Editor’s Note: This ATJFTP Series was first written and published beginning in late 2017. Most recent update and revision January 2026.

“You are fake Jews!”

Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve probably heard a similar phrase bandied about in the clown show otherwise known as American politics?

“Yes, but what does this have to do with anything?” you ask.

Well, this parody of a rather famous statement (and truthful, for the mainstream media is unfortunately often flat out fake or at least sidestepping truth), simply serves as a quick introduction to this series of posts “All The Jews Fit To Print” which, will endeavour to determine more accurately the people known today as ‘Jews’ their origin, and the mystery of their history as it pertains to scripture. This parody of the rather famous statement also serves to establish the basic premise of the “All The Jews Fit To Print” series which, is that the people known today as ‘Jews’ are not in fact “Gods’ chosen people”, the Covenant people, or Old Covenant Israel at all but rather something else entirely. If one is motivated by The Truth (Christ), one will find the layers of impacted lies one must dig through to get to The Truth are more numerous and more profound than perhaps first imagined. Therefore, even as potentially jaw-dropping as this opening parody of the rather famous political declaration may be, we may well find in due course that it is entirely accurate. In this first post of the “All The Jews Fit To Print” series (ATJFTP) “The Salary Men of Fake Jews” we are going to look at a few issues that will hopefully serve as introductory as regards ‘Jews’, their origin and their appearance in scripture. 

Now, dear readers, when I first got the idea for this series I wasn’t really sure where it was going to go. I had a title and a rough subject idea. Then I got busy with other things. Whilst otherwise occupied I stumbled upon an article which, though totally unrelated to what I was otherwise occupied with served a different purpose I decided would suit right here for the first post in the ATJFTP series, which, is discussing a pretty serious topic by way of assessing what the article had to say on the subject of ‘Jews’ – The Creator works in profound ways! Such profound ways I had to scrap the first version of this post as further research demanded a full re-write.

So, let’s get into it shall we? The article we are going assess is highlighted blue henceforth:

“Exactly Why Jesus Christ Is Not A Jew” by William Finck 1-26-2016 

“What if Jesus were descended from the Israelite tribe of Judah, as the Scripture says that He is? Well, of course He is, because the Scriptures do not lie. But what if the people known as Jews today were NOT of the tribe of Judah? Nor even of Benjamin or Levi? Then how could Jesus possibly be a Jew? The answer is easy. Jesus is not a Jew because the people known as Jews today are not of Judah. The Bible itself tells us this.”

Straight off the bat Mr Finck’s article seems destined to be a good example of the old adage “if you can’t be good, be good at it.” He states that the scriptures do not lie. Folks, while I would like to go to bed at night feeling that is essentially true, do you really believe the scriptures have not ever been tampered with or that errors have not crept in through translation? Let’s get real. If we are stepping outside the confines of a religion our parents followed, haven’t we already embraced the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong; that something isn’t quite right?

Mr Finck asks, “what if people known as ‘Jews’ today were not of the tribe of Judah?” Unfortunately, he uses the past tense (‘were’), instead of the present tense  (‘are’). If he had used the present tense (‘are’), he would have simply and eloquently made the case, which is true, that today’s Jews are not of Judah. However, what bearing do today’s Jews have on anything? Isn’t the real issue whether or not Jews at the time of Christ were of Judah? Isn’t that the common claim these days that Jews are (and always were) of Judah and therefore Christ being of Judah was a ‘Jew’? Isn’t it the common claim these days that ‘Jews’ are not just of the tribe of Judah, but are the tribe of Judah; the tribe of Judah = ‘Jews’? After all isn’t that what the Roman legion tacked up on the cross?

“And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Matthew 27:37

“KING OF THE JEWS” eh? So, what of this idea then that the ‘Jews’ are not just of, but are the tribe of Judah?

The term ‘Jew’ first appears in scripture in 2Kings 16:6, the eleventh book of the Old Testament. Let’s just repeat that to make sure the message is clear: the eleventh book of the Old Testament! 

