So, there I was minding my own business when all of a sudden I found myself contemplating Paul’s epistles and whether or not the so-called “Pastoral” epistles were fraudulent, or perhaps less than genuine, or in direct contradiction to Paul’s “Pauline” epistles. I was getting stuck in on putting together a post on that topic (and hope to return to it one day), however, in the course of examining things I began to sort out some items, one of which, was the continuity of Latin words that should have been put to better translation by the vaunted KJV translation team. Imagine that, the KJV translation team making dodgy once again! That no such updating happened was, and remains, a good spot for questions. At any rate, I then came to separate out the word ‘Gentiles’ as it is generally understood as a corollary to ‘Jews’ et voila mes amis, nous sommes ici once again on account of, wait for it, ‘Jews’ & ‘Gentiles’ – sheesh!

I thought I had it all wrapped up with this stuff! Here we go again…

Part 1: “Jews” & “Gentiles”

“Corollary noun

cor·​ol·​lary |  \ ˈkȯr-ə-ˌler-ē  h , ˈkär-, -le-rē, British kə-ˈrä-lə-rē  \

plural corollaries

Definition of corollary

1: a proposition (see PROPOSITION entry 1 sense 1c) inferred immediately from a proved proposition with little or no additional proof

2a: something that naturally follows: RESULT… love was a stormy passion and jealousy its normal corollary. — Ida Treat

2b: something that incidentally or naturally accompanies or parallels A corollary to the problem of the number of vessels to be built was that of the types of vessels to be constructed.”

So, first up, let’s get to ‘Gentiles’. As we have already touched upon other aspects in “Who Is The Anti-Christ?”, here for our consideration are some more ideas from Messenger Charles and let’s take note that this word seems to mean more and more things making it somewhat like a sponge for cleaning up a mess; when in doubt just use ‘Gentiles’ – Bleach eat your heart out! The very existence of this word in the English bibles just says so much about the translations and the translators themselves.

“Well let’s see what the word ‘Gentile’ really means so that we can begin to unravel this evil corrupting conundrum. First the etymology: From the Online Etymology Dictionary: Gentile – “From Late Latin noun use of Latin gentilis; “of the same family or clan, of or belonging to a Roman gens,” from gens (genitive gentis) “race, clan,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.” From Wikipedia: Gens – In ancient Rome, a gens (/ˈɡɛns/ or /ˈdʒɛnz/), plural gentes, was a family consisting of all those individuals who shared the same nomen and who claimed descent from a common ancestor. 

Then we have the Biblical definition from the Hebrew in Strong’s Concordance: Gentiles – H1471 – גֹּי גּוֹי – gôy gôy – go’ee, go’-ee – Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: – Gentile, heathen, nation, people. 

And then from Strong’s again with the Greek definition from the New Testament: Gentiles – G1484 – ἔθνος – ethnos – eth’-nos – Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): – Gentile, heathen, nation, people. 

Notice how the word has allegedly changed in its meaning from an OT usage to a NT usage!! No mention of Jews and non-Jews in the OT definition but, hey presto, surprise surprise, in the NT, all of a sudden, it does mean non-Jews!! Who decided to give it this new meaning!!?? “

Strong’s translates G1672 ‘Gentile’ as:

Ἕλλην Héllēn, hel’-lane; from G1671; a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek-speaking person, especially a non-Jew:—Gentile, Greek

Ἕλλην, -ηνος, ὁ;
1. a Greek by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies: Acts 18:17 Rec.; Ἕλληνές τε καὶ βάρβαροι, Romans 1:14.

2. in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; so that where Ἕλληνεςare opposed to Jews, the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship: John 7:35 (cf. Meyer at the passage); Acts 11:20 G L T Tr [cf. B. D. American edition, p. 967]; Acts 16:1, 3; [Acts 21:28]; 1 Corinthians 1:22, 23 Rec.; Galatians 2:3

OK, well that’s quite the lot to take in. Does anybody else want to toss in a coin and make a wish?

If I may say I think Messenger Charles has asked a great question: “Who decided to give this word this new meaning?” No doubt it was some scholar. Ha ha.

Also, it’s very interesting to notice the new definition for the New Testament and the logical question would be, why are translators, which, seem to think ‘Gentiles’ means non-Jewish persons or people using the word in Genesis 10 when ‘Jews’ didn’t even exist?

“By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” Genesis 10:5 KJV

The madness of it folks! Just for reference, we find that ‘Gentiles’ does indeed hail from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and here it is in Genesis 10:

“ab his divisae sunt insulae gentium in regionibus suis unusquisque secundum linguam et familias in nationibus suis” Genesis 10:5 Latin Vulgate (underline mine)

So, why don’t we just admit that the word is a train wreck and a perfect example of how silly all this scripture translation business can get despite the supposed bona fides of the translation teams? The only logical definitions of the word are tribes, patriarchal families, heathen, nations or people.

