EZEKIEL
and YHWH’s
Judgment
for the
Good News
PEOPLE
VOLUME XIX
Christian People
EZEKIEL and YHWH’s
Judgment for the
Good News People
Volume XIX--Christian People
by
an unworthy servant
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
(John 8:32)
Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.AgeEnd.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.
Contents
Volume XIX--Christian People
CHAPTER PAGE
- Cover Page 1
- Title Page 2
- Contents 3
- Publisher’s Preface 5
Part FFF--Christian Humanism
282 Christian Humanism’s Gospel I 6
283 Christian Humanism’s Gospel II 16
284 Christian Humanism and Love 22
Part GGG--Christian Evangelism
285 Christianity’s Gospel and Evangelism 34
286 The Abrahamic Faith Outreach 46
287 Christian Growth 53
Part HHH--Holy Rollers
288 Signs and the Spiritual Baptism 65
289 Pentecostals and Charismatics 76
290 Languages for Service I 85
291 Languages for Service II 94
292 Sabbathkeeping Holy Rollers 105
293 More Holy Roller Problems 119
294 Still More Holy Roller Problems 126
Part III--Christian Reality
295 The Christian Failure I 137
296 The Christian Failure II 147
297 Christian Persecution/Tribulation 155
SHEERIT YISRAEL
PO Box 473
Calder, Idaho 83808, USA
Publisher’s Preface
Greetings! The following presentation is volume nineteen of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.AgeEnd.com web site.
This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.
Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!
The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).
For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.
With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!
an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE
Chapter 282--Christian Humanism’s Gospel I
Man’s Inclinations Toward Religion
A student of world history must be impressed (adversely) with man’s efforts to have various forms of religion. Consequently, all kinds of religions and faiths have materialized over the past 6,000 years. There seems to be no end to this profusion of religion among so-called human beings scattered over this globe.
Although history has long since forgotten many of these different religions, and particularly so, with the loss of written records and books over the years; much data has survived on several of them to allow some understanding about their beliefs and practices.
Consequently, English dictionaries and encyclopedias are replete with religious “isms” --like animism, polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, deism, atheism, agnosticism, materialism, spiritualism, existentialism, etc. Some have even outlined the existence and case for a so-called “God is Dead” belief.
Among the behemah and chaiyah humanoids, one typically finds very primitive and simple forms of worship--like sticks, stones, animals, and of course, dead ancestors.
In the case of the behemah humanoids, it is quite manifest that they are very subject to demon spirits and therefore the spiritual occult can be found with their medicine men and in their worship forms. The Shaman is quite a big shot in the religions of non-Adamites.
Adam man has generally seemed to be far more sophisticated and advanced theologically than to worship mere sticks and stones. It is quite evident that when Adam rejected YHWH’s rule and authority in the garden of Eden that he and Eve chose to gain knowledge and understanding by the earlier mentioned empirical method of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Based on what was to later happen to the House of Yisrael Israelites when they sinned (as broached formerly, in connection with the death of Stephen), one can see that with the Adamic men’s rejection of YAH’s Torah, The MOST HIGH abandoned them to the worship of the sun, moon and stars (just as He later did with the House of Yisrael).
Historic Sun Worship With a Humanistic Bent
So sun worship has been the norm among Adam man for most of the last 6,000 years (and certainly, since Nimrod). In a prior discussion on sun worshipping Zoroastrianism, the point was made that the adherents of that religion believe that their faith started thousands of years ago by a man named Zoroaster. And if his existence can be dated to just after creation, then he could well be Cain, as noted previously.
It’s a little hard to pin down when the first emergence of humanism occurred in history. But the student of truth must be suspicious that it partially surfaced with the just mentioned religion of Zoroastrianism (which reflects a lot of humanism, even to this day). One can easily believe that it was established in Sodom and Gomorrah in Avraham’s day (because of the open homosexuality which is reflective of humanism).
Clearly, humanism was established by the time of the ancient (sun worshipping) Greeks, during the time of Socrates and Plato, and their colleagues, in their famous discussions about philosophy, as commented upon elsewhere herein. In fact, Professor David Flusser, formerly of Hebrew University, made the case that Socrates was probably the founder of Greek humanism (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 74).
The licentiousness, sexual permissiveness and apparent open homosexuality, in particular, among some of the then Greeks, would be indicators of humanism just as in other perverted societies.
And that reality is one of the several sick features of humanism. Humanists often advocate and push sexual permissiveness, licentiousness and perversion (much like one finds in modern Christian America, as will be discussed in later comments).
The Romans and Humanism
In the once great Roman Empire, she began fusing her traditional sun worship culture with humanism in her declining years. One sees this reality in some very positive conditions which developed over time in the empire to help eventually bring it down (things by the way which are similarly present in the USA and which are acting to bring her down as well).
Thus, there was in Rome the freedom and racial integration and amalgamation of the slaves (many Coloreds). There was also the free bread give aways (like modern food stamps), circuses (like TV) and games (like sports) to pacify and entertain the pleasure driven population, as it was going down the tubes.
Obviously, this environment was one of a very humanistic society extremely dedicated to the pleasures and aspirations of its so-called human beings.
Howbeit, with the eventual fall of Rome and the ascendancy to power of the Universal Roman Catholic Church, around 312-325 CE, and with the elevation of Constantine I, the civilized Roman Empire was to enter the so-called dark ages.
With the enormous religious persecutions and brutality of the loving Christian Church, the ideas of humanism and the related Socialism (which will be shortly assessed) were put on the back burners for much of the next fifteen centuries or so.
Modern Secular Humanism
One of the powerful motivational forces at work in the contemporary society for the past 100 or so years has been the acceleration of the old sun worship influence, but now modified slightly with a renewed twist of humanism (particularly, as a part of the later to be discussed New Age thinking).
Earl F. Jones, in his Mar-Apr 1998 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 2), quoted the “Texas Law Review,” and defined humanism as “a philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings, their achievement and interests, and the condition or quality of being human, rather than with the abstract beings and problems of theology.”
