Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Jesus Was Not Jewish - He Was A Samaritan

I think I may have discovered something very important.

Jesus was not a Jew, he was a Samaritan from the House of Levi and the tribe of Levites via his mother Mary.

The Jews and Samaritans despised each other.

This explains why Jesus said the Jews were of 'the synagogue of Satan' as they worshipped the false religion of the Judeans, which the Samaritans said was not the real religion Judaic religion.

Revelation 3 : 9


Revelation 2 : 9

Jesus called the Jewish religion 'the synagogue of satan' as only the Samaritans followed the true Hebrew religion, according to the Samaritans.

This also explains why Jesus called the Jews 'of the devil' in John 8 : 44

New International Version (©1984)

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

New Living Translation (©2007)

For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.

English Standard Version (©2001)

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

This was because the Samaritans at the time of Jesus believed the Jewish religion was a false religion.

Therefore the TRUE SYNAGOGUE was the Samaritan one, whilst the 'synagogue of satan' was the fake Jewish one according to the Samaritans.

This is also important as the Jews at the time of Christ, according to the Samaritans, did not believe in the Devil, they believed in Satan.

For Jesus to refer to the devil means he was referring to them in a way that only a Samaritan would, not a Jew.

Now, of course, Judaism and the Bible tell of a character called, "The Satan." Every time the term is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, it reads, "HaSaTaN," which means "THE Satan." However, the concept of The Satan is radically different from the idea of the Devil. For Christians, the devil has power and authority in and of himself. However, in the Bible, The Satan only has power granted by God, and has no authority in and of himself. For the devil, or satan, to have power and authority is to have more than one god, as we saw above concerning the Greeks and the Romans.

The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he is an angel who works FOR God, not against God, and must get permission from God for everything that he does. Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned. In each instance, the job description of The Satan is to act like what we now call a Prosecuting Attorney, or District Attorney, and accuse and show evidence against the defendant. Furthermore, like a D.A., The Satan must obtain permission from God, The Judge, to begin a sting operation.

By calling the Jews 'of the devil' he is therefore distinguishing himself from the Jews and saying that he is not Jewish, for if he had been a Jew - he would have called them ' off Satan' not the devil.

The Samaritans (Hebrew: שומרונים‎ Shomronim, Arabic: السامريون‎ as-Sāmariyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group of the Levant. Religiously, they are the adherents to Samaritanism, an Abrahamic religion closely related to Judaism. Based on the Samaritan Torah, Samaritans claim their worship is the true religion of the ancient Israelites prior to the Babylonian Exile, preserved by those who remained in the Land of Israel, as opposed to Judaism, which they assert is a related but altered and amended religion brought back by those returning from exile.

Ancestrally, they claim descent from a group of Israelite inhabitants from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (the two sons of Joseph) as well as some descendants from the priestly tribe of Levi,[3] who have connections to ancient Samaria from the period of their entry into the land of Canaan, while some suggest that it was from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the Samaritan Kingdom of Baba Rabba. The Samaritans, however, derive their name not from this geographical designation, but rather from the Hebrew term Shamerim שַמֶרִים, "Keepers [of the Law]".[4]

For more than six hundred years the Jews of Judea, and later on those of Galilee also, had been at enmity with the Samaritans. This ill feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans came about in this way: About seven hundred years B.C., Sargon, king of Assyria, in subduing a revolt in central Palestine, carried away and into captivity over twenty-five thousand Jews of the northern kingdom of Israel and installed in their place an almost equal number of the descendants of the Cuthites, Sepharvites, and the Hamathites. Later on, Ashurbanipal sent still other colonies to dwell in Samaria.

143:4.2 The religious enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans dated from the return of the former from the Babylonian captivity, when the Samaritans worked to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Later they offended the Jews by extending friendly assistance to the armies of Alexander. In return for their friendship Alexander gave the Samaritans permission to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, where they worshiped Yahweh and their tribal gods and offered sacrifices much after the order of the temple services at Jerusalem. At least they continued this worship up to the time of the Maccabees, when John Hyrcanus destroyed their temple on Mount Gerizim. The Apostle Philip in his labors for the Samaritans after the death of Jesus, held many meetings on the site of this old Samaritan temple.

143:4.3 The antagonisms between the Jews and the Samaritans were time-honored and historic; increasingly since the days of Alexander they had had no dealings with each other. The twelve apostles were not averse to preaching in the Greek and other gentile cities of the Decapolis and Syria, but it was a severe test of their loyalty to the Master when he said, "Let us go into Samaria." But in the year and more they had been with Jesus, they had developed a form of personal loyalty which transcended even their faith in his teachings and their prejudices against the Samaritans.

