small, racist hearts of many, including many Israelites.

        • mike green

          Goodbye Tom.

        • Being a racist or ethnic bigot is being anti-Christ.

          "And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:26-39)

          How was that Ethiopian eunuch a DNA Israelite (a direct descendant of Jacob/Israel) and not a Black man of sub-Saharan Africa? If he had been a high-ranking Israelite worshiping in Jerusalem, wouldn't he have known that Isaiah wasn't speaking about himself?

          He was baptized into Christianity by Philip.

          Christianity in Ethiopia is so ancient that it has its own canon.

    • Terry

      [comment deleted for promoting racism and ethnic bigotry]

    • To date, this is the most consistently trafficked post in this blog's history.

    • D ST

      While I do think the rothschilds and their cronies are up to no good,  and to me elites are obviously conspiring against us, I also think this is a fraud. It does not read like a spoken interview at all, saing things like 'Woe blah blah blah, ', no one talks like that. And there is too much in there that is just inflammatory and incorrect. And considering rothschilds were involved in funding hitler, they aren't worried about pograms, my feeling is Jews that were attacked and put in camps were non zionist and paid a high price indeed for sentiment. 

      It diverts all blame and responsibility from the vatican, who still hold riches from death camp inmates. I think there is a conspiracy, certain Jewish people are involved, but the rothschilds became stupid rich by agreeing to handle vatican money.  They helped fund hitlers armies through j.p morgan and I think it was national citi bank. My feeling is Jews in general are being set up as fall guys, betrayed by rothschilds, and this is a hard core fear mongering fake. That said, I think if mossad wanted him dead, they would set up anything. But I still think this is just hateful and fake.

      • The original Rothschild family was Rothschild first and "Jewish" a distant second. What they were really about was mammon. Mammon doesn't give a damn about Israel. Mammon gives a damn about being as stinking rich in itself as possible and to Hell with everything else, and even itself after the party is over. It's really, really stupid!

        • becklau

          Tom! You explained above.....EXACTLY WHY this sect of jews believe THE MEANS JUSTIFIES THE END! their god satan guiding them since the days of Cain, which todays jews (MANY! AND ESP. ALL GLOBAL ELITE!) are descendents of Canaanites, Edomites.....
          Within their Babylonian TALMUDIC beliefs, EVEN TO THIS DAY!......historically PROVEN murdered the Royal family in Russia to install their jewish COMMUNISM via Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin (ALL zionist jews!) during the  Bolshevik Rev which murdered over ****600 million**** COMMON jews, Christians, & others etc.....THEY murdered Ferdinand to usher in WW1, THEY propped up, funded and fought along side Hitler, whom had over 15000 JEWISH soldiers and HIGHER UPS serving in HIS naZI army! to usher in the current false state of Israel.
          THIS IS HISTORICAL FACT! NOT ANTI-anything but murder, deception, perpetual, war, usury, and deception!
          The written history & Biblical SCRIPTURAL implications & TRUTH is MOUNTAINOUS! Staggering for those with eyes to see, ears to hear! THE bad fig.....THE TARES from the wheat......THOSE WHO SAY THEY AND ARE NOT!....Ye are of YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL....on & on!
          ALSO !
          ALL this was COMMON KNOWLEDGE WORLDWIDE from the likes of 1ST century Greeks, also THE MARTIN LUTHER, Early Popes &scholars, historians wrote these facts! COUNTLESS Puritans THOSE WHO CAME from England to THE Americas.....COUNTLESS Founding Fathers & early politicians, also Henry Ford, HG Wells, Huey Long....Lindberg, Woodrow Wilson... Mark Twain TOO MANY TO LIST SHOUTED WARNINGS & TRUTHS!
          UNTIL the sons of cain bought ALL media, AND GOVT circa 1800's.....ALSO HISTORY PROVES the MONEY CHANGERS, MASTERS OF USURY WERE historically documented EXILED from over 140 nations since THE DAYS OF THE TEMPLE FOR THEIR UN-ETHICAL COMMERCE & BANKING PRACTICES !
          OH WELL!
          ALL will know very soon....because THEY are setting up THE SEAT for the anti-christ in the Holy Land RIGHT NOW! MURDEROUS WAR MONGERS ALL!
          Mossad & zionists has been caught countless times with false flags & other murderous events PORTRAYING Muslims......AND IF you KNOW the truth of LIBYA & Gadaffi! THEY destroyed that SOVEREIGN nation like COUNTLESS OTHERS to install their DEBT BASED GLOBAL BANK OF ENSLAVEMENT! AS IS WHAT IS DESTROYING AMERICA THIS VERY DAY!

          DEBUNK THIS!
          AND THIS is just a DROP IN THE BUCKET!