Jones noted that secular “by definition refers to the temporal rather than spiritual. Secularism is a doctrinal belief that morality is based solely in regard to the temporal well-being of mankind to the exclusion of all belief in God, a Supreme Being, or a future eternity.”
For secular humanism, Jones said that “while secular humanism is nontheistic, it is religious because it directs itself toward religious beliefs and practices that are in active opposition to traditional theism. Humanism is a doctrine centered solely on human interests and values. Therefore, humanism deifies man collectively and individually, whereas theism worships God.”
In a book on “Secular Humanism” (p. 7), writer Homer Duncan defines humanism as “the religion which deifies man and dethrones God.” Conversely, The ELOHIM summarized His entire law and duty of Adam to first love Him with all of one’s heart, soul and might, and second to love his “rea” (incorrectly translated as neighbour in the KJV) as himself (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5; Eccl 12:13).
The Struggle
In Adam’s rejection of YHWH’s rule (and law), Adam has made ostensible struggles with these two great commandments, but tragically not according to The ELOHIM’s Word--instead, according to his own experimentations of right and wrong.
This reality was classically demonstrated by Cain when he elected to make an offering on his terms and obviously not on the terms of The MOST HIGH. Thus, while Adam may “pretend” to want to worship The HIGHEST first, He does not do so and effectively never has done so. Please remember that the human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked and lies to it’s owner (Jer 17:9).
The same situation is true in regards to the question of loving thy “rea” second. Adam has never acted so in obedience of this commandment. In the first place, the typical Adamite (or Christian Church preacher) has generally not had the foggiest notion of even what a “rea” is much less what “love” is.
The Socialism Tie
In the way of a definition and an attempt to understand humanism, Dr Stan Monteith makes the point (in his video on “Secrets of the Illuminati”) that all Socialists are humanists and all humanists are Socialists. In this context, it would seem that humanism and Socialism are exactly (or almost exactly) synonymous terms. Therefore, this discussion on humanism clearly includes Socialism in the same breath.
Although modern Americans, to particularly encompass Christian Americans, have no aversion generally to being linked to or identified with humanism, they are paranoid and panic at the very suggestion that there could be Christian Socialists or a Christian Socialism.
Likewise, they are in no mood to accept the reality of a Socialist America, despite the fact that America is now a Socialist nation here in the early 21st century. Yes, this might be a hard pill for a lot of Americans to accept. But it is the real world. America is now one of the most obvious Socialist nations on this planet. It’s just that the public does not want this fact discussed.
In the November 1999 “Internet Vortex” (p. 1), Christopher Ruddy had a story on the “1990s: The Socialist Decade.” Ruddy’s report outlined the great American moves to Socialism. First, it happened in the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt’s new Deal. The second motion came in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s great society.
But the surprise came in the late 1990s when Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress provided the biggest US social spending in history--even exceeding the social spending by FDR and LBJ. Ruddy attributed the rise in the 1990s to the so-called peace dividend and the supposed end to the cold war.
Humanism is Popular in Most All of Man’s Religions
But somehow, with almost all of the world’s major religions, the matter of doing good deeds to or for other humans/humanoids (the supposed basis of humanism) has had some extraordinary appeal, despite Adam’s confusion over what constitutes love and good deeds in the context of a “rea.”
Consequently, almost all civilized Adamic men don’t like to be murdered, don’t like to have their wives commit adultery, don’t like to be stolen from, don’t like to be lied to, etc. Hence, the world’s major religions have incorporated these commandments and deeds (dealing with good to other humans/humanoids) into their faiths, almost without exception.
Yes, those things are as condemned and as unpopular in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Shintoism as they are in Christian sun worship. Of course, they historically were all also wrong in the various early sun worship faiths (preceding Christendom)--like Mithraism, Chrishnaism, etc.
Christian Humanism
Manifestly, humanism is the backbone of Christian theology (as will be proven in subsequent comments). In “Hebraic Roots” (p. 31), author Ken Garrison admits this connection and suggests that the Gentile leaders of the early Christian Church perhaps were influenced by Greek thought without even realizing it.
Garrison quoted the early Greek philosopher Protagoras who said that “Man is the measure of all things.” As Garrison concluded, this statement states the premise of humanism. The focus on man became the defining part of Christianity. Of course, Garrison is assuredly correct.
There is no other way to cut it. Humanism started in ancient Greek philosophy. And with the birth of Christianity, it was picked upon by the early Christian leaders to become the defining principle of Christianity. Everything else (the Torah, the prophets, the mitzwot, etc) all became secondary to the idea of Greek humanism that came to dominate all aspects of Christendom.
In terms of modern times, it should be noted that humanism has formed the backbone of the New Age/occultic religious movement which will be described in some detail in later chapters. But for now, it must be recognized that the New Age movement is laced with classic, sun worship humanism. As it merges with traditional sun worship Christianity, the system can be called--New Age, Christian, sun worship humanism.
Humanist Manifesto 2000
For years, humanist leaders have been making waves about their beliefs and morality (or rather lack of morality since most humanists are fairly immoral). They signed manifestos in 1933 and in 1973. More recently, 120 humanist leaders met and signed the Humanist Manifesto 2000.
“The Washington Times,” of Sep 13-19, 1999 (p. 12), had a story by Larry Witham on “Humanist manifesto seeks secular salvation” which assessed this latest thinking. The humanists now seek a “planetary humanism” that “looks to science for values and progress, promotes an ethic of choice and recommends global institutions to curb poverty, pollution and overpopulation.”
The 14,000 word manifesto says to not look for salvation beyond themselves (which was also proclaimed in the 1933 and 1973 manifestos). Going on, it proposes a world parliament as a democratic parallel to the United Nations, and global councils to address ecological concerns, income distribution and education about birth control.