This explains why Jesus attacked the Pharisees and the Jewish hierarchy.

It also explains why the Jews tried to kill Jesus ;

"And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him."

(John 7:1)

Why were Jews trying to kill Jesus - as they regarded him as a Samaritan preacher, not a Jewish preacher.

Note that Jesus was never called a Jew until the 18th century when the Bible was re-translated ;

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word "Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek "Ioudaios" to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for "Judaeans." Thus: "Ioudaia" in Greek is, in English, "Judaea" ( or "Judea") while "Ioudaios" in Greek is, in English, "Judaeans" (or "Judeans") Moreover, when the word "Jew" was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote "Judaeans" (or "Judeans"). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judaea during the time of Christ's Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word "Jew" is never regarded as a synonym for "Judaean" (or "Judean") nor is "Judaean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew." The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

This is its "secondary meaning" that has been carefully nurtured among the English speaking peoples of the world by a secret power intent upon exploiting its ancient power of association. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" has been assiduously cultivated during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It has succeeded to such a degree, that now most people in the English-speaking world can not comprehend the true nature of the word "Jew," its literal sense, and do not regard a "Jew" as a "Judaean." That is, understand the correct and only meaning of the word known to the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. In short: the word "Jew" in modern usage is a misrepresentation. The etymology of the word "Jew," first used in the revised 18th century English language editions of the New Testament, is uncomplicated: the original Greek word "Ioudaios" was derived from the Aramaic "Jehudhai," which referred to Judaeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judaea, and not as a reference to members of the tribe of Judah. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by Babylonian conquerors for the enslaved Judaeans without any due regard to the race or religion of the captives. This indiscriminate use of the word "Jew" to refer to the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judaea is the application of an incorrect, modern colloquial idiom without regard or recognition of the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen. 49:10)

The meaning of the word "Jew" in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view. In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, "Jews" and "Jewry" in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Bible Covenants but especially the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until "Shiloh," came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus' lineage was established in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the sceptre from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.

At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by Babylonians and then by Assyrian's) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great and their return and restoration of the Temple, the population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belonged to the tribe of Judah and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centred, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in JEWRY, because the JEWS sought to kill Him."(John 7:1)
Here, the English word "Jewry" was translated from the Greek word "Ioudaia", which denoted the land of Judaea. This was acknowledged by modern redactors who chose not to use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation "Judaea." For example, in the New American Standard Bible:

"And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him."(John 7:1)

Thus, Christ was unwilling to walk in Judaea – Jewry - because the Jews - the Judaeans - were seeking to kill Him. That is: Judaea = Jewry and Jews = Judaeans. A Jew is properly a Judaean and Jewry properly Judaea.

The fact that Mary was not killed by stoning for being pregnant out of wedlock, which was Jewish law, was because she was not regarded as Jewish by the Jews - they regarded her as a Levite Samaritan.

Mary was a Levite from the House of Levi and hence this reinforces the connection with the Samaritan Levites.

This also why Jesus said he was not the Messiah, as the Messiah was a Jewish concept - and the Samaritans were not Jewish.

The Samaritans (Hebrew: שומרונים‎ Shomronim, Arabic: السامريون‎ as-Sāmariyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group of the Levant. Religiously, they are the adherents to Samaritanism, an Abrahamic religion closely related to Judaism. Based on the Samaritan Torah, Samaritans claim their worship is the true religion of the ancient Israelites prior to the Babylonian Exile, preserved by those who remained in the Land of Israel, as opposed to Judaism, which they assert is a related but altered and amended religion brought back by those returning from exile.

Ancestrally, they claim descent from a group of Israelite inhabitants from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (the two sons of Joseph) as well as some descendants from the priestly tribe of Levi,[3] who have connections to ancient Samaria from the period of their entry into the land of Canaan, while some suggest that it was from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the Samaritan Kingdom of Baba Rabba. The Samaritans, however, derive their name not from this geographical designation, but rather from the Hebrew term Shamerim שַמֶרִים, "Keepers [of the Law]".[4]

In the Talmud, a central post-exilic religious text of Judaism, their claim of ancestral origin is disputed, and in those texts they are called Cutheans (Hebrew: כותים‎, Kuthim), allegedly from the ancient city of Cuthah (Kutha), geographically located in what is today Iraq. Modern genetics has suggested some truth to both the claims of the Samaritans and Jewish accounts in the Talmud.

Tension between the Samaritans and the Jews.