          The Jews admit that they are not the descendants of the Ancient
          Israelites in their writings. Under the heading of "A brief History of
          the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following:
          "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew."
          (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3).
          The Outline of History by H. G. Wells:
          "It is highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never'
          lived in Palestine 'at all,' which witnesses the power of historical
          assertion over fact."
          Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin Freedman:
          is the story of the conversion of a tribe of people in Russia to
          Judaism and is the origin of more than 95% of the Jews of Eastern
              "Without a complete and accurate knowledge of
          the origin and history of the 'Jews' in Eastern Europe... it is quite
          impossible for [Christians] to intelligently understand the harmful
          influence the Jews have exerted for ten

        • It's as if there are only two narratives in the world.

          Is there any original thinking anywhere?

          Look, I don't agree with Pharisaism, but you know what? Ron Paul is an anti-Christ. He knows I'm here. His people have known I've been here for years challenging his hogwash Christianity. What do you think of that? I'm not saying you agree with or disagree with anything you haven't mentioned. I'm asking.

          I don't give a tinker's damn about capitalism. The sooner it's flushed, the better. What do you think of that?

          The Russian nobility was stupid. The Bolsheviks were stupid.  Is there another choice? Is there another choice besides laissez-faire stinking capitalism and Bolshevism and fleshly Monarchy? Yes there is.

          That's what I'm interested in. Let's talk about what replaces the banksters.

          Going on and on about what the vast majority of people who have any curiosity already know, including the debatable aspects (and plenty of what you wrote is not substantiated but rather based upon hearsay and some of it "ancient" at that), isn't getting us far enough fast enough.

          This site is here for one reason: The Christian Commons Project. That project is communism. It is Christianity. Real communism and real Christianity are the same.

          Now, are you really interested in Jesus, because the rest of it doesn't signify in Heaven.

          Also, I'm dead set against lumping all "Jews" together. I can't stand veiled racism or ethnic bigotry. I'm ready to flush that just as quickly as I'm ready to flush banksterism and capitalism, which is instantly.

        • P.S. Drop the all-caps or find your comments deleted. I mean that in a friendly way. There are people with visual impairments who use text readers that don't like all-caps.

        • becklau

          I said NOT one thing of opinion. I merely posted facts written throughout antiquity (yeah....look them up!) and up until today!
          AND where did the Ron Paul stuff come from? I didnt mention him? Funny you did as The US Founders and countless others throughout US & World history have SCORNED communism, promoted a non-interventionist foreign policy.......and rightfully so!
          My Grandfather & Father FOUGHT against such in WW1, WW2!
          I happened across this website and will tell all I know about it.
          And where did I say ALL JEWS  "lumped together" ? Typical hogwash is right! I said elite jews MURDERING the COMMON jew, the MEANS justifies the end, for the murderous war mongering lot  as witnessed & documented countless times in world, etc history!
          Heavenly Father man HOW can you possibly justify communism, which gives power to a murderous elite and enslaves the people?
          America has never obtained TRUE capitalism with the monopolies, regulations and down right thievery of a global banking & other war machine running the show!
          With satan at the helm, all lose!
          And say you know Yahweh or the teachings in the New Covenant? Are you a relative to Caesar? Talmudic demons?
          I do not HOUSE SATAN!
          You wont see me again. I'll leave you to your master......

        • I saw everything you wrote long before you wrote it. You're throwing statistics out there that absolutely not one human being on Earth knows. "600 million" You're full of it. You do not know how many people were killed. You're just spewing bull, capitalist false-propaganda, just the way there are Stalinists and Zionists who do the same for their ends. God! Do you believe 6 million Jews were gassed? Give it a rest. The various Communist Parties around killed millions. They fought major wars too.

          Trotsky was a Jew. Lenin it is said had some Jewish blood. No one has shown to my satisfaction that Stalin was a Jew. He may have been. I don't really care. There are plenty of non-Jewish monsters in history. I don't need to single out "Jews," per se, for that label. There are plenty of decent-hearted people who call themselves Jews. I don't have a problem with them. Do you? I'm not saying you do. I'm asking. You know what a question is without having to jump to stupid conclusions that asking one means the person asking is making a statement that assumes your position, right?

          You do not know who is Semitic and who is not. The genetics has not been studied sufficiently yet for that. What are you giving me, the "Khazars" crap? Do you even know the source for that? It was a false-Christian biblical fundamentalist misinterpreting scripture concerning the End Times, but what's new?

          Martin Luther was a racist moron. Don't you know that? If you take the word of Popes, wow! The Popes have been hugely anti-Christ. I'm hoping the current one is beginning to see the light, but I'm not holding my breath.

          The American Puritans tried and failed to live as Christians. They couldn't pull off what the Hutterites have done because they didn't have Jesus within.