“At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.” 2Kings 16:6

This chapter is concerned with the reign of King Ahaz (House of Judah, circa 735BC), the second of Judah’s outright wicked evil kings. At first blush the term ‘Jews’ might indeed appear to be vernacular for the tribe of Judah or the House of Judah the way the term ‘Americans’ is used for citizens of the United States of America today. However, it could also be the term ‘Jew’ is used because that is how the Syrians (foreigners) referred to either the tribe or House of Judah (not that the tribe or House of Judah used this term for themselves). There is also the very real possibility that this term ‘Jew’ is indeed factual and is being applied to a people neither of the tribe nor House of Judah. Finally, there is always the possibility that we have here a good ol’ corruption of scripture.

So, we have a few questions as to what is going on with this term ‘Jew’ and it’s relation, or not, to the tribe or House of Judah. (For those, which do not understand the distinction between the tribe of Judah and the House of Judah, the House of Judah is a common name for what was actually the Kingdom of Judah, which was comprised of two Israelite tribes: Judah and Benjamin, the other Israelite tribes having formed a kingdom of their own commonly known as the House of Israel.)

Ok, let’s read a bit more from our guest article.

“For this reason Jesus Himself told the church at Smyrna, in Revelation 2:9: “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Just in case that is not understood, Jesus also said to the church at Philadelphia, in Revelation 3:9: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

So according to Jesus Himself, the people calling themselves Jews at this time are not “real” Jews, meaning that they are not actually of the tribe of Judah. But how can that be? 

We are only four paragraphs in and already total chaos on the open page! Mr Finck, despite his previous statement that Christ could not have been a Jew because he was of the tribe of Judah, now declares that real Jews are from the tribe of Judah. Wow! Confused? Apparently, Mr Finck also believes there are real Jews and fake Jews? (Is this done to stupefy his followers or is he just totally confused?) 

People, this idea that Judah = Jews seems all too common in these wild delusional times. So, let’s dispel this idea right here and right now that ‘Jew’ is a name for the tribe of Judah; it is not. As someone from the tribe of Levi is a Levite, or Simeon a Simeonite, or Reuben a Reubenite, those which descend from the tribe of Judah, are Judahites NOT ‘Jews’. Let’s take an example from scripture to demonstrate that:

“Namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, of the Reubenites [Reuben]; and Ramoth in Gilead, of the Gadites [Gad]; and Golan in Bashan, of the Manassites [Manasseh].” Deuteronomy 4:43 [underline & square bracket edits mine]

Now, if you are wondering where the scriptural verse is that shows this term ‘Judahite’ in use, there isn’t one. However the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say on the subject:

“Judahite

Ju·​dah·​ite | \ ˈjüdəˌīt \

plural -s

Definition of Judahite

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: a member of the Hebrew tribe of Judah

2: a member of the Kingdom of Judah composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin

Judahite

adjective

\ “ \

So let’s pour some cold water on this assertion of Mr Finck that (according to Christ no less), Jews of the times specified in Revelations 2:9 & 3:9 are fake, but that there are indeed real Jews of Judah somewhere. Have they been abducted by aliens or got lost in “The Twilight Zone“?

Now, since we have such an oddball, ad hoc, out of the blue appearance of this term ‘Jew’ in the eleventh book of the Old Testament, from whence does this name derive? Here is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:

“Jew (word)

The English term Jew originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi, meaning “from the Kingdom of Judah”, or in a more religious meaning: ‘worshipper of one God.”

So, there it is in black and white. If this definition is good enough for the kosher folks over at Wikipedia we should probably run with it. Notice what was once a ‘Y’ becomes a ‘J’ in English. Notice it does not say tribe but Kingdom of Judah. Folks, the Kingdom of Judah did not just contain Israelites, but Canaanites too. How do we know that? Well, the following are examples from the Book of Joshua that illustrate:

“Nevertheless the children of Israel expelled not the Geshurites, nor the Maachathites: but the Geshurites and the Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day.” Joshua 13:13 KJV

“As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.” Joshua 15:63 KJV

Perhaps this modern ‘Jew’ is nothing more than a translation corruption, or perhaps this group not of Judah decided to name themselves? Why shouldn’t that be the case? It is after all their claim. Please note that the term ‘Jew’ does not just indicate being of the Kingdom of Judah but also indicates monotheism; “worshipper of one God”; no Father and Son.