The narratives in Genesis about the rivalries among the twelve sons of Jacob describe tensions between north and south. Those were temporarily united under the strong kingship of David and Solomon, but at the death of Solomon, the kingdom split into two: northern Israel with its capital Samaria and southern Judea with its capital Jerusalem.

The Deuteronomistic Historians, writing in Judah, saw northern Israel as a sinful kingdom, divinely punished for its idolatry and iniquity by being destroyed by the Assyrians in 720 BC. (Ironically, the Chronicler is very generous to the south Judah and considers it God's will to recover the chosen people that they were destroyed by Babylon and exiled to Babylon.)

The tensions continued in the postexilic period. According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, Ezra-Nehemiah is hostile toward its northern neighbors and considers the northern Israel except for the "true Israel"[clarification needed]. Chronicles is more inclusive than Ezra-Nehemiah since for the Chronicler the ideal is of one Israel with twelve tribes; the Chronicler concentrates on Judah and ignores northern Israel.[12]

Unlike the Chronicler, the Samaritans claimed that they were the true Israel who were descendants of the "lost" tribes taken into Assyrian captivity. They had their own temple on Mount Gerizim and claimed that it was the original sanctuary. Moreover, they claimed that their version of the Pentateuch was the original and that the Jews had a falsified text produced by Ezra during the Babylonian exile.

Both Jewish and Samaritan religious leaders taught that it was wrong to have any contact with the opposite group, and neither was to enter each other's territories or even to speak to one another. During the New Testament period, although the tensions went unrecognized by Roman authorities, Josephus reports numerous violent confrontations between Jews and Samaritans throughout the first half of the first century.[13]

Rejection by Judeans

Ancient inscription in Samaritan Hebrew. From a photo c.1900 by the Palestine Exploration Fund.According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BC and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

According to 2 Chronicles 36:22–23, the Persian emperor, Cyrus the Great (reigned 559 BC – 530 BC), permitted the return of the exiles to their homeland and ordered the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem (Zion). The prophet Isaiah identified Cyrus as "the Lord's Messiah" (Meshiach; see Isaiah 45:1). The word "Messiah" refers to an anointed one, such as a king or priest.

Ezra 4 says that the local inhabitants of the land offered to assist with the building of the new temple during the time of Zerubbabel, but their offer was rejected. According to Ezra, this rejection precipitated a further interference not only with the rebuilding of the temple but also with the reconstruction of Jerusalem.

The text is not clear on this matter, but one possibility is that these "people of the land" were thought of as Samaritans. We do know that Samaritan and Jewish alienation increased, and that the Samaritans eventually built their own temple on Mount Gerizim, near Shechem.

(The rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem took several decades. The project was first led by Sheshbazzar (about 538 BC), later by Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and later still by Haggai and Zechariah (520–515 BC). Work was completed in 515 BC.)

The term "Cuthim" applied by Jews to the Samaritans had clear pejorative connotations, implying that they were interlopers brought in from Kutha in Mesopotamia and rejecting their claim of descent from the ancient Tribes of Israel. This claim, however, that the northern tribes of Israel were all exiled by the Assyrians and therefore those who occupied the land were of a non-Israelite origin is rejected by the Bible, 2 Chronicles 30:1-31:6, which states that not all of the people from the northern kingdom were exiled by the Assyrians and some still remained even after the Assyrian conquest of the land in the 8th century BC.

Note that recent DNA evidence shows the Levites, from whom Jesus's mother descended, were 50 % European by DNA ;

A 2003 study of the Y-chromosome by Behar et al. points to multiple origins for Ashkenazi Levites, a priestly class who comprise approximately 4% of Ashkenazi Jews. It found that Haplogroup R1a1a (R-M17), uncommon in the Middle East or among Sephardi Jews, originating in Central Asia and dominant in Eastern Europe, is present in over 50% of Ashkenazi Levites, while the rest of Ashkenazi Levites' paternal lineage is of Middle Eastern origin. Behar suggests a founding event, probably involving one or very few European men, occurring at a time close to the initial formation and settlement of the Ashkenazi community as a possible explanation.

Genetic and demographic investigations of the Samaritan community were carried out in the 1960s. Detailed pedigrees of the last 13 generations show that the Samaritans comprise four lineages:

The Tsedakah lineage, claiming descent from the tribe of Manasseh

The Joshua-Marhiv lineage, claiming descent from the tribe of Ephraim

The Danfi lineage, claiming descent from the tribe of Ephraim

The priestly Cohen lineage from the tribe of Levi.