So, as for these ‘Jews’ what now? Those of us that read the scriptures know that the land of Canaan was full of, wait for it – Canaanites! Yes folks, if you didn’t get it straight the first time, it was called the Land of Canaan because it was the homeland of the Canaanite people! Unfortunately for them, Yoshua was instructed by God to lead the Israelites into the Land of Canaan and slaughter them up. We that actually bother to read the scriptures and pay attention (as opposed to just randomly plucking verses for “Chinese Whispers” in the pews), know that the Israelites didn’t do as they were told and left small numbers of Canaanites alive and that Canaanites have been clinging to the Israelites ever since. For example:

“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

So that’s all we’ve got in the land of Canaan: Israelites and Canaanites, no ‘Jews’. Then we get to King David, followed by King Solomon and then the breaking up of the Israelites into two kingdoms of Israel and Judah captured to Assyria and Babylon respectively. Suddenly presto change-o there appears ‘Jews’! Why? Why is there a new term ‘Jews’? Why the need for a new name? Why the need to invent a people called ‘Jews’? Did they just suddenly spring out of holes in the ground? Did they just descend from the trees? No. There were only Canaanites and Israelites. Nothing had changed. So, why suddenly are there ‘Jews’?

Well, we have some simple propositions on the table for the hippy, love-child, world-saving pacifist ‘liberals’, and the modern, die-hard, flip-flop, ‘Christ-consciousness’, so-called Christian ‘conservatives’ all mindlessly affirming “the Jews are God’s chosen people” (along with whatever other grandiose modern ideas they have bouncing around their heads), and for all the other assorted hardliners banging on and on this tired old fraud.

The first proposition is that ‘Jews’ are indeed the Israelites – all of them. Ok, if that were the case why not just call them Israelites? Why create the new name ‘Jews’? Wouldn’t that make sense? However, this proposition doesn’t make sense for wouldn’t the kingdom of Israel have been referred to as ‘Jews’ too? Indeed. Yet they were not.

Ok. Next up, why did this name explode around the time of Babylon? Maybe ‘Jews’ are the Israelites of the kingdom of Judah? But the Kingdom of Judah included Levites who were also in the kingdom of Israel. So, some Levites are ‘Jews’ and some are not? No, that wouldn’t make sense. Also, why introduce a new term ‘Jews’ when there is already the usage of the term ‘Judean’ to refer to these people of the kingdom of Judah? If ‘Jews’ were ‘Judeans’ why the second name? Why not just use ‘Judeans’ exclusively?

Well, the next possibility is that maybe ‘Jew’ means Israelites from only the tribe of Judah? But the tribes all get ‘ite’ on their name; Dan becomes ‘Danite’, Simeon becomes ‘Simeonite’, Benjamin becomes ‘Benjamite’, Reuben becomes ‘Reubenite’, and so forth. So why would Judah become ‘Jew’?

“Up to the seventeenth century this word was spelled in Middle English in various ways: “Gyu,” “Giu,” “Gyw,” “Iu,” “luu,” “Iuw,” “Ieu,” “Ieuu,” “Ieuz,” “Iwe,” “Iow,” “Iewe,” “Ieue,” “lue” (“Ive”), “Iew,” “Jew.” All these forms were derived from the Old French “Giu,” which was earlier written “Juieu,” derived from the Latin accusative “Judæum” with the elision of the letter “d.” The Latin form “Judæus” was derived from the Greek ‘Iουδαĩοσ; and this in turn from the Aramaic , corresponding to the Hebrew  a gentilic adjective from the proper name “Judah,” seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9).” From Jewish Encyclopaedia

Now, here in this definition you can see they are trying to get cute using this ‘gentilic’ adjective case (obviously exploiting the idea that a ‘Gentile’ is a non-Jewish person), thereby suggesting that the term derives from foreigners. Be that as it may, the term was “seemingly not applied to the members of the tribe”. That too is also cute because it suggests that the term ‘Jew’ was supposed to apply to the tribe and the tribe only of Judah, but as we can see and have seen before, the name of the tribe would have been ‘Judahite’ and ‘Jew’ by their own admission was applied to a different nationality in the south of Palestine, which, would be their very own Canaanite ancestors. Lol!

“The word “Jew” comes from, depending on what language we are using, “Judean”, which was a person who dwelt in the land of Judea. If I move to Japan does that make me Japanese?” Esau Today

Hmmm. Right. So, what’s with this new name?