While it would be easy to laugh and joke about this ridiculous humanistic thinking, the truth is that many of the world’s leading people are announced humanists or at least secret or closet humanists (who secretly believe in it). Nine Nobel laureates signed the latest manifesto. Manifestly, it is serious business.
Other Aspects of Humanism
While all races and kinds can theoretically be attracted to humanism, it seems that the Adam kind has a greater propensity for humanism and humanistic ideas.
For some strange reason, humanism has never been much of an issue with the historic behemah and chaiyah peoples, who have largely existed in a world of brutal and cruel exploitation of their fellow citizens without any compassion or feelings of concern. Historically, the behemah and chaiyah peoples have been the most cruel and brutal of all.
Not only do the behemah and chaiyah males abuse, hurt and oppress each other, but they are extraordinarily bad about abusing and hurting their women. This phenomenon is to be contrasted with the attitude and reaction of Adamic men toward each other and particularly toward their women. In comparison, Adamic women are usually treated good by their men.
It is also interesting that humanism appeals to and easily links up with a host of leftist political and social movements--such as Communism, Socialism, liberalism, etc. As noted in the above discussion, humanism is almost precisely the same thing as Socialism. There is little difference between them.
In this context, it is a fascinating reality that humanism seems to be extremely prominent in all of the leftist political motions. Oppressive and dictatorial Communist governments and philosophies have always held themselves out as humanists or lovers of their fellow men.
Here, in the early 21st century in modern America, all of these concepts of humanism, Socialism and liberalism seem to come together under the umbrella of the left. They are almost synonymous terms and can frequently be used interchangeably.
The difference between the main definitions is that the liberal is active politically in the US, the Socialist is concerned with economic and social issues, and the humanist is focused on philosophy and/or religion.
Liberals always talk about caring and compassion whenever they push their political objectives upon the unsuspecting public. Of course, the gullible and lethargic people easily buy into these words about caring. The truth is that the persons who generally talk about caring, don’t care at all, as will be established in later comments herein. They are classic hypocrites!
The Amalekites and the Left
It is this strange correlation between the leftist political and social movements which has held special appeal to the wicked Amalek-Edomites, discussed in prior chapters. Amalekites have historically had a strong attraction to the left; and so much so, that the (Edom) color red has come to be the symbol of the left, as noted previously.
In modern manifestations of humanist ideas and activities, it often seems that the Amalek-Edomites are the very leaders and promoters of humanism and particularly among the Adamites in the House of Yisrael nations. A question must be asked as to “why” on this relationship?
Since the Amalekites are so incredibly depraved, wicked and evil, it’s hard to fathom that they could ever be interested in other so-called human beings for any purpose, except to abuse and exploit them. Yet, they are often the very persons who are most vocal and expressive in making demands about so-called human needs and human rights. Why is this?
The best explanation for this phenomenon is that likely the entire modern humanistic motion is being directed through a Satanic conspiracy in order to destroy Yisrael specifically and Adam collectively. Satan is not exactly stupid. Surely, he has known and does know and understand Adam’s basic motivations on humanism (love of other humans, but outside the purview of the Scriptures and YAH’s commandments).
The Satanic push on homosexuality, racial miscegenation, sexual perversion, etc has found fertile ground among humanists without exception. Humanists tend to believe in, support and approve of these demented activities--perhaps because they classically approve of experimentation to determine right and wrong, as opposed to rote learning as dictated in the tree of life, discussed earlier.
In other words, experimentation opens the door for the humanists to try a little sexual perversion. Of course, this reality is precisely what Satan would seize upon to destroy the Adam kind--which has been one of his objectives from the time of the garden of Eden.
Quite naturally, Balaam offered the matter of sex to Yisrael’s enemies (to include the Amalekites), as discussed in previous chapters. It appears that from the Exodus on, the Amalek-Edomites have followed this methodology for the last 3,500 years. They have attached themselves as parasites on Yisrael and have proceeded to advocate, push and promote sexual deviation.
The Amalekites on Humanism
Thus, Amalek-Edomites, in their hearts, minds and mentalities, could care less about doing good deeds for other so-called human beings. But as primary agents of the Satanic conspiracy to destroy Adam generally and Yisrael particularly, the Amalekites have become leaders in modern humanism.
Though the concepts of humanism and real belief and dedication to it are typically thought of as something for Christians, it must be noted that there is a growing, evident presence of it in modern Judaism (at least among Reform Jews), although many of the Amalekite Jews are actually secret workers for Satan (only using the humanism motion for public consumption and to distract from their real motives).
In any case, there has been a secular humanist presence among Jews for some time now (stemming from the Sabbatian influence--as noted earlier, and to be more fully described later herein).
In the main, this presence has not had a clear definition. It has just been an additional belief of most Jewish religious persuasions. However, even humanism is undergoing some important changes right now among Jews--at least among American Jews.
A letter in the “Forward” paper, of Oct 15, 1999 (p. 1), noted that an organization called the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism (which was founded in 1963 by Rav Sherwin Wine) has now ordained its first “rabbi,” a woman named Tamara Ruth Kolton. The report said that this ordination assures that cultural Jews will have cultural teachers in the future.
What was not discussed is the fact that an aberration like this might be found in America. But it is doubtful that it will ever be allowed in the state of Israel where Orthodox authorities wield a big stick and they certainly aren’t in tune with modern secular humanism.
Assuredly, the Amalekites are now the principle ethnic or racial group of people most active and busy in promoting secular humanism in the House of Yisrael nations and among Adamites. As just noted, they have not followed suit so much in the state of Israel (where there is a continuing basic conflict between the Arab and Jewish populations).
In other words, Amalekite Jew bankers/masters in the House of Yisrael nations will get up and push and prod dumb, Christian, sun worshipping Israelites on and on in the insanity of modern humanism (which spells Christian Yisrael’s own ultimate disaster), but then back off somewhat in the state of Israel--evidently, for fear of the Orthodox religious authorities, who are very powerful in the Israeli state (as will be described in later chapters).