Of the 12 Samaritan males used in the analysis, 10 (83%) had Y chromosones belonging to haplogroup J, which includes three of the four Samaritan families. The Joshua-Marhiv family belongs to haplogroup J1, while the Danfi and Tsedakah families belong to haplogroup J2, and can be further distinguished by M67, the derived allele of which has been found in the Danfi family. The only Samaritan family not found in haplogroup J was the Cohen family (Tradition: Tribe of Levi) which was found in haplogroup E3b1a M78.[27] This article predated the change of the classification of haplogroup E3b1-M78 to E3b1a-M78 and the further subdivision of E3b1a-M78 into 6 subclades based on the research of Cruciani, et al.[28]

In a 2004 article on the genetic ancestry of the Samaritans, Shen, et al. concluded from a sample comparing Samaritans to several Jewish populations, all currently living in Israel — representing Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Iraqi Jews, Libyan Jews, Moroccan Jews, and Yemenite Jews, as well as Druze and non-Druze Palestinian Arabs — that the principal components analysis suggested a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in what is today identified as the paternally inherited Israelite high priesthood (Cohanim) with a common ancestor projected to the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.[29] Archaeologists Aharoni, et al., estimated that this "exile of peoples to and from Israel under the Assyrians" took place during ca. 734 BC to 712 BC.[30] The authors speculated that when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, resulting in the exile of many of the Israelites, a subgroup of the Israelites that remained in the Land of Israel "married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities."[29] The study goes on to say that "Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y lineages, while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences." Non-Jewish Iraqis were not sampled in this study; however, mitochondrial lineages of Jewish communities tend to correlate with their non-Jewish host populations, unlike paternal lineages which almost always correspond to Israelite lineages.

Genetic differences between the Samaritans and neighboring Jewish and non-Jewish populations are corroborated in that study of 7,280 bp of non-recombining Y-chromosome and 5,622 bp of coding and hypervariable segment (HVS-I) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences. Comparative sequence analysis was carried out on 12 Samaritan Y-chromosome, and mtDNA samples from 9 male and 7 female Samaritans separated by at least two generations. The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity. Of the 16 Samaritan mtDNA samples, 14 carry either of two mitochondrial haplotypes that are rare or absent among other worldwide ethnic groups.

So Jesus was probably neither Jewish by blood or religion.

In John 3 : 28 this is why Jesus denies he is the Messiah - as the Messiah relates to Judaism and not his own Samaritan religion.

Jesus could not be the Jewish Messiah, as he admits, as he was not Jewish - he was a Samaritan.

He refused to be their Messiah, choosing instead to be the Savior of the world.

New International Version (©1984)

You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.'

New Living Translation (©2007

You yourselves know how plainly I told you, 'I am not the Messiah. I am only here to prepare the way for him.'

English Standard Version (©2001)

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent ahead of Him.'

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

That Jesus was a Samaritan is is also further confirmed in John 8:48-59 ;

New International Version (NIV)

Jesus’ Claims About Himself

48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.

50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.

51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Here we see the hatred of the Jews for Jesus is based on them believing he is a Samaritan, not a Jew.

Note that Jesus does not deny this.

This also explains why Jesus asked his disciples to preach to the Samaritans and also why the Samaritans were mentioned by Jesus in his teachings and parables.

Jesus was not Jewish.

He was a Samaritan from the line of Levite via his mother Mary who was also a Samaritan.

If Jesus had been Jewish then he would have been killed before being born as his mother was pregnant out of wedlock.

He wasnt killed.

This is also why Jesus refused to say he was the messiah, as the messiah was a JEWISH MESSIAH and Jesus came not to be the messiah of the Jews, but the SAVIOUR of all mankind not just the Jews.

This is why he chose to preach to the Samaritans and why the Samaritans were respected by him.

The lie that Jesus was a Jew is the dominant Big Lie of the last 2,000 years.

The Christian Gospels mention Samaritans on six occasions:

A Samaritan village rejects a request from Jesus for hospitality because the villagers did not want to facilitate a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a practice which they saw as a violation of the Law of Moses. Luke 9:51-53 [2].

The Parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke 10:30-37.

Jesus healed ten lepers, of whom only one returned to praise God, and he was a Samaritan. Luke 17:11-19, esp. 17:16

Jesus asks a Samaritan woman of Sychar for water from Jacob's Well. Thereafter many of the Samaritans from her town become followers of Jesus.This woman considered herself and her people to be Israelites, descendants of Jacob. John 4:7-42

Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan and being demon-possessed. He denies having a demon, but makes no comment on the Samaritan accusation. John 8:48

Philip preached the Gospel in the city of Samaria and found many new followers including Simon, a sorcerer. The Apostles Peter and John were sent for and when the Holy Spirit fell upon them Simon attempted to buy this power. Simon was rebuked and he repented. Acts 8:25

Another interesting issue in Matthew 10 : 5-6

When instructing his disciples as to how they should spread the word, Jesus tells them not to visit any Gentile or Samaritan city, but instead go to the "lost sheep of Israel". Matthew 10:5-6

Now why would Jesus tell his apostles not to go to any gentile or Samaritan city ?

