LIZ CHENEY UPDATE

Well let us get to the definition of “Jew,” a word which did not exist before the 17th C., and then widely used in the 18th:

Nowhere in the Old Testament are “Jews” mentioned, simply because the letter J did not exist before the 16th C., but also because we do not even find the term “Jew” until 2 Kings 16:6. These references to “Jews” in the Old Testament were pertaining specifically to “Judahites” – people who were members of the Tribe of Judah (who were Israelites by race).

Later, in the New Testament, the word “Jew” is used in reference to a “Judean”, or someone who was living in the Roman province known as Judea. the word “Jew” was a geographic, rather than a racial, designation in the New Testament:

Obviously the word “Jew” wasn’t used in the Greek either. It was actually the Greek word ioudaios (you-day-os) which doesn’t mean “Jew” but “Judaean” or one who is a resident of Judaea. A ‘Judaean’ is a person whose home is in the land of Judaea or southern Palestine. It is a geographical term such as “New Yorker”, which can be someone white, black, brown, or yellow by race. He can be Christian, Jew, Buddhist, or atheist. So an “ioudaious”, “Judaean”, or Jew in the New Testament could be any person who lived in Judaea, whereas we’ve seen there were quite a few Israelites of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin. There were also a lot of Edomite Judaeans along with Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, and so on.

The (Jewish) historian Benjamin Freeman had this to say:

As I have explained, when the word “Jew” was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was “Judean.” However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international “pressure group” created a so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word “Jew”. It is a misrepresentation.

Ah, but misrepresented by whom, and for what purpose?

From the time of 130 BC onward, Judea was a multi-ethnic province, which included amongst its inhabitants genetic Judahites (descendants of the Israelites or “house of Israel”) and also Idumeans (descendants of the Edomites), as well as Canaanites and other peoples.

Therefore the word “Jew” should actually not even be in the Bible as it has been misapplied in both the Old and New Testaments.

Old Testament: “Jew” should read “Judahite” – those of the tribe of Judah (Israelites).

New Testament: “Jew” should read “Judean” – one who was living in the Roman province of Judea. (Additionally, the term “Judaism” in the Bible is used in reference to the religion of the Judeans at that time, which has nothing to do with the Talmud-based religion of modern-day Jews.)

Recall that after the death of King Solomon, the Israelites divided into the southern kingdom of Judah and the Northern kingdom which retained the name Israel. A few centuries later, the two kingdoms fell victim to the conquests of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, which led to the removal of the vast majority of the inhabitants from the land. Once the Babylonian empire fell, the Persian King Cyrus gave leave to a group of Judahites in Babylon to resettle Jerusalem. This small remnant of Israelites in Judea would be intermixed with many non-Israelites by the time of Christ.

When you interpret the Bible through the correct historical lens, everything makes sense and there are no contradictions. The divisions and strife recorded in the New Testament were clashes between two distinct races of people who were both living in Judea: the true “house [family] of Israel” whom Christ came for in Matthew 15:24, along with the assimilated Edomites, Canaanites, and other peoples of the Genesis 10 nations.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that: Jews are neither Israelites nor Hebrews. There are many sources which suggest that a large part of Jewry is related to the Khazars, a population that inhabited southern Ukraine.

In 2014 the Times of Israel acknowledged a leaked report suggesting Ashkenazi Jews are actually Khazars, rather than true Israelites.

Arthur Kessler, from The Thirteenth Tribe:

[The] large majority of surviving Jews in the world is of Eastern European, and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race; and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [Israelites].

(I must admit, the Uigur connection surprised me.)

Again, Benjamin Freeman:

The origin and history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom are certainly incontestable historical facts. These incontestable historic facts also establish beyond any question of doubt the origin and history of the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe. The origin and history of the Khazars and Khazar kingdom and their relationship to the origin and early history of the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe was one of history’s best kept secrets until wide publicity was given in recent years to my research on this subject.

Now the connection between our government and Ukraine becomes inescapable: DNA testing shows that the “Jews” who are inhabiting Israel now are genetically 90% Ashkenazi and 10% Sephardic — none of whom are what they claim to be. They are Khazarians masquerading as Israelis.

So why all this charade? Well, although this is a complex question with many answers, there are a few obvious reasons:

1. Claiming the identity of Israelites is key to the Zionist movement and the takeover of Israel/Palestine.
2. Claiming to be Israelites gives the Jews an endless “get out of jail free” card with Christians, who falsely continue to view Jews as the “chosen race” of the Bible. (“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee” – Genesis 12:3)
3. This “identity theft” carried out by today’s Jews also prevents the true Israelite descendants from realizing and claiming their identity.

Judaism was not evolved in Judah; it was in Babylon that Judaism first became that which it was and still is.

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judeans], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. —Revelation 2:9

So, having said all that, when speaking of “Jews,” we ought to remember they are not who they claim, and are in fact direct descendants of Esau, who came into this world — irony alert — clutching the heel of his superior brother Jacob (whose descendants were the true Israelis).

The Tribes no longer exist.