Amalekites Push But Not In Israel
A reader’s letter from an American Jewish woman (who had recently immigrated to Israel) in the Mar 10, 2000, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 11) wrote that she did not find it difficult to understand the low numbers of English speaking immigrants in Israel. She said that in the Diaspora, Judaism is allowed its full range of expression.
This woman added that in the Diaspora, women’s voices and contributions are not only tolerated, but welcomed, and women take their rightful place as respected leaders, teachers and members of the Jewish people. But this is not the case in the modern state of Israel.
She went on to charge that in the Israeli state there is the reality of oppression of women “in the name of God and the narrowest interpretations of God” and the sacred traditions of the Jews. Yes, Jewish women like this may be butches and feminists and ruling and dominating over men in America. But when they get to the Israeli state, they learn to keep their mouths shut and play a background role in human events.
A Real Contrast
Thus, women feminists and queers may march and agitate in the leading cities and towns of Christian Yisrael nations; but not much so, in the Jewish state of Israel. In both Arab and Jewish religious circles, women generally play background roles. In Christian Yisrael nations, women and queers are allowed to be big mouths, vocal and pushy, but not so, in Jewish or Moslem religious circles.
In the Christian West, the Amalekite leftists are the very persons pushing and prodding for gun control laws. They are the people who have mass meetings, protests, and so forth to agitate and complain about the second amendment to the US Constitution. Yet, in the state of Israel, there is never any question on gun control laws since many Jews routinely have and possess weapons.
The point of this is that the Amalekites have flocked to modern secular humanism and are using this philosophy in the House of Yisrael nations to push sexual perversion, miscegenation, homosexuality, feminism and other forms of deviation upon the Christian Israelite population with a goal of ultimately destroying it.
Of course, the ignorant, dumb, Christian Israelites, who have had this longing for good deeds to others, have fell into line behind the leading Amalek-Edomite bankers/masters in running as fast as they can to their own destruction. Manifestly, modern humanism is spelling disaster and ultimate destruction for the House of Yisrael nations now following this depravity.
Jewish Politicians
Having noted this correlation between the Amalekites and the Socialist-humanist-liberal motions now destroying the Christian West, a point of clarification is in order. At a first glance, it is true that this entire leftist motion is being directed by Amalekites; and indeed, it appears that all Amalek-Edomites are somehow attracted to the left.
But there have been a couple of exceptions to this unique correlation--Barry Goldwater and Roy Cohn. The homosexual pervert Roy Cohn (former assistant to the anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy) had a reputation as a conservative and right winger, opposed to the leftists. If an Amalekite, he was badly out of place as a right winger.
His sexual evil and wickedness in general suggest that he was indeed an Amalekite since Amalekites are known by their works. Perhaps he went against his basic genetic disposition for the left in order to attach himself to McCarthy and the conservatives. If so, his motives must have been for personal gain and power. This quest for power and gain are also attributes of Amalekites.
Alternatively, the better option is that Cohn indeed was an Amalekite, who was a Satanic plant in the anti-Communist right wing of the 1950s (as allowed in comments in the June 19, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 18). His homosexual image and irresponsible acts brought discredit upon McCarthy and the anti-Communist people he spoke for.
A future chapter will assess the strange role of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in the cover-up on the Kennedy assassination. As will be noted, there has been much concern that Hoover was a fag and that the Mob had its spikes in him. Cohn was a close associate of Hoover and allegations have persisted that they participated in a homosexual party together in New York on at least one occasion.
If true, maybe Cohn was a Satanic plant to gain the inside confidence of right wingers, like Hoover, so that they could be compromised and controlled by the Amalekite bankers/masters--which include the Amalekite gangsters, as discussed in a former chapter.
The Christian Jew, Barry Goldwater, mentioned earlier with Gerald L. K. Smith, was in a different category. He was a genuine conservative and a man of some honor, integrity and character (which are foreign concepts in the context of evil Amalekites).
Goldwater’s life of dedication and support for the US suggests that he probably was a true Israelite Jew and not an Amalekite. Whatever Edomite genes he may have had must have been diluted with other racial infusions over the centuries. Manifestly, he never exhibited the evil normally seen in Amalekite Jews.
Furthermore, it may seem like a paradox, but there are or have been even a few conservative Jews (like Goldwater) out there who simply do not toe the Amalekite line for destruction.
The Oct 29, 1999, “Forward” paper (p. 1) actually suggested that many American Jews now support tax cuts and school vouchers and are opposed to affirmative action. This stance has been totally unheard of among the liberal orthodoxy of Amalekites.
Chapter 283--Christian Humanism’s Gospel II
Early Sun Worship Ideas
L. A. Waddell, in “The Makers of Civilization” (p. 210-211), writes that the code of duty taught by the Sun priest Aurva (Aryans) (Vishnu Purana trans. H. H. Wilson, ed. F. Hall, 1864, p. 3, 85, Indian epics, Aryan Indian & Babylonian records) says that “The Sun Lord is most pleased with him who does good to others; who never utters calumny or untruth; who never covets another’s wife, or another’s wealth.”
Waddell goes on with his quote-- “who bears ill-will to none; who neither beats nor slays any living thing; who is ever diligent in the service of God; who is ever desirous of the welfare of all creatures, of his children and of his own soul; whose heart derives no pleasure from the passions of lust and hatred. The man who conforms to these duties is the who best worships the Sun Lord.”
So while commercialism and capitalism became the vehicles to appeal to man’s inherent carnality of greed, selfishness, lust, envy, jealousy, pride, etc, the truth was that Adam man did have some longings to practice good deeds to each other (on his own terms, without any regard to the demands of YAH’s Word).
These feelings, of course, surfaced from time to time. And now, for the last 150 years or so, we have seen a resurgence of these motivations in the form of modern humanism--first as a social issue and now as political, social and religious messages.
American History
In American history, it is probable that President John Quincy Adams (a Christian Unitarian) might be the first president (1825-1829) to express some open sentiments toward humanism. Certainly, the abolition movement of the 1850s and the later temperance motion were humanist movements.