Because the Samaritans were already found - it was the Israelites, the Jews, who were the lost ones who needed saving.

The fact he calls the Jews - the lost sheep of Israel - shows he did not regard the Jews as of his faith.

If he had been a Jew he would have asked his followers to go and save the Samaritans, not the Jews.

The one time Jesus calls himself the messiah, is not when he is speaking to a Jew, but a Samaritan woman - hence he is saying he is the SAMARITAN MESSIAH not the Jewish Messiah.

Note that he also says that he has come to change the Samaritan worship, which was on Mount Gerizim and also Jewish worship which was in Jerusaalem.

Jesus says that a new place of worship is going to be established, not on the mountain or in Jerusalem - this also explains why he broke the laws of the Torah and hence broke the Samaritan and Jewish laws of the time - Jesus was truly a revolutionary seeking to create a new unified religion that united the Samaritans and the Jews into a new religion - which we call Christianity.

John 4:21-26

King James Version (KJV)

21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

25The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

So where was Jesus referring too when he said a new place would be found where the Jesus Jews would worship The Father - for that we need to look at the Samaritan teachings on the Samaritan Messiah - and here we find the answer - Shechem, the ancient seat of power.

Another thing was asked of the High Priest, namely, what would be the attitude of the Messiah toward Christians and other nations. He answers:

"The Messiah will be a prophet, as I have told you, and will no doubt work signs to prove his mission. There will be unusual signs and wonders, which I described in the little book. But he is to be a king, and rule the earth from Shechem, the ancient seat of power, and from his holy mountain, Gerizim. He will call all the world to acknowledge him, and they will do so. He will bring blessings to all nations that acknowledge him."

So Jesus did not intend Jerusalem to be his seat where he would rule as king of the Jews - it would be Shechem.

Shechem is Nablus.

Nablus (Arabic: نابلس‎ Nāblus [næːblʊs] ( listen), Hebrew: שכם‎ Šəḵem, is Biblical Shechem (ISO 259-3 Škem).

It is a Palestinian city in the northern West Bank, approximately 63 kilometers (39 mi) north of Jerusalem, with a population of 126,132.[1] Located in a strategic position between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, it is the capital of the Nablus Governorate and a Palestinian commercial and cultural center.

So the Holy city of the Jesus Jews would not have been Jeruslaem it would have been Shechem / Nablus.

Here is some information on Shechem -

The true Christians worship Christ in Nablus, not in Jerusalem.

Add to Technorati Favorites


alanorei said...

Interesting theory, Lee

Just a couple of points as I'm not in a position to read it all in detail as yet.

In John 3:28 it is John the Baptist speaking, not Jesus.

Hebrews 7:14 states, my emphases "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

Matthew 1 is also explicit that the Lord came from the tribe of Judah. That is why He is called "the Lion of the tribe of Juda" in Revelation 5:5.

The Samaritans are important as a people because they show the end results of the kind of multi-racialism that is now being forced on this country by emigration/immigration.

It's all set out in 2 Kings 17, after the 10 northern tribes had been taken into captivity by Assyria in about 740 BC.

It's amazing that the Samaritans have lasted so long but their total population now is less than 1,000. It may be that God has preserved them as a remnant to show that no strong nation can be founded on multi-racialism.

Got something else that is of interest constitutionally. I'll forward it separately.

Defender of Liberty said...

Hi mate,

thanks for the points - I have been wanting you to respond so we can work together on this, you being the expert on the texts.

The lion point is interesting - a lion symbolism isnt always a good thing, it may be that the lion of Judah, represents a lion AGAINST Judah, not for Judah.

The lion of Judah may be a threat to the 'lost sheep of Israel' as Jesus being the lion will consume the lamb - Jews - the lion and the lamb symbolism as a predator / prey relationship as opposed to the later lion and the lamb laying down together eg coming under the jurisdiction of Jesus and him ending the war between the samaritans and the Jews. The lion = Samaritan Jesus and the Lamb = the Jews.

I think the strongest point of all is the Shechem issue where Jesus says he will not worship like the Samaritans on the mountain or like the Jews in Jeruslaem - so where will he worship. The clue is that he is talking to a Samaritan woman - and the answer is Shechem, the ancient seat of power.