          Henry Ford believed in the Protocols, which the Zionists say were via the Russian secret service and plagiarized from Maurice Joly. Yes, I've read Henry Makow's take on it. http://www.henrymakow.com/maurice_joly_plagiarized_proto.html Regardless though, even though Henry Ford made some slight egalitarian statements, he was greatly motivated by mammon and the power he had personally on account of it. He tried to make a whole nation fit his vision and failed completely through no fault of outside monied interests that I know of anyway.

          You mention H.G. Wells? He was a huge Freemason humanist. What are you talking about? He wrote some wild fiction that is as Masonic as can be. Is there anything more anti-Christ?

          Look, I'm not saying that none of the men you mention had any redeeming qualities, but Lindberg was a racist. Woodrow Wilson was a racist. Mark Twain was a secular humanist beyond compare. Huey Long was a budding-socialist/Populist. He was actually the best of the bunch you mentioned as far as heart for the common people goes.

          If I know the truth about Libya and Qaddaffi? Are you kidding? Qaddaffi was a complete ass! I'm not for violence, and I asked the US not to use violence but to assist only humanitarianly; but Qaddaffi definitely would have butchered and butchered those who started out just as the Egyptians, unarmed and protesting in the streets. Qaddaffi, the moron, took it to high violence immediately. He was ready to pounce, threatened before hand to pounce, and did just that. He did not have to suffer the fate he did. There were outs. Obama did not want to do it. Hillary and Susan Rice talked him into it. They really were afraid of another Rwanda. Rwanda happened on Bill Clinton's watch, and he paid a huge price in history for it. Hillary convinced Barack Obama that using NATO was the lesser of evils. That's a fact no matter how you think you can spin it.

          You need a lesson in semantics. Try working on the term "Jew."

          Look, I've read Benjamin Freedman. I've quoted him. He had some right things to say, but Judaism hasn't been ethnic since the beginning. Try looking at all of the intermarrying throughout the Bible. I'm way beyond where you are stuck.

          "where did the Ron Paul stuff come from? I didnt mention him?" What did I write? Here's what I wrote: "I'm not saying you agree with or disagree with anything you haven't mentioned. I'm asking." What part of that is so difficult? You didn't mention him. That's right. I did. Are you saying that on my blog I can't mention what I want to mention. I brought him up because I know your bull and his. You went right into it.

          Unlike you apparently do, I don't idolize the "Founding Fathers." Actually, I'm rather dis-impressed. They had the Gospels right there but went off doing their violent thing. I'm dis-impressed with King George too. As far as I'm concerned, the whole show was just the sons of Satan fighting each other. There was nothing new there.

          "And where did I say ALL JEWS "lumped together" ?" Did I say you said it? No, I didn't say you said it. I made a statement for myself to be clear.

          "Heavenly Father man HOW can you possibly justify communism, which gives power to a murderous elite and enslaves the people?'" How can you ask such a stupid question? Exactly! How could I be a Christian and seek anything to give power to a murderous elite that enslaves the people? I couldn't. Therefore, you must be ignorant, right? Yes, you are ignorant about it. I mentioned the Christian Commons. There are links all over this site where if you were at all resourceful, you could find out how I could be both Christian and communist (must be in fact). You think Marx invented communism. Try reading Acts. If you don't find it, you're blind in more ways than one. Oh, and don't try to pull that moronic CATO Institute crap on me that the communism in Acts was just for that place and time and that otherwise, the Apostles were just fine with capitalism.

          "America has never obtained TRUE capitalism with the monopolies, regulations and down right thievery of a global banking & other war machine running the show!" I know all about it. I don't want your "TRUE capitalism." Your "TRUE capitalism" stinks! I'm interested in Christianity, not capitalism.

          You just can't write without the all-caps, can you? Well, once in awhile I use them too, but really....

          "With satan at the helm, all lose!" Just what do you think mammon is? I know where your mind will wander. If you think you can challenge me about capitalism and mammon and Christianity, you'll suffer the same fate as everyone else who's tried it. There is zero support for capitalism or mammon in Jesus's teachings. Every single twist that the capitalists have come up with has been tried on me, and I've shown in every case where those twists are none else than failing to apply Jesus's full context.

          "And say you know Yahweh or the teachings in the New Covenant? Are you a relative to Caesar? Talmudic demons?
          I do not HOUSE SATAN!
          You wont see me again. I'll leave you to your master......"

          Really? We'll see about that.

          Why didn't you show who you are? You hid in the dark here. You spoke out from the shadows. Who's with the dark side?

          You say I'm with the house of Satan even before you know anything.

          This is why most thinking people believe the Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview is a hoax by anti-Christs.

          Bless you,

          Tom Usher
          My real identity right out here in the light

        • " My Grandfather & Father FOUGHT against such in WW1, WW2!"

          Fought against communism or an interventionist foreign policy or what exactly? You aren't an ancestor worshiper are you? I hope not.