To recap, the term ‘Jew’ first appears in 2Kings 16:6 the eleventh book of the Old Testament (and just for the record the 1611 KJV spelling is ‘Iewes’ before the ‘I’ became ‘J’). As well, we’ve already noted this is over 1000 years after the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. Israel comes first, not ‘Jews’. Israel is a people not a place. We should also note that 2Kings 16:6 is roughly 200 years after the split of the united Israelite Kingdom into the House of Israel and the House of Judah. This brings up a question does it not? Why did it take this long for the name ‘Jew’ to arise if it referred to either the tribe or House of Judah; why wasn’t it more quickly, consistently and pervasively used if indeed it were a legitimate name for either?

With all of this to consider let’s get back to the article.

“In Acts 26, as Paul addressed King Herod Agrippa II, he spoke about the promise of the Gospel and he said: “6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

So according to Paul, the promises in Christ are for “our twelve tribes”, meaning the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. But the Jews, whom Paul mentions as an entity distinct and apart from the twelve tribes, were opposed to that promise, and therefore on account if it, they were making accusations against Paul. You won’t find too many modern so-called pastors preaching on this passage from Acts.”

No, you won’t. Good point Mr Finck. In fact, we could propose it as a basic litmus test of your local pastor that if they bang on about Christ being a ‘Jew’, Mary being a ‘Jewess’, or the ‘Jews’ being “Gods’ chosen people” that you should just quietly leave and never return. 

“To Paul of Tarsus, the twelve tribes are not “Jews”, and the Jews are not the twelve tribes. That is why Paul had a Gospel message to the nations of Europe, because that is where the twelve tribes were. But that is a different story entirely.”

(It’s actually not really a different story but the real story. Please click this LINK to learn more.)

“One place in the Bible where the confusion is cleared up a bit is in Romans chapter 9. Here are some excerpts, with brief explanations, and we shall use the King James Version:

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

So Paul is concerned for his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, those who are really Israelites, and here he is praying for them. He is grieved that many of them have not yet accepted Christ, because for them are the promises, covenants, and other things which should be associated with Christianity. Then he continues:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Here it is evident, that not everyone in Israel, claiming to be an Israelite, or at that time least a Judaean (“Jew”), are legitimate descendants from or heirs of Isaac. 

Ok we’ve hit a problem here but we’ll read a little more then deal with it all at once.

Paul continues:

8 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 for the seed… …The people in Judaea claimed to be Judeans, and they were not. They held the label of “Israel”, but they were not the children of the promise, as Paul in the verse, which follows tells us which promise he means:

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

And Rebecca was the mother of Jacob and Esau, and as he explains here, she also had a promise. So Paul continues and shows how the Scripture distinguishes between Jacob and Esau:

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So the election might stand, as God had chosen and promised the inheritance to Jacob even before the two sons were born. Later in their lives, it was confirmed on several occasions in Scripture that Jacob was the recipient of the promises, and Esau was excluded.

Paul is comparing Jacob and Esau here because “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”, and he is explaining that it is because many of them are from Esau, they are Edomites, and not Israelites after all.”

OK, now we come to the crux of it. Mr Finck has suggested “legitimate descendants from or heirs of Isaac.” So, let’s just get the story straight. Esau and Jacob are brothers and sons of Isaac. Though Esau is the older it is Jacob who inherits the birthright blessings. Jacob wrestles with an angel of God and his name is changed to ‘Israel’. (The Israelites don’t take their name from Isaac but from Jacob=Israel the younger brother of Esau). However, the word ‘Israel’ refers not only to the man formerly known as Jacob (Yacob), but all of his offspring or ‘seed’ as well; the people. Therefore, the patriarchs of Israel the people, are Jacob=Israel’s 12 sons through two wives Leah & Rachel, and their handmaids Zilpah & Bilhah respectively. In chronological order they are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah (Leah), Dan & Naphtali (Bilhah), Gad & Asher (Zilpah), Issachar & Zebulon (Leah), and finally Joseph and Benjamin (Rachel). Those are the 12 Tribes of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph and Benjamin. Thus, while it is accurate to say that descendants of Esau are not inheritors of Gods’ promise because Esau did not receive the birthright blessing, this statement from Paul actually says nothing of the kind. Let’s read it again: “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Notice it does not say: “They are not all Israel, which are of Isaac.” So, Mr Finck is clearly missing something here, which is that Paul is talking about descendants of Israel, which are not Israel. Paul is NOT talking about descendants of Isaac, which are not Israel. Therefore, Paul is not actually explaining that Jews are from Esau at all, even though Edomites did convert to the circumcision ritual under the Hasmonean Dynasty of John Hyrcanus about 110 BC.