Jesus was not the Jewish messiah, he was the Samaritan messiah.

The Jews knew this and thats why they crucified him - as they feared him becoming the uniter of the Jews / Samaritans under Jesus Judaism or Christianity as we call it.

Interesting point re multi-culturalism and the Smaritans.

Let me know what other ideas you have.

alanorei said...

Thanks, Lee

I'm somewhat preoccupied with other projects atm but it would be interesting to follow up at some point.

I wouldn't think I was an expert, though I do read up on the subject quite a bit.

The episode of the woman at the well is, I think, answered in John 4:24:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

The Lord is talking about a different kind of worship, not centred on any place e.g. the temple but within the individual, which is germane to Christian belief, as St Paul emphasised later in 1 Corinthians 3:16.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

That's actually the litmus test, so to speak, for a New Testament Christian. Intrinsically, it has nothing to do with doing good, being a good person or church attendance, although these things should follow.

That's where there's a lot of confusion these days, though.

Note also the woman's statement in John 4:9 that identifies the Lord's race, which the Lord does not contradict.

"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans."

Defender of Liberty said...

Hi mate,

The woman in John 4 : 9 doesnt know that Jesus is a Samaritan, he kept this quiet as the Jews kept trying to kill him.

He was a Jew the same way Paul was a Roman, for Jesus was raised as a Jew by his step father Joseph.

But he knew his mother was a Samaritan as a Levite.

To the woman and his disciples he was a Jew, but he knew he was a Jew only via his step father - he was raised a Jew but knew he was a Samaritan via his mothers lineage.

Hence he does not care that he is helping or consorting with a Samaritan, as he himself was a Samaritan.

He was only RAISED as a Jew, for his real father was God and his mother a Samaritan.

Like Paul, who was a Jew and a Roman, Jesus was both Samaritan and Jew - hence why he tried to fuse the two religions into one.

alanorei said...

Again, an interesting theory, Lee

However, the lineage of Mary is given in Luke 3. She too is Jewish, from Solomon's brother, Nathan, Luke 3:31.

Also, although the Lord sought to prevent premature revelation of His identity, Mark 1:44, 45, He would never have created a false impression about His racial background with anyone, either the Samaritan woman or His disciples. Note John 18:20.

"Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing."

In other words, the Lord was Who He said He was.

Note that in the above context, Jesus is speaking under oath, as you'll note from the legal term used in Matthew 26:63.

"But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."

The astute Pontius Pilate also knew Jesus' racial identity. No Samaritan masquerading as a Jew could have deceived him, my emphases.

"Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?"

Defender of Liberty said...

Hi mate,

Mary was from the Tribe of Levites, which she shared with the Samaritans.

As a member of the House of Levil, it is entirely plausible she was a Samaritan.

The Samaritans are Jewish, its just they were not regarded as Jewish by the Pharisees and non-Samaritan Jews at the time of Jesus.

Thats why Jesus was a Jew, but not regarded as a Jew by the Jews.

By the Jews, I mean the non-Samartians.

Jesus was also a Jew as he was a Samartian, this si what you need to get your head around.

The Samartians said the Jews that came back from Assyria were not true Jews, due to their religion. At the same time the Jews who came back from Assyria also said the Samaritans were not Jews due to their religion.

In fact in they were both 'Jews' but neither regarded the other as Jews.

Hence the confusion and violence between them.

We know that John 18:20 quote is not entirely true as Jesus confirms in Mark 4 : 11-12

[Jesus] told them, ' The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-12)

In other words Jesus did not lie, but he hid his true teachings inside his parables and only explained them to the select few - hence the Gnostic Gospels.

He taught two teachings - the parabales and the secret teachings inside the parables explained onlt to the elect amongst the disciples.

I have stated above that Jesus like Paul had dual Jewish membership - a Samaritan via his mother a Jew via his step father - he was both at the same time.

Like his parables Jesus had two identities - hence why the parabales had two meanings as well - he had his Jewish public identity that allowed ghim to preach and get disciples and to the ones he trusted he gave the true meanings of his parables.

He did this as the Jews kept trying to kill him.

It was to protec himself, protect the didsciples and to allow him to preach to the Jews - but only the inner core of the most trusted disciples knew the truth of his teachings and identity.

Defender of Liberty said...

Heres how to get your head around the Samaritan / Jewish issue.

They were the Catholics / Protestants of their time.

Both were Jewish as both the Protestants and Catholics were Christian, but they both despised each other, killed each other and neither side recgognised the other as Jewish.