Well, what do we really know about these ‘Jews’ anyway? All we know is that racial confusion aside ‘Jew’ is a spiritual designation of a people, which, deny Christ, reject Christ, hate Christ and 2,000-odd years ago demanded His death by crucifixion. “So then ‘Jew’ means ‘Judeans’, which, opposed and hated Christ?” you ask. Ok, while that could be applicable it’s actually even more problematic because how could there have been ‘Jews’ back in Babylon when Christ was still 500 years into the future and had not come yet for any to accept or reject? Did they have a crystal ball? No. It is simply that the translators have pulled a fast one or a lazy one and hastily applied a new name where one need not ever have existed in the first place. Why?

Folks we’ve only got two races to choose from here: Israelites or Canaanites. So, why this name ‘Jews’ when we’ve already got the perfectly suitable and true ‘Judeans’ up and running, and why are we still sitting here 2,000-odd years later with this story that “the Jews are God’s chosen people!” being aggressively promoted?

Well, let me throw this proposition at you. If you were Jews translating the bible and you had this story going in which, you were God’s chosen people that would certainly be a really great calling card would it not? “Hey guys, we Jews are God’s chosen people! You know the ones God revealed His oracles to through Moses? Yup-a-doo, that’s us! We’re the Israelites! See how we do everything by the book just like Israelites did back in the day?” That would be pretty top branding. Queue awe, majesty and wonder! Let’s face it, if you were Jews, you would certainly not want to go around telling anyone who cared what you had to say that you were Hamitic Canaanites would you? That would be pretty woeful marketing: “Hey guys, uh, mumble, mutter (head down), uh, we’re the Canaanites. Cough. Cough. You know (sideways glance), uh, we’re the people God told Joshua to slaughter? You know the people, uh, which, you know, mumble, mutter, cough, cough, descended of Canaan cursed as he was by Noah?” Whoa! Queue more slaughter.

So, now at last we finally finger a reason and a need to create this name, this word and this supposed people, and that is to hide their true identity and to obscure the true identity of another, at least if you were Jews translating the bible for all to read. Yet is that actually the case? Did Jews actually translate the English bibles? Is this word ‘Jew’ in the scriptures intentionally or is it in the scriptures because it is there for all to see that the scriptures are indeed flawed, as all men are flawed and any translation would necessarily reflect that truth and that the leading proponents of these scriptures as flawless are indeed flawed, or rather, promoting a flawed idea?

Folks, with that to ponder, perhaps it’s a good spot to take a break and stretch the legs and we’ll resume in due course with “Part 2: Reformation – What Reformation?”

Part 2: Reformation – What Reformation?

Ok, I hope you’ve had a chance to scratch your head and get a little air in to freshen up the “little grey cells”? We’re going to try to get to the bottom of how this word ‘Jew’, this gargantuan corruption, actually arrived in the Holy Bible. Therefore, our top two questions of the day are firstly did this happen because it is exactly as God wants it, and secondly how did this actually occur? Since the answer to the first question is likely a resounding “Yes!” from this point forward let’s inquire into how such a situation came about for the Lord worketh in profound ways!

So many questions could pop up here but let’s try to hit the obvious ones.

1. When did this translation error or corruption first work its way into scripture?
2. Was it error or was it intentional corruption?
3. How did the scriptures become so garbled and almost foreign to those for whom they were given at any rate?

The following is only my contemplation of things, but given the antics of the Kingdom of Israel and their rapid construction of a false doctrine of worshipping the golden cow one would have to hazard a guess that any authentic scriptural material actually in the possession of the Kingdom of Israel (original prophetic writings etc), would have been quickly mothballed in the cupboards or perhaps even burned or ultimately lost or destroyed in the carnage of being captured by ancient Assyria? Therefore it would be logical to guess not much original scripture survived via the Kingdom of Israel.

However, the Kingdom of Judah presents a different likelihood that original scripture would indeed have been preserved there, and after Babylon was no doubt guarded and kept by such notable scribes as Ezra. This, is confirmed to us by Paul:

“What advantage then hath the Jew Judean? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Romans 3:1,2 KJV 

Yet, given the Judeans quick desire to begin once again intermarrying with the hot and heavy Canaanite babes (what was it about these gals?), upon return from Babylon and the subsequent infiltration of Canaanites into the priesthood, what errors, fabrications or falsehoods may have begun to creep into the scriptures pre-Christ?

“Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:” Exodus 34:12 KJV

However, it would likely have been far too early for the word ‘Jew’ (or any like it), to have made it’s way into the scriptures.

However, while we are here we should note that this period pre-Christ no doubt gave Canaanites increasing proximity to the scriptures that were entrusted to the Judeans. We should bear this in mind and consider that the vast bulk of Israelites, which, did not return after their respective captivities had no real knowledge of or exposure to the word of God. Thus, their descendants retain even to this day an almost blank unconscious collective knowledge of scripture and a thorough lack of understanding that the scriptures (the word of God), were given to them; a paucity that no doubt leaves them vulnerable to the very suggestion the scriptures were given to someone else.