There is no reason at all (from his writings) to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a humanist, despite the mis-information many Americans have had about him from history.
He was the first truly professional American politician. All of his moves seem to have been predicated upon politics and getting re-elected and not upon love of anybody or anything. He certainly was no fan or friend of the Negroes that he politically and hypocritically supported.
What many mesmerized Americans seem to misunderstand is that Lincoln was a true segregationist, who actually looked down upon the Blacks as an inferior race on a sub-human or animal level, as noted in prior chapters. Lincoln’s papers prove this reality conclusively, if any reader is interested.
In the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois, “Honest Abe” said that “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people;
“and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races... I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man” (“The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858,” p. 162-163, edited by R. W. Johansen, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965, as quoted by Marissa Taylor in the Jul-Aug 1999 “Jubilee,” p. 17).
In a comment Abe made, as he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he said “I can conceive no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal.” But so-called “Honest Abe” needed the support of the abolitionists in those days to carry on his personal war against the South and to deal with political opposition at home.
When thousands of young American men were dying on the battlefields, Lincoln needed all of the support that he could muster. The vocal and big mouthed abolitionists provided that support. To appease them, he had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. This action and his others on racial issues spell out that “Honest Abe” was a classic hypocrite of the most gross kind.
The Occult Tie
In fairness to the so-called “Honest Abe,” there is something else about him which might account for his obsessive and periodic actions of hypocrisy and hate. As will be highlighted in later chapters, Abe’s wife Mary Todd was actively involved in Spiritualism and the occult. Some of this stuff rubbed off on him (as he participated in her work).
Next, he became addicted to a medicine called “Blue Mass,” which included a significant presence of Mercury (discussed by Michael Savage on “Savage Nation,” on or about Jul 5, 2001). He took this medicine while in the White House. Of course, his brain and mental faculties were severally damaged from Mercury poisoning. With his contact with demonic powers and the consumption of Mercury, Abe had problems.
Later Presidents
In later years, Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were clear humanists, as well as the later Herbert Hoover. Although poor Herbert was so busy trying to stem the economic decline (caused by the Illuminati and the super rich banking dynasties) that he did not get to implement many of his socialistic and humanistic ideas.
But Franklin Roosevelt was to achieve all of the desires of his humanist predecessors.
Thus, ever since the rise to power of FDR and the liberal philosophy he expounded, Americans have become a nation of social planners, activists, do-gooders and misinformed humanitarians. Of course, this liberal thinking has been and is that there is inherent good in man. But in an earlier discussion on this idea, the truth is that man is utterly depraved and wretched.
Nevertheless, these liberal ideas have fused with humanism to make the average or typical American today to be a social activist of sorts who feels that he/she is commissioned and has authority to use the government to correct, by force, all of the social wrongs and iniquities he or she perceives as being present in the contemporary culture and society.
This background is, of course, what was behind Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs in the 1960s (which have largely continued into the early 21st century) of mass spending of federal dollars to supposedly raise the whole American society to an acceptable level of well being.
Naturally, the various Socialist theories haven’t worked, can’t work and won’t work. Why? Well, it’s all being tried by man in man’s way without regards to YHWH’s laws and ways. It’s just more of man eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, instead of the tree of life. All that this stupid waste of funds has done and will do is to hasten the day of America’s destruction.
Communism
Back in the late 19th century, it wasn’t hard to see that many of the fat cat capitalists were exploiting and abusing the poorer people in the work force who lacked the power of the state to exert any influence over anything. So Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels entered the arena with their theories of Communism and the removal of the wicked, fat cat capitalists.
Again, man’s ideas about right and wrong have just not worked. Communism hasn’t changed anything for the good. Instead of fat cat capitalists exploiting and abusing the poor, fat cat Communist commissars and bureaucrats took over and began exploiting and abusing the poor.
For instance, a news report in the Jul 2, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 2) noted that the liberal, Socialist (or Communist) president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, has ordered bath towels costing $443 each, sheets costing $1,000 each, a bed for $60,000 and electrically operated curtains costing $19,000 each. Yet, Fox has called for austerity. Obviously, the millionaire Fox is not concerned with austerity in spending the taxpayers’ moneys.
Consequently, in many governments in the world, and particularly those in Third World countries, it really doesn’t matter one iota as to what political persuasion rules. Nothing really changes with any of the changes of political power. One bad ruler or system is replaced with another bad ruler or system.
Wherefore, the poor, dumb masses have always and always will get the short end of the stick (that is, in all cases, apart from YHWH’s theocracy). So Communism, Socialism, Capitalism and similar movements have all failed and will inevitably fail, despite their supposedly noble intentions. The world domination aspects of Communism will be assessed in a later chapter.
Liberation Theology
Just like Protestant Christians eventually got on the band wagon and entered the fight to promote their concepts of good in the political and governmental arenas, Communism was also to join in with Christendom to jointly work on common goals. In this context, it has been the Catholic Church which has joined in with Marxist revolutionaries (primarily in Latin America) in an effort called “liberation theology.”
In the early days, it was just a few Catholic priests. But over the years, the leadership often jumped into the fray. One can see this with the situation in El Salvador when her Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero became quite a social activist to try to bring down the military government and right all of the so-called social wrongs.
Romero’s story was told in a Hollywood movie made a few years ago. This Archbishop and many of his priests became linked to Marxist guerrillas to agitate and cause trouble for the existing government. Naturally, they did this in the name of the “Christian Gospel” and their efforts became known as Christian liberation theology.
To them, the Gospel meant get a gun and bring the government down to usher in a new government which would theoretically right all of the wrongs and abuses of the old one. Per the El Salvador story, many of the priests were eventually murdered and/or assassinated, including Romero himself in 1980.
The view of most observers is that Archbishop Romero upset the applecart of the ruling authorities, and that he was killed by a local paramilitary group of thugs financed, supported or directed by the CIA and then US State Department official Elliott Abrams, per former National Security Agency intelligence officer Wayne Madsen (Apr 15, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 3). This course will be addressed in a later chapter.