Now they do,

Back then they didnt.

In order to preach to the Jews, Jesus assumed his Jewish identity via his step father Joseph who was Jewish.

But he also told the Samaritan woman the truth of his identity, but you needed to know how to decipher what he said.

By saying The Father would not be worshipped in Jeruslam where the Jews worshipped or on the mountain where the Samaritans worshipped, he was confirming his real identity - for the Samaritan prophet ( not messiah) would sit in Shechem.

This was how we know who he really was.

alanorei said...

Again, interesting arguments, Lee

I have to acknowledge that I'm not really in a position to comment on non-Biblical sources e.g. the Gnostic Gospels.

I have never come across any source that goes against Mary's genealogy as given in Luke 3.

Nor have I ever come across any scripture that even remotely hints at any Samaritan background in the Lord's lineage, even though a Canaanite (Rahab) and a Moabitess (Ruth) are mentioned, Matthew 1:5.

If you can find a scripture that shows otherwise, then let's review it.

The point about John 18:20 is that the chief priests themselves didn't try to contradict Him i.e. they accepted what He said as true and simply focussed on a matter of protocol, John 18:21.

John 18:20 doesn't contradict with Mark 4:11, 12, in that the Lord simply taught openly in such a way that He could identify those who were genuinely interested i.e. those who came around afterwards to ask questions.

The same happens today.

Not sure there's much more I can add, unless you can identify the suggested scripture above.

Defender of Liberty said...

Hi mate,

There is no scripture as it was part of the Gnostic secrets that were told only to the elect - you can only put the whole thing together if you read the Gnostic Gospecls and understand the true nature of Jesus as recorded outside the Bible ;

The existence of a secret teaching can be found in the New Testament:

The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding' (Mark 4:11-12)

"He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance." (Matt. 13:11-12)

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." (1 Cor. 2:6-8)

"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." (1 Cor. 4:1)

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." (Matt. 11:25-26)
Origen had this to say about the secret teachings of Jesus:

[Jesus] conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech and they saw what things were to be committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was not to be so conveyed. (Contra Celsus, Chap. VI. 18)

Concerning these secret teachings, Clement stated:

James the Righteous, John and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, to the seventy (Outlines Book VI)

The priests did not refute Jesus being a Jew, as by doing so they could not exercise jurisdiction over him and kill him.

They could only condemn Jesus to death if they agreed he was a Jew, hence they stated that he was a Jew so as to kill him.

The true teachings of Jesus were taught not to the crowds, but the most trusted of his dsciples.

This is why the Gnostic gospels were repressed and destroyed.

alanorei said...

Again, interesting points, Lee

Having studied some of the beliefs/teachings of Origen and some of the modern versions that you appear to have used, I wouldn't perceive them as being trustworthy sources by comparison with the 1611 Holy Bible that once guided this nation and guided it well.

However, that's not the main issue.

In that respect, it has to be remembered that the Lord said in Mark 4:9 "And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

That was an open invitation to learn more, for any of His listeners.

Nothing was withheld from anyone who wanted to know more. Then as now, most folk don't, sadly.

So it can't really be said that the Lord was being secretive. As for mysteries in scripture, these gradually unfold as part of progressive revelation, which is how the Bible is set out. Again, there's nothing secretive.

Concerning extra-canonical sources, Revelation 22:18 has a very severe warning, my emphases.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Some commentators limit that verse to the Book of Revelation, which is not correct because the verse is essentially saying don't add to scripture, as Proverbs 30:6 states:

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

As for what are God's words, Psalm 12:6, 7 is a definite promise that God will preserve them, my emphases.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

The Lord Jesus Christ confirms in Matthew 24:35 that His words would not pass away.

That shows that what we have now as scripture i.e. the 1611 Holy Bible, is God's words. What we don't have isn't, for that reason and therefore (for both those reasons) can't be elevated in authority on a par with scripture.

(The same goes for certain extant writings such as the Old and New Testament Apocryphas, because these were never recognised as scripture by the apostolic church or later Bible believers such as the Waldenses etc.)

On the subject of the Lord's ethnicity, again I have to appeal to scripture i.e. Matthew 1:5 that records two non-Jewesses way back in His human ancestry and surely therefore would have recorded any others had they existed.

On the proposition that Mary was part-Levite, again, I have to appeal to scripture in that it is mentioned that Barnabus was a Levite, Acts 4:36. On that basis I suggest that had the same been true or even partly true for Mary, that would have been mentioned as well, given that Mary was obviously closer to Jesus than Barnabus during the Lord's earthly life - the tribe of Levi rates a mention because it was the priestly tribe but the reference to Barnabus shows that this distinction is done away with in the Church Age i.e. post-Calvary.