At any rate, that the scriptures were effectively lost to Israel through their own backsliding and wilful rejection of God through centuries of lost heathen wanderings should be evident. Into whose non-Israelite hands did these scriptures fall, if ever and when, and to what ends were they put? Here is one (and another), very interesting article on assorted monkey business in modern scripture land that has given rise to all sorts of delusion indeed. Therefore one must ask what similar type nonsense has been ever thus from the earliest of days? As regards our modern English bibles how did they come to their present form and what sort of monkey business was involved in their production?

Since, up until the time of modern bibles in the common tongue (English), the bible of the Holy Roman Empire and therefore of England, was Jerome’s Latin vulgate bible, did Jerome’s original translation contain the word ‘Jew’?

“In fact, Jesus is referred to 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 quite 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.” Esau Today.

Just for reference here is a snippet of Jerome’s work where you can clearly see for yourself anybody with even half a brain could see ‘Iudeai’ should be rendered ‘Judean’ in English:

“tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum Iudaei primum et Graeci” Ad Romanos 2:9 Vulgate (underline mine)

OK, so the answer to our question is no, Jerome did not use any word that was ‘Jew’ or would readily translate as such in English.

So, now the picture becomes clear: the word ‘Jew’ arrives in Bible translations late, not early, in English translations.

So, whatever faults may be found in Jerome’s work, the word ‘Jew’ is not one of them. Thus, before moving on from the fair shores of Jerome let’s just give the old chap a word in his own defence as no doubt his translation sports other errors this post does not have the scope to address. Here, just for reference on the task of scripture translation is an excerpt from Jerome’s letter to Pope Damascus:

“You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labour is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and carry it back to the early days of its infancy?”

Well said, Jerome! Let’s also note that what Jerome produced and what the Holy Roman Empire went on to do with it are two different things; Jerome may have conjured wonky ideas or even outright blasphemies but the Church of Rome was and remains it’s own beast.

So, moving on we now we have an interesting question. Why, and how did this change occur and specifically in the English ‘Protestant’ bible translations? There is a suggestion around that the English translations grew out of a need to fix up the Latin scriptures, which, were apparently becoming so poor there was not even any legitimate content left in them. That’s quite the grand claim! There are of course, other suggestions and declarations about the translations themselves, particularly the KJV.

“The general thesis of King James Onlyism is that the KJV is the one and only perfect, unchangeable translation for all English speakers. No other translation can ever equal it nor could the English Language ever change enough to require a new translation. The translation, they seem to believe, was made once-for-all by the best translators who will ever live, possessing perfect knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew and probably even miraculous guidance from God. But is this what the men who gave us the King James Version of 1611 actually thought? Is that what they were trying to accomplish? Is that what they believed they had produced?”

Indeed, these are most excellent questions and observations regarding the KJV, which has, for whatever reason become a legendary entity in and of itself regardless what anyone may or may not have intended.

Now, according to Wiki, once one gets to the Vulgate of Jerome there aren’t really any updates except for metrical translations of the psalms (1500-1620). So, is it Jerome’s work that was so poor that had to be resolved? If that were the case, as we have already noted, we could at the very least credit Jerome with not using a word that would translate as ‘Iewe’ the forerunner of ‘Jew’.

Moreover, there appears to be a rather large schizophrenia in the whole project to translate bibles to English because while supposedly there was a determination to fix scriptural issues there was none the less a determination to carry on various Latin words and of course the official ‘Mother Church’ framework of a Trinity, Christmas and Easter all of which, were and remain pagan and totally unrelated to our Lord and saviour despite being repackaged in His name by Roman Catholicism. What sense does that make?

In 1527 Xanthus Pagninus produced his “Veteris et Novi Testamenti nova translatio”. I am not able to determine whether or not any word that would translate as ‘Iewe’ appears in it’s pages, but given the general demeanour of the Holy Roman Empire my guess is that it would not have appeared there; Jerome’s essentials would have remained very much intact.

So, we are left with a question and that is why did this word ‘Jew’ suddenly arrive in the English speaking bibles as it did? Why for example, would Tyndale have put it in his translation direct from the Hebrew and Greek?