While the leftist revolutionaries were not successful in El Salvador, at that time, this movement has continued to grow and gain support all over Latin America. Despite the hypothetical peace environment there for the last several years, there remains a strong undercurrent of discontent, and it still involves Marxist ideologists in collaboration with Catholic priests (including many Jesuits).
The January-February 1992, issue of “The Jubilee” paper (p. 4) had a fascinating story on “Christian Culture Transforms Africa” by Dan Wice which addressed this same change on-going in Black Africa. This article focused on the transformation underway in Africa with the advent of the leftist Black Nationalist movement.
Wice makes mention of the “new wave of missionaries” to emerge in the Black continent in the last several years. Specifically, many of these people are Marxist or Socialist revolutionaries, though claiming to be Christians. Desmond Tutu of South Africa and his band of “renegade Anglicans” are a part of this brand of blended Christianity and Marxists-Socialists.
More Religious Implications
When modern (Fabian) Socialism and humanism were in the ivory towers of political theories and suppositions back in the late 19th century in Britain and America, the Christian Churches (in general) were not the first groups to get on the band wagon. Particularly, in America, the churches tended to be more neutral politically and to mind their own business.
Of course, there were some portions of Christendom that have used their pulpits as political forces (Catholicism--being a clear example of this, as she has always been political with little or no neutrality), but not many of them at the turn of the century and especially in the times of theoretical Socialism and humanism.
However, by the 1950s and the great push for racial integration and amalgamation of the Blacks and Whites, the churches began emerging from their cocoons. Progressively, they began getting on the band wagon as social activists.
Even the Southern Baptists (which historically developed in the old slave holding South during the American Civil War, when they broke from the Northern Baptists) eventually joined in to promote the new racial concepts in America.
Now, Southern Baptists are breaking their necks (figuratively speaking) to join in the humanistic racial amalgamation, integration and miscegenation motion now underway in modern America (to be discussed in later chapters).
More on Christian Humanism
“The Religious News Service” of June 21, 1978, had a news report which said that “A Western hemispheric ecumenical conference has agreed that Christians are called to explore a more radical alternative--including humanistic Socialism--to the prevailing... capitalistic system... (which) was called an idol.”
Now, today, the Christian Churches are one of the key power blocs behind the new Socialism and humanism, as will be demonstrated in subsequent chapters. This phenomenon has to be most profound in terms of what is happening all over the United States and indeed all over the world.
The transition by significant segments of Christianity to outright humanistic activism is quite a paradox. Because it, in turn, has helped to bring about the social decline, disorder and depravity that one sees throughout the modern Western culture.
Of course, these Christian Churches and most of their leaders become active in social and political affairs on the premise that this is what the so-called Gospel is all about. In other words, they see it as being the essence of the New Testament (since they rarely read the OT, those writings are of no issue).
The Environmental Movement
No discussion about today’s modern political liberals and Christian humanists (as just noted and to be more fully described in succeeding chapters), will make sense without an acknowledgment and realization of the environmental movement (which was discussed in previous chapters) and its link to the super rich and fat cats in Christian America and the West (as noted earlier and to be further described in later chapters).
This motion is very powerful in the thinking of many Socialists and liberals, but perhaps to a lesser extent among Christian humanists.
The primary problem is that so many of the environmentalists are theologically New Agers with a worship of and dedication to “mother earth,” in contrast to the New Age Christian humanists and their deification of the human being. But while these two views are theoretically opposed to each other, they have successfully come together, as necessary, to support each of their overall objectives.
If there is a particular merging of the views (and there is one), it comes about in the political arena where both factions are thoroughly committed to bigger and bigger government. Naturally, it follows that where New Age environmentalists and New Age Christian humanists can work together (for more and bigger government), they do so.
Chapter 284--Christian Humanism and Love
Love of Neighbor
As noted in former chapters, perhaps the primary basis for Christian humanism rests upon one of the great summaries of the law-- “love thy neighbour as thyself” (KJV--Lev 19:18). Of course, The MESSIAH quoted this mitzwah in the NT; but He quoted it as being second behind love of The ELOHIM--which was of first importance (Matt 22:35-39; Mk 12:28-33; Lu 10:27).
Because an earlier explanation about these two great summaries of YHWH’s law was made in previous presentations, there is no need to repeat those comments. Suffice to say, in terms of love of a so-called neighbor, there are two primary issues to consider and define.
The first problem is what is love (described earlier) and the second question is who is thy neighbor? Love, of course, is obedience of YAH’s Torah, and neighbour (rea in the Hebrew text at Leviticus 19:18) refers to one’s racial kinsmen (as described in former chapters).
The Brotherhood of Man, Revisited
So, what is the basis for all this talk about love of neighbor in the context of doing good, humanistic deeds to and for every Tom, Dick and Harry of whatever kind and wherever located? Well, the answer is quite simple.
The basis for this thinking among people at large goes right back to the brotherhood of man theology present in ancient sun worship, as briefly mentioned in previous chapters. It is abundantly clear that the brotherhood of man thinking has dominated Christianity for the last 2,000 years.
There is no denying this fact, based upon an examination of history and the efforts of the Roman Church first and the later Protestants to evangelize the “world.” This was one of the motivations that promoted the Spanish presence in the Americas--starting in the late 15th century.
It appears that the modern Christian Identity movement would like to somehow dispute this assertion. The Sep 1998 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 3-5) had an article by Bruce Riley which was a reprint from another apparent Christian Identity publication.
The essence of this story was an allegation that a conspiratorial group called the Boston Secret Six in the late 19th century assigned professing Christian C. I. Scofield the task of making the “Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man” a moralism for modern Christians.
In any case, Scofield undertook the work in his famous “Scofield Reference Bible” (which will be addressed in some detail in a later chapter, in connection with the rapture theory that Scofield also advocated). The writer of this study would not dispute Scofield’s work on either question.