End of Part 1, Part 2 to follow.

alanorei said...

Note also that Elisabeth*, John the Baptist's mother, is said to be "of the daughters of Aaron" Luke 1:5 i.e. Levi via Aaron. For me, that confirms that had the same been true of Mary, the scripture would have mentioned it. It doesn't.

*Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, Luke 1:36, which would only mean that Mary's father and Elizabeth's mother were brother and sister, since Mary is never called a daughter of Aaron or "a daughter of Levi" although Jochebed, the mother of Moses and Aaron is, Exodus 2:1, 6:20, yet Jochebed is relatively obscure compared to "the mother of my Lord" Luke 1:43. It comes back to the same thing i.e. if Mary was of Levi, it would have been mentioned but it isn't.

That's where I'll have to leave it, mate. Some good points for study have emerged but it all hinges on finding a scripture that shows unequivocally that the Lord was not from Juda, even though Hebrews 7:14 says that he was, with no other ancestry mentioned.

As you've indicated, such an alternative scripture - as scripture - cannot be found. Also as indicated, I'm not really in a position to take things further, therefore.

Defender of Liberty said...

Hi mate

check the link below

the hebrews 7 : 14 has many interpretations, some of which suggest that Jesus was not of the tribe of Judah, but that he came from the region of Judah.

Judah doesnt refer to the tribe of Judah but the region of Judah.

Defender of Liberty said...

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

This interpretation suggests Jesus came from the region of Judah, not the tribe of Judah and the second statem,ent just a statement of fact about the people of the region.

Defender of Liberty said...

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, he was not from the tribe of Judah.

Remember that Jesus's stepfather Jospeh was from the tribe of Judah, hence he could be called as coming from Judah via his being regarded as the adopted son of Joseph who was from the tribe of Judah.

Yet that doesnt change the fact Mary was a Levite and jesus, by blood, wasnt from the tribe of Judah.

alanorei said...

Again, I'd say that the scripture is explicit in these respects. Taking the New Testamant references, Juda can refer to:

"the land of Juda" Matthew 2:6

"the brother...of Juda" Mark 6:3

"a city of Juda" Luke 1:39

"the son of Juda" Luke 3:26, 30, 33

"the tribe of Juda" Hebrews 7:14, even if expressed slightly differently, Revelation 5:5, 7:5.

There's 5 different applications, where Juda can be a place, a person, or an extended family.

However, the scripture is explicit in each respect.

alanorei said...

See my previous comment, noting the use of the word "tribe" in the verse.

alanorei said...

Jesus by blood was actually from God, Acts 20:28, not any earthly lineage at all.

Again, the scripture has to be produced that states that Mary was "a daughter of Aaron" like Elisabeth or "a daughter of Levi" like Jochebed.

There isn't any.

With extra-Biblical authorities, I would guess it's possible to counter the above but that then results in an impasse that I don't think can be resolved.

It seems like it would be like a court of law that is simultaneously subject to more than one legal system, which I guess would result in impossibility.

Defender of Liberty said...

Re Judah - exactly, in each case they refer to five different things - hence their is no consistency.

2) 'Tribe' is only in some of the interpretations - the King James version doesnt have tribe in it all. Nor do others.

3)There doesnt have to be a scripture introduced to say Mary was a Levite, she was a Levite by logical extension re the other article. The Bible doesnt have to define each issue with a scripture as some facts were regarfded simply as facts. Scriptural authority is not required on each issue, simply as the sacriptures relate to the Bible. The Gnostic Gospels are not in the Bible but relate to Jesus. The issue isnt that the Bible should be regarded as a fact book - it isnt, its a faith book. The issue is the reality of the life of Jesus - which extends beyond what is just in the Bible. That includes archeology, forensic science, linguistic interpretetation, new discoveries etc etc - thats the important issue, not scrioptural doctrine which comes not from Christ but via the people told to compile the Bible by Constantine. They chose for political reasons to keep certsain scriptures in the Bible and others out, hence the Bible has to be read in accord with the Gnostic Gospels and archeology, science etc if we want to understand the real Christ as opposes to the Biblical Christ which contains a one dimensional version of Christ.

Thats what I am trying to do - create a vision of the real Christ using the Bible, Gnostic texts and science to do so.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Jesus's blood group was AB, the same as my own.

I've been told, there's Jewish lineage on my maternal side going back nearly 200 years, but I'm not entirely definite about that one.