“TYNDALE, WILLIAM° (c. 1490–1536), English Bible translator and religious reformer. An Erasmian humanist, Tyndale began work on a new, vernacular Bible in 1520, but met so much opposition from his fellow-churchmen that he had to seek refuge on the Continent, where his New Testament, based directly on the Greek, appeared in various editions (Cologne/Worms, 1525; Antwerp, 1526³, etc.). Having visited Martin *Luther at Wittenberg and declared himself a Protestant, Tyndale proceeded to smuggle his publications into England, where they were condemned as heretical: Cardinal Wolsey ordered his arrest, but failed to capture him. Tyndale’s Old Testament was Protestant more in its prefaces and marginal glosses than in its actual English text, which maintained a great measure of independence. Anglo-Saxon outweighs Latin in the translator’s vigorous English style, since he believed, that “… the properties of the hebrue tonge agreeth a thousande tymes moare with the English then with the Latyne…” (The Obedience of a Christian Man, 1528)(https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tyndale-william-x00b0)

Obviously, Tyndale had quite the knowledge of languages such that he would declare “the properties of the hebrue tongue agreeth a thousande tymes moare with the English then with the Latyne.” Surely, he would not have thought it wise to use what is essentially street jargon, or a slang, vernacular, shortened abbreviation of ‘Judean’? Well, apparently he did:

“What preferment then hath the Jewe? other what a vauntageth circumcision? Surely very moche. Fyrst vnto them was committed the worde of God” Romans 3:1,2 Tyndale

However, this basic corruption is not only in Tyndale’s work (1525), but is in The Mathew Bible (1537 -“Iewe”), The Great Bible (1539 – “Iewe”), The Geneva Bible (1560 – “Iewe”), and of course the original KJV (1611 – “Iewe”). Well, that certainly tidies up all the historical mess from ol’ Jerome heh? Ha ha. Coincidence all of these Bibles coming out with this same corruption? I think not.

“The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years.^[1] It was the primary Bible of 16th-century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare,^[2] Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and others. It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower. (Pilgrim Hall Museum has collected several Bibles of Mayflower passengers.) The Geneva Bible was used by many English Dissenters, and it was still respected by Oliver Cromwell‘s soldiers at the time of the English Civil War, in the booklet The Souldiers Pocket Bible.^{[3] “}https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

Now, here in this Wiki snippet the Geneva Bible is lauded as the real Protestant bible and several significant characters are trotted out as proponents thereof, which, brings us to the work of a certain Miles Mathis. Miles Mathis has for some reason developed a rather large body of writings that have come to centre on revealing Jews lurking behind various events of the last several centuries, hidden in various guises, as well as debunking other ‘official’ stories that he posits just don’t add up. Now, to my knowledge Miles Mathis and his guest writers have yet to put it together that Jews are not just Phoenicians but Hamitic Canaanites despite the fact that the crucible of his work is sleuthing out family histories and genealogy. Nonetheless folks, I can tell you I don’t spend any time on genealogical sites at any rate. Yet this Miles Mathis has by now apparently spent so much time going up and down and all around the genealogical wilderness as to have beaten well-worn paths through it; his work indicates branches of family lines that have become all too familiar and common to him as he is now so familiar with the terrain. I am unable therefore to verify any of his claims but that is not of importance.

Rather, some time ago I stumbled upon this Miles Mathis fellow by a post he had put together about Martin Luther. Since that time he has produced an update on his original Martin Luther paper, so let’s have a look at the crux of the issue:

“But let’s skip ahead. On Halloween 1517, he allegedly nailed his 95 Theses to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg. How old was he? That’s right, 33. And who ordered Luther examined at the Diet of Augsburg? That would be Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, whose maternal grandfather was Duke of Bavaria. His paternal grandmother was Margaret of Austria, sister of the Holy Roman Emperor. As I just showed you, Luther was closely related to this Elector of Saxony once again indicating this was all staged. Frederick was just pretending to prosecute a cousin. Why? Because it was a big project against Rome, similar to the upcoming project against Rome in England, led by Henry VIII in 1527—just nine years later.

As more indication this was all staged, we find that the Papal Legate Cardinal Cajetan had been ordered by the Pope to arrest Luther if he didn’t recant, but this did not happen. Frederick allowed Luther to escape. And you know who else allowed Luther to escape? Pope Leo X, who was also in on the scam. Remember, his real name was Giovanni de’ Medici, and the de’ Medicis were also crypto-Jews who had infiltrated the papacy in order to destroy it. What most people still don’t understand is that the Reformation came about by Jews attacking Rome both from within and without. As usual, they had their people playing both sides. This is precisely why the Reformation succeeded so easily: at that time the papacy had already been infiltrated by the Medicis, so the attackers outside the cathedral were guaranteed to win. The Medici pope put up a false opposition, which explains why Henry VIII was able to succeed where his grandfathers had failed. It explains why the Holy Roman Emperor Charles was able to succeed where his predecessors had failed. It explains why Rome continued to crumble up until the French Revolution, when it finally suffered its coup de grace. It has been nothing but a front since then.”