However, the brotherhood of man thinking is an old Christian idea that goes back to her earliest days in Rome. It came from the old sun worship cults and not from Scofield. Manifestly, it is not a Scriptural teaching in either the OT or NT. It has always been a Satanic idea from its apparent inception in the earliest days of sun worship--perhaps in the days of Kain.
The Son of Man
Christian humanism has been so profoundly persuasive that any number of people translating the Greek NT into English have chosen to follow the humanistic teaching in the Greek without any regard to the actual Hebrew thinking and indeed words which underlay the Greek.
The result has been that English translations render the Greek anthropos as man, instead of Adam, as the underlying Hebrew text would suggest. This decision to translate anthropos as man presents a situation where The MESSIAH’s title as a SON OF ADAM (In Hebrew, “ben Adham”) comes out as the Son of Man.
A previous chapter herein described at length the situation with translators to incorrectly translate Adam and the Adam kind to man and men. Adam has a far cry different meaning than the generic noun man. Adam is a proper noun name and should be transliterated.
Again, the Greek followed this erroneous path when translating from the apparent Hebrew NT writings and rendered Adam as anthropos. English translations have followed suit in both the OT and NT. Because of these translation errors, a wrong message has been fed to most of so-called humanity.
The son of man would seem to be a very humanistic title and one which would appeal to traditional sun worshippers (in their outreach to all humans/humanoids--Adamites and behemah, chaiyah and nokri/nekar aliens), in contrast to what one would find in the Scriptures in the context of The SON OF ADAM. So, why does sun worshipping Christianity insist on believing and teaching that YESHUA was a son of man?
The previously discussed Barbara Walker focused on this issue. She wrote that the “Son of Man” title was originally attached to Vishnu and that it was coined to prove that the god Vishnu was wholly in the image of man (“Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,” p. 950).
Later, the same Son of Man title was applied to the Persian Messiah Yima the Splendid. He became the Lord of Death, the good shepherd, the most glorious of those who were born and the sole mortal possessor of the solar eye. He alone could render men and beasts as non-mortal (ibid, p. 950).
Contrast this thinking with the fact that Adam (not the generic man, which would include the behemah, chaiyah and nokri/nekar persons) was made in the image of The True ELOHIM. Christians insist on believing and teaching that collective man was made in the image of The MOST HIGH. But this is not true. Only Adam was made in the image of The CREATOR.
Sermon on the Mount
The famous Sermon on the Mount is another classic message Christians wish to use for their humanistic purposes, never understanding what that presentation was all about. Since the NT YESHUA was the OT YHWH, it is clear that His remarks on the mountain were consistent and harmonious with all of the earlier Tanakh statements.
The problem for Christians is that they cannot understand this fact. And since Christian people are so incredibly ignorant and uninformed on so much of the Scriptures, they have taken YESHUA’s Sermon on the Mount in a totally wrong way and one which leads them into even more wicked sun worship theology than what they had had for many earlier centuries.
The background for the Sermon on the Mount is that YESHUA was teaching and instructing some of His disciples (of the twelve) on the proper methods of practicing “brotherly love” in terms of fellowship within the NT Apostolic Assembly (to include the Hebrew concept of hesed or loyalty) and some aspects of their relationship with outsiders. Scriptural brotherly love and loyalty were both addressed in prior chapters.
This famous talk was broached by Ike Tennison in an article on “Who Was the Target Audience of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount?” in the No 1, 2000, edition of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 9). Tennison correctly notes that the context of Matthew 5:1-2 is that “seeing the crowds,” YESHUA went up on the mountain and taught “them” --His disciples, and not the crowd. The pronoun them plainly connects to the disciples.
Going on, Tennison is more precise by pointing out the rest of the context (in Matthew 4:18-22, where YESHUA called four disciples--Shimon, Andrew, Yakov and Yohanan). Since these were the only disciples mentioned in the context before Matthew 5:1, the case can be made that it was just this four, who were taught by YESHUA on the mountain.
In fact, most NT teachings were all along the same lines--to YESHUA’s followers and disciples and not to the general, secular public. Remember what He said about “why” He used parables? So the general public would not understand (Matt 13:10-13). Thus, when The MESSIAH said to turn the other cheek when slapped, He was saying for a kodesh brother to turn the other cheek when slapped by his religious brother.
Most human fathers would instruct their human, fleshly children along the same lines. If a person’s human brother slapped him, would he or should he hit back and retaliate tit for tat? Or would their human father say to turn the other cheek to bring about peace, harmony and reconciliation between them and particularly so to avoid any further physical harm and emotional hurt.
If your brother hit you and you turned the other cheek (within the family entity), would this reaction on your part not cool him down and restore some sense of love? Of course, it normally would. And that is the objective--to get rid of the ill feelings and replace them with kind affection and brotherly love.
That’s why The MESSIAH also said to not let the sun set on you with anger or hard feelings in your heart for a brother (to paraphrase it). In other words, go and make peace with the brother and be reconciled. Of course, this is true for both real fleshly brothers as well as spiritual brethren within the fellowship of the election.
Incidentally, this same idea prevails in the Torah and in the duties of the people of the covenant, one to another (in the Body). For instance, Exodus 22 details a number of these duties--but always, in the context of the “rea” brethren and not to outsiders. The mitzwot prohibiting the taking of interest and raiment for a pledge specifically focuses upon fellow Israelites and not humans/humanoids in general (Ex 22:25-27).
The Mongrels, Revisited
As noted in prior chapters, the mongrel nokri/nekar aliens were always in a different position than an Israelite or a “ger” stranger. Thus, interest or a raiment for a pledge could be taken from a nokri (Deut 23:20; Prov 20;16; 27:13), and the nokri/nekar alien could not even be a member of the congregation because of race (Ex 12:45).
The stranger in Exodus 22:21 comes from the Hebrew ger (the gerim were racially the same as Israelites and could be in the congregation--Ex 12:48).