What Paul is explaining can be found and understood more succinctly in Genesis Chapter 38. Now, I’m not going to quote the whole story here but the essence of the story is that Judah, 4th born son of Israel, gets hot and bothered for a Canaanite woman and she produces three sons Er, Onan and Shelah. Judah fetches a Semite woman Tamar to be the wife of Er and God kills him AND his brother Onan. Judah thinks better of setting up the third boy Shelah to be so smote and leaves him be. In the end Shelah is left hanging; he never gets to take Tamar to wife and he is essentially left out of the story from there. So, Judah has a bastard son named Shelah from who descend the Shelahites. Their mother is a Canaanite and therefore they are illegitimate for Gods’ promise; Aliyath, the daughter of Shua; the mother of Shelah and the Shelahites, which are the illegitimate Israel we are looking for claiming descent from Judah.

“And Judah went at that time to Adulam, and he came to a man of Adulam, and his name was Hiram, and Judah saw there the daughter of a man from Canaan, and her name was Aliyath, the daughter of Shua, and he took her, and came to her, and Aliyath bare unto Judah, Er, Onan and Shiloh; three sons.” Book of Jasher 45:4

“And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.” Genesis 38:2

This dear readers, is the critical piece Mr Finck is missing. Paul is talking about the descendants of Shelah, the illegitimate bastard Canaanite descendants of Judah, which try to claim lineage through Judah. They are neither legitimate Israel nor legitimate heirs to the promise; Shelah was a bastard son to a Canaanite woman. 

“There are many people who can agree that the kings and leaders of western nations are descended from the tribe of Judah, but they fail to recognise an important fact, which is entirely omitted in the King James Version of the bible, that there were three branches of the tribe of Judah. Those who lump all the descendants together do not realise there was a tainted branch. There were the families of Pharez and Zarah, Judah’s pure bred sons out of Tamar, and there was a third branch, Judah’s descendants from a Canaanite mother, Shuah, who were known ever afterwards as ‘the cursed Shelanites.’ ” The Curse of Canaan. Eustace Mullins

Perhaps it is also worth noting here that the Edomites descended of Esau which, would adopt the circumcision ritual circa 110 BC were another mongrel lot descended of Canaanite mothers, the daughters of Heth that Esau ran off with.

“Esau married women from the daughters of Canaan, including those identified as daughters of Heth (Hittites) and Hivites. At the age of forty, he took as his wives Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite. Later, he took additional wives from the daughters of Canaan, including Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah, daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite.” (1)(2)

Now, in my introductory remarks I indicated that this post was the first of a seven part series. So, I am going to stop here. Though Mr Finck goes on our immediate purpose has been served; the real question is not whether Jesus were a ‘Jew’ but whether ‘Jews’ are legitimate Israel. In this part 1 of the ATJFTP series we have had occasion to sleuth out some important details and raise important questions that are so often muddled as we have seen in this article by Mr Finck. For the record I don’t know much about Mr Finck nor am I associated with his ‘Christogenea’ lot which, promote something called ‘Christian Identity’. I find this somewhat ironic as it seems they don’t really understand Israelite identity that well themselves. However, we are all learning.

So to wrap up and come full circle I’ll tell you how I got the title for this post. Years ago working in the film industry I was reunited with a schoolmate with whom I had enjoyed a bit of ‘punk rock’ music back in the day. Prior to working in the film industry he had taught English in Japan. He shared with me some ‘punk rock’ humour regarding those in Japan, which are known by the local ‘punks’ as ‘Salary Man’ (poor suit and tie slaves in low-quality, soul-destroying jobs). When I had the idea for this piece I thought that was a quite suitable term that could be re-applied to all those which, labour away teaching erroneous rubbish about Christ being a ‘Jew’, ‘Jews’ being of Judah and other erroneous ideas on Christianity for their weekly bag of shekels; the ‘Salary Men’ of fake ‘Jews’!

To follow on with the ATJFTP series please click through to Part 2: “Who Is The Anti-Christ?“