Now, all of this has got me to thinking. Miles Mathis also has a piece on Henry VII in which, he posits that the Jewish infiltration of England actually happened earlier than he previously understood and I would have to say that it is indeed curious, for with the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 were all Jews actually expelled, or just the poor and bedraggled and those, which would not convert? Were there others hiding under various alias? Yet there is more, apparently much more in papers on John Knox, the English Revolution and the Jesuits. Now, as I mentioned above I can’t verify the genealogical evidence trail provided, and there are things in these articles which I disagree, but nonetheless these articles make for interesting reading and are therefore recommended, so please do take the time to go through them. The general scheming and plot lines hypothesised are also corroborated by guest writers on the Mathis blog which, have taken up the challenge of uncovering the cover stories of various historical events for example, Colin Stayton has the following to say in his paper on John Calvin:

“In 1536 Calvin published the Institutes of the Christian Religion, codifying the theological doctrines that later became associated with Calvinism, including original sin and predestination. These doctrines have been used for centuries to splinter Protestantism itself. Today there are thousands of Protestant denominations. The most cited number is 33,000, though the Centre for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Seminary estimates there are 47,000. The author of the linked article did his own estimates based on Pew research and came up with either 180 or 188. Really, you have to laugh at those numbers. The point is, they stick those spook markers on there to tell you who’s behind the endless splintering of denominations. They are. The last thing they want is unity.

In fact, there seems to have been some “blackwashing” of Protestantism even by those trying to promote it. In all likelihood, the Comnenes and affiliated families – the Protestant Cartel, if you will – weren’t so much interested in spearheading a new religious institution as they were in merely weakening Catholicism. Being Jewish, they disliked Christianity as much as the Medicis. By institutionalizing a new church, they risked creating another head on the Hydra. So they charged Calvin to make the new Protestant church nearly as viperous and legalistic as the Catholic Church was. Remember, this was still an age when the European citizenry didn’t have a conception of freedom of religion. You just had to follow whatever religion the state enforced or else be tried for heresy. So while Calvin is celebrated for encouraging people to read the Bible for themselves, he still dictated the doctrinal interpretations and basically ran Geneva like a theocracy based on Old Testament law.”

Pedro M Ormazabal adds this view from his paper on Thomas More:

“This strongly suggests that Miles is right in claiming that the nullity of the marriage of Catherine and Henry was the cover-up for the operation of not only seizing the property of the Anglican Catholic Church, but also for its replacement for another church of sorts, the church of the goddess pound sterling, of hard work and poverty for the people and more riches for the already rich. Henry, or the directors of the operation, chose the most controversial and noisy way to stage a matrimonial issue. This is where the eyes of everybody were going to be set, on whether or not the marriage to Ann was valid or whether the Old Testament made null the union Catherine-Henry, not on the expropriation of the patrimony of the Catholic Church and the establishment of a new church of a theocratic-mercantile character.“

Finally, there is the curious business of ‘Jews’ being in two prominent plays of the late 1500s from two great playwrights Marlowe and Shakespeare ‘The Jew of Malta’ and ‘Merchant of Venice’ respectively, wherein both plays ‘Jews’ are abused by dishonest Christians; Jews get a positive makeover of sorts in the cultural sphere. Miles Mathis proposes that Jews were indeed behind the Shakespeare plays and offers an interesting take, much of which I could have written myself several months ago just observing the out of control lunacy of things everyday:

“In short, not as much has changed in the past 400 years as you think. The Shakespeare writing committee was doing pretty much the same thing the Hollywood and TV writing committees are doing now: turning your little mind into mush. These plays aren’t boldly irrational by accident; any more than new scripts are boldly irrational by accident. They can’t have you expecting plots or character actions to make sense, because if they did, you might expect life to make sense. If life made any sense, you might figure out how to take part in it in a sensible way, and they can’t have that. They want you so confused you cannot possibly respond to any of their projects, other than go along with them. For the most part, they want you non-functioning as an active member of the world. They prefer that you are just conscious enough to get up in the morning and go to work, but not conscious enough to question anything you are told during your day. To achieve that, all your entertainment is purposely confusing, chaotic, and illogical. Likewise, all your education—whether it is provided by teachers or by media— is also utterly un-centring and confounding. The history you are taught is false and senseless, and current events are manufactured to produce fear and imbalance. It is a miracle any of us can function at all.” “Shakespeare: Intel Project”

So, if you have taken the time to read the various articles provided and jogged perhaps the way in which you understand what may really have been afoot during the years of the ‘Reformation’, could we suggest that Jews had a vested interest in seeing the word ‘Jew’ in the scriptures? It would seem highly logical. However, at this stage I can’t be sure of Jewish hands actually doing the job, but just for fun I’ll let you contemplate something from a more Miles Mathis POV and that is the depictions of some rather prominent ‘Reformers’ including Tyndale, Knox, Calvin and of course the man with the media machine Mr Berg, er, Guttenberg. Or is it sucker-born-every-minuute-berg? Sucker-berg?