          "I said elite jews MURDERING the COMMON jew, the MEANS justifies the end, for the murderous war mongering lot as witnessed & documented countless times in world, etc history!"

          So, are you saying that certain descendants of the Khazars are genetically corrupt in such a way that they are driven by the flesh to twist everything to obtain their ends? Are you saying that they are genetically higher I.Q. and dupe the world? Are you saying that, that is not the case with any other group or groups? What were all of the non-"Jewish" empires down through the ages? Where did the Khazars come from? It's all human DNA, or do you literally believe in 12-foot, lizard shape-shifters?

          "America has never obtained TRUE capitalism"

          What nation-state has ever obtained true, unmolested democratic socialism? Some have come closer than others, but I don't know of any large nation-state that has been allowed to even try without violent coercion being exerted against them by capitalists. The capitalists whine that it's unfair for a whole people to cooperate together and then compete internationally. The capitalists' argument is fraudulent on its face. If a nation of people who go it alone more can't compete in nation-to-nation, non-violent, non-sanctioning, non-anti-international-competitive competition with a nation where people go it together more, then the more so go-it-alone nation is inferior by even a capitalist definition if one is being intellectually honest (something I've never found in die-hard "capitalists").

          I haven't said I'm for coercive socialism. I'm not for it. I'm not a Marxist, far from it. Marx was an anti-Christ.

          "...you know Yahweh or the teachings in the New Covenant? Are you a relative to Caesar? Talmudic demons?"

          I'll tell you what, you bring all of the supposed pro-capitalism scripture from the Gospels you can and explain why it's pro-capitalism. Then, I'll systematically refute every single point to the point where you'll be unable to respond logically, only dishonestly by ignoring points or changing the subject. You see, you are wrong and I am right about capitalism versus real communism (not Marxist bull).

          "You wont see me again. I'll leave you to your master......"

          Try to hit and run. It doesn't work.

          Capitalism is evil. It is inherently evil. It came out from the dark side. It is an evil device. Giving and sharing all as one family without charging anyone to come to the table was the original human spirit – the Godly spirit. The corrupter brought in selfishness and hence capitalism. Deal with it. It's the truth and always will be. Amen.

    • Vit Odlozilik

      I believe that interview is not a hoax, because I had been speaking to a guy similar in thought and manner to Rosenthal, and I know it's authentic. (btw, after almost every speaking with the guy, I felt the same as Rosenthal's interviewer - horrible, in one word... ) So, this interview is real, because unfortunately there are persons like Rosenthal - pure psychopaths, who can change the mood and demeanor in a matter of seconds...

      Btw, of course Mossad, or whoever, could kill him...1976 was still too early to speak up...

      • Mutter

        So where are the original tapes, has anyone actually heard them, cannot anyone authenticate them?

    • lighthorse16

      Trust me lies are easy to spot and i have read numerous foreign periodicals that were fortunately not subject to censorship due to the fact that their editors were not being controlled by Jews and there is a common theme to Rosenthal's interview and earlier editorials that claim much the same thing. We have Australian economists from 1940 highlighting Jewish Banking and the corrosive effect it was having on the Nation and history will show that Hitler's economic reforms between 1933-39 was also a direct threat to international Jewry (Feb 1939 Alfred Rosenberg opposed settling Jews in Palestine and suggested Guiana or Madagascar instead to settle ALL 15.000.000 Jews, All of them and in July 1939 his British counterpart announced the settlement of 500 Jews in Guiana as an experiment , Rosenberg was executed after the War)

      Real Liberal Christian are not being honest .. If this interview was a hoax WHY was Rosenthal assassinated ? Maybe for the same reason Ernst Zundel was jailed because he knew too much and was eager to spread the word.. Liars are not assassinated they are ridiculed.. If he was lying his lies could easily be debunked..

      • First, I didn't say it is a hoax. I said it is suspicious.

        Second, being killed doesn't prove it is not a hoax. He could easily have been killed for other reasons.

        Are you a racist or ethnic bigot? Do you think that all direct descendants of Judah are of an unredeemable bloodline of Satan?

        • lighthorse16

          On your third question i am merely explaining what is written in periodicals and news archives.. The JTA archive throws up some interesting information as does the National Archives Kew.. I haven't a clue what you mean by direct descendants of Judah as that is not my area of focus.. I couldn't care for Black White Red, Christian Muslim Judaism so long each race and branch behave themselves.. I would never dream of repeating what Ovadia Yosef said about Gentiles which to me was pure bigotry.. Its nothing personal.. Come to think of it i don't even know what Racism is.. The Surgeon who put me back together is a Muslim, I have Rasta friends' I don't know any Jews because where i live there aren't any and i get into constant conflict with my Catholic friends over that ol Child abuse scandal. My former work colleague is a Protestant and I'm betwixt and between wondering whether i am a Christian or not..
          Now maybe you can explain to me who the direct descendants of Judah are..