Former chapters also pointed out the reality of Deuteronomy 23:6 which contains a command that says that the follower of YHWH is not to even promote or wish certain mamzer types peace and prosperity. While this mitzwah might have application to all the mamzer peoples cited in Deuteronomy 23, it for sure applies to those outlined in Deuteronomy 23:2-6 (which seem to involve mixes with the behemah humanoids).
The question of hating certain peoples, as allowed by the Essenes and in Matthew 5:43, was discussed in a prior chapter (at least, in the vein of hatred of Edomites). The NT idea of hate surfaces in the Greek word “misco” which may not refer to hate in the psychological sense at all; but rather, to disowning, renunciation and rejection, as pointed out by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (v. IV, p. 690).
So while the Word perhaps does not teach outright hatred of any of the classes of non-Adamic or mixed peoples, per se, the Book does make it abundantly clear to stay away from them and don’t have any dealings with them (in other words, the message is one of racial segregation which modern peoples simply cannot understand).
As a minimum, the modern activities of the United States and other Western Christian nations to run around the Third World to evangelize the Coloreds; to meddle in the internal affairs of the Coloreds; to grant the Coloreds huge pay-offs (in the vein of foreign aid or whatever); and to integrate, mix and miscegenate with the Coloreds are manifestly all wrong without a doubt.
The whole focus of the Sermon on the Mount was directed at religious brethren and had little or nothing to do with secular people at all. Actually, in secular society, if someone hits you and you turn the other cheek, he will often hit you again.
YESHUA’s Words were primarily for the brethren in the Body (one to another, within the fellowship, and only in some limited ways with their relationship or contact with outsiders--perhaps in terms of government control over the disciples, as will be discussed in comments to follow).
Harold Hemenway, Revisited
The previously quoted Harold Hemenway has a booklet out on “What Does It Mean to ‘Turn the Other Cheek’?” (p. 2-3) which addresses the subject of the so-called Sermon on the Mount.
Hemenway takes the position that the essence of many of the remarks made by YESHUA were made in the context of government authority over man. For instance, in turning the other cheek, the point is that historically government rulers and police powers have slapped people around--both figuratively and physically. The only reaction one can take when arrested by Big Brother is to turn the other cheek.
In other situations, when someone in the secular society attempts to oppress the believer, there is no such thing as turn the other cheek. Hemenway quotes II Corinthians 11:20--to the effect that when someone takes advantage of the believer, strikes the believer in the face or exhibits some other abuse or oppression on a believer, the believer doesn’t have to tolerate it.
Although the basic reality of the message from YESHUA is focused upon the believer and the believer’s contact with other believers, Hemenway’s remarks add some further clarification and interpretation. Thus, the believer is inevitably forced to submit to government persecution or flee, as the case may be (to be discussed in later chapters herein).
Thus, brethren in a true fellowship would turn the other cheek to the brethren (just as fleshly humans would do with their fleshly families). And also, they would be forced to take abuse or assaults from government authorities. When people are arrested and hauled off to jail in a dictatorial state, they can be expected to be tortured and abused (yes, even by Americans, as will be later discussed).
But none of this mandates that the believer must turn the other cheek to people out in the generic society. As II Corinthians 11:19-21 notes, it is clear enough that one is not obligated to take abuse from people outside the brotherhood. If someone from the secular society breaks into my house and threatens my family or home, this writer will fight back if possible.
The Huron Indians
The reader may recall the situation with the Huron Indians of Southern Canada. They once were a large successful tribe which stood up to their numerous Indian enemies.
In time, the French Catholic missionaries came with teachings about pacifism and humanism. So the Hurons abandoned their warlike attitudes and tried to be brothers with their Indian enemies. Within just a few years, all of the Hurons were captured, killed and utterly destroyed by other Indians. Today, they are just a part of history.
It would have to be a rare situation that turning the other cheek in society at large would bring about any real love and reconciliation, as would be the case between two siblings of common parents or two brethren in YESHUA’s election. Obviously, pacifism and humanism are not the answers in secular society.
The Basis of YESHUA’s Teachings
Having mentioned YESHUA’s famous Sermon on the Mount and His fabulous teachings about real brotherly love to His disciples, it would be well here to take a few minutes and regress to the Tanakh which was the foundation and basis for His teachings about true brotherly love.
Perhaps it would be best initially to recall the earlier remarks herein on the wonderful Hebrew words of hesed and rea (which were covered in a prior chapter). Because these words were incorrectly translated in the Greek Septuagint, a bias was developed which meant that all subsequent translations of the Greek OT or NT into English and other languages would be contaminated with this prejudice.
Consequently, hesed came to be unilateral mercy and rea came to be neighbour (from a physical, geographical point of view). But both of these ideas are wrong. Hesed is a mutual relationship found in the covenant--usually, in the context of the Congregation of Yisrael (Hebrew qahal, discussed earlier). The Hebrew rea refers to racial kinsmen and not to men in the generic sense.
With this basic thinking, there are a whole host of mitzwot in the OT which place duties upon Israelites in dealings with fellow Israelites in an entirely different manner than other types of humans/humanoids.
Here, mention can be made to vast topics like love, deeds and acts of charity, commercial dealings, gossip and talk, offering aid and assistance, slandering, taking interest or gain and on and on (as outlined in the 613 mitzwot).
Even the basic conversion laws establishing and allowing non-Israelites to enter the Congregation of Yisrael were predicated upon a racial definition. Yes, it was the same racial people as Yisrael who could convert (the gerim, discussed earlier) and not the nokri and non-Adamic kinds.
Differentiation?
The mitzwot in the Torah offer a whole host of requirements for genetic Israelites and their fellow gerim that simply do not apply to the nokri/nekar non-Shemites/non-Adamites--like the seventh year release from slavery, eating unclean foods, taking a pledge, charging interest etc.
Many sincere religious Jews are much aware of these distinctions in the Tanakh (as pointed out in a prior chapter). Therefore, they treat their Jewish brethren in a far different way than h