From a genetic perspective, do you notice anything about these fellows or am I being silly and possibly even horribly racist? Do these guys look like Anglo-Saxons? Not to my eye but these are just images. I have no idea on their origin and as Miles Mathis often suggests in his work any number of these images are bogus at any rate to coincide with the bogus and apparently fabricated stories historians peddle regarding these characters.

In any case, if we dismiss the photographic evidence as nonsense how do we explain the apparent stranglehold Jews appear to have had in the minds of ‘Protestants’ from the get-go to this very day?  Though I have no hard proof Jews actually did the deed of getting their own brand put in the scriptures, I am nonetheless only too sure they would have been pleased to see it done.

It would also make perfect sense that Jews trying to make their way in Christian lands being generally perceived as pariahs wherever they went would seek to penetrate influential circles and also to marry in so as to hide, which, we have already observed has been their want ever since the days of Joshua.

It would also make perfect sense, that ‘Protestantism’ has always essentially been a product of the Jews; that Jews were keen on brokering this ‘Reformation’ to begin fracturing ‘Mother church’ and get Christians fighting among themselves, and to also accomplish as Mathis notes the getting rid of those damned pesky usury laws of ‘Mother Church’! Thus, it would make sense that ‘Protestant’ groups to this day have always been to some degree in the pocket of the Jews, perhaps in some cases Jews very much at the wheel?

We should also note while we are here that the ‘Reformation’ has led to “freedom of religion” which, of course, has made it that much easier for Jews to go about their business freely and entitled to do so, leading to today’s open sewer of ‘New Age’ spirituality and just about anything and everything you could possibly conjure so, in that light the ‘Reformation’ has been a complete failure.

“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Matthew 12:30 KJV

(The following two pictures may also shed considerable light on the potential influence of Jews in shaping ‘Protestant’ thought?)

Yet, in true Gordian knot fashion, like ye ol’ chicken and egg question, which came first; were the Protestants useful to the Jews, or were the Jews useful to the Protestants? Or was it a case of both; a perfect marriage made in hell? Or was this design put together by God to once again confound all and now we can all roll around on the floor and have a good laugh at His wild and woolly sense of humour?

“That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:6,7 KJV

Now, getting back to the actual scriptural translations into the common tongue, as interesting as all this potential scheming and meddling is, unless and until one of you dear readers can provide the evidence to the contrary it actually appears that the word ‘Jew’ starts with John Wycliffe circa 1380, almost two hundred years prior.

“And the pask of Jewis was nyy,” John 2:13 Wycliffe Bible

Just for reference, here is a little brief on Wycliffe’s bible:

“For over a thousand years, the text of the Bible was primarily in Latin. John Wycliffe (c. 1330-1384) and his following of academics from Oxford translated the Bible into English from the Vulgate by around 1384. Often referred to as the Morningstar of the Reformation,”

“Wycliffe advocated translation of the Bible into the common vernacular. According to tradition, Wycliffe is said to have completed a translation direct from the Vulgate into Middle English – a version now known as Wycliffe’s Bible. While it is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it is possible he translated the entire New Testament.”

“Wycliffe’s Bible appears to have been completed prior to 1384 with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe’s assistant John Purvey, and others, in 1388 and 1395. More recently, historians of the Wycliffite movement have suggested that Wycliffe had at most, a minor role in the actual translations.^[4]”

Here is a little intro to Wycliffe himself:

“John Wycliffe (/ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif, Wickliffe, and other variants; c. 1331 – 31 December 1384)^[2] was an English scholastic philosopher, theologian, biblical translator, reformer, Catholic priest, and a seminary professor at the University of Oxford. He became an influential dissident within the Roman Catholic priesthood during the 14th century and is considered an important predecessor to Protestantism.”

Here’s a wee picture of the man. Does he look Anglo-Saxon to you?

Wycliffe’s bible being a translation of the Vulgate, here is Jerome’s Vulgate for comparison:

“et prope erat pascha Iudaeorum et ascendit Hierosolyma Iesus” John 2:13 Vulgate

Folks, how does “Iudaeorum” become “Jewis”? I’d have to say that Wycliffe’s work was indeed a bit sloppy? So, was Wycliffe a Jew? Was his merry band of followers, known as “Lollards”, comprised of Jews? Was the bible they produced boldly irrational by design just like the Shakespeare plays?

Well, not having any smoking hot genealogy breakdowns to reference, we’ll just have to contemplate what we’ve been able to gather thus far. However, the real question remains why on earth did this error not get picked up and corrected by all the subsequent scholars following after Wycliffe throughout the ‘Reformation’, which, produced their various English bibles; bibles for the Anglo-Saxon people?

Well, as you can see for yourself, Wycliffe was quite the man at Oxford, and if Oxford was anything then like it is now, once Wycliffe translated and produced his bible, and established there at that prestigious institution that ‘Jewis’ were they, which received the oracles of God; once Wycliffe established such an idea (through his translation), as an accepted theological, academic and scholarly position, that position continued on down through the decades and centuries and no doubt this is why future translators for the Mathew Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the KJV would all produce the same basic error – it had become established at Oxford and that was that. Despite all the declarations about translating the scriptures so the people could read them, the people were evidently given corrupt nonsense for the same reason they are given all kinds of nonsense today; that is the way the institutions work.

“Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Matthew 15:14 KJV

So, with all of that now in mind it’s probably time for tea and please do read up on the guest articles to get your head into the various issues raised and then we’ll see you back in due course for Part 3: Complete Insanity!

Part 3: Complete Insanity!

“For we wrestle not only against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:6 Aramaic Peshitta

So, here we are back again and hopefully refreshed and ready to blow what’s left of our little minds! Our first question toward that end then is, from the time of Wycliffe were there (and have their been), other forces that would have compelled the continuity of the erroneously established theological, academic and scholarly fact of ‘Iewes’ as those that received the oracles of God? I mean to say, in addition to some of the issues raised in the referenced articles from Miles Mathis and guest writers? Were Jews perceived as critical to some belief or other that the Church of England wanted to lord over the people so as to keep them in line, for example that Jews were the lost Israelites and had received the oracles of God and that Christians should keep hard on the faith and patiently wait for the ‘Jews’ to come to their senses? Were their otherwise political issues? Well, it would indeed appear to be the case and here is a juicy quote from a piece on Oliver Cromwell (1599-1659) that pretty much confirms it:

“There was interest in Jewish matters in the leadership of the Commonwealth and Protectorate for two reasons, one pragmatic and the other doctrinal. The pragmatic reason was that based on the international trade and commercial connections of the Amsterdam Jewish community it was recognised that a strong Jewish presence in London would be advantageous. With flourishing links to the East and West Indies and to the New World Jewish traders in London could make the city to Amsterdam as a commercial centre.

The doctrinal reason was the belief amongst godly Protestants, including Cromwell, that the conversion of the Jews to Christianity was essential before Christ would return to reign on earth. 1656 was thought by some to be the actual year in which this would happen.”

Wow! So, now we discover where this entire end times mania got the kick off? Let’s just note too that ‘Protestants’, and in particular their leaders, have had inherent commitment to the ‘Jews’ being Israelites from the get-go and this explains internal ‘Protestant’ developments to this day.

Now, just for the record, here is a link to a detailed breakdown of the actual KJV translation team. Personally, having been through it I don’t really have any quarrel with what is presented and not having spent years doing hard research on this topic I can’t say one way or the other. Yet, it does nothing to my conviction that all the fancy titles and esteemed praise don’t mean anything. We have found many problems in the KJV and there it is; accepted ‘truths’ of Oxford are as accepted ‘truths’ of Oxford do. Also, here is a link to a piece that nicely dispenses with the rumour that King James was a Freemason and his team of translators were Kabbalist’s.

So, there we have it folks, the great ‘Reformation’ brought to you by a little Hamitic Canaanite/Phoenician Machiavellian scheming, bogus academic institutions, wolves in sheep’s clothing, the blind leading the blind, political corruption, usury and boldly irrational cultural offerings in fashion, music, theatre, literature, journalism, the arts and pornography all pummelling daily a general public wounded by snake oil medicines and anaesthetized by alcohol and drugs. Not much has changed since now has it? Nope, save that the Vatican has now declared the ‘Reformation’ to be officially over – lol! Yet the madness of it all just rolls on and that would no doubt be because ‘Mother Church’ just ain’t what she used to be. Oh well, it’s just wild times out there folks!

Now, I live in a small country town. The other night I found myself out for an annual community event at the local school complete with musicians playing a few tunes while people bought various food and drink items at assorted stalls and children enjoyed some games including a haunted tractor ride through the nearby woods. In the middle of it all was a nice big bonfire and fireworks capped off the whole evening; people love to go out with a good bang don’t they? Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. Yes indeed, there is a bonfire burning folks punctuated by occasional fireworks. Have you begun to realise that you are the fuel? For I’m afraid that’s the way it goes in our wacky, fallen world. It’s complete insanity and there’s not much any of us are going to do about it. So, you’ll just have to get your popcorn and enjoy the show.