Protestantism was from the very beginning of the Reformation, just Talmudism in disguise. If anyone needs proof that the Protestant Reformation was a consequence of the influence of anti-Christian Jews on its leaders, one need only reflect on the fact that Protestant leaders gave preference to the Masoretic version of the Bible over the Septuagint, much more trustworthy and reliable. In a word: …More
Protestantism was from the very beginning of the Reformation, just Talmudism in disguise.
If anyone needs proof that the Protestant Reformation was a consequence of the influence of anti-Christian Jews on its leaders, one need only reflect on the fact that Protestant leaders gave preference to the Masoretic version of the Bible over the Septuagint, much more trustworthy and reliable. In a word: they chose an Old Testament that the Jewish scribes had purged of all references to Jesus Christ as Messiah. We know that Luther was of the opinion that certain doctrines derived from the Septuagint were unacceptable, which is why both he and other Protestants preferred the Masoretic text, that is, a version of the Old Testament that consisted of a "revision" of the Septuagint that Jewish scribes and rabbis had carried out after the birth of Christianity to discredit the claims of Jesus Christ and his followers.
It is very clear that despite his tirades against the Jews, Luther allowed himself to be influenced by their prejudices and mistakes. The Protestants eliminated from the biblical canon the same texts that the Jews had rejected, among which is the Book of Wisdom that amazingly prophesies the passion and death of our Lord. On the other hand, his rejection of celibacy that led him to marry a nun seems Jewish. It is well known that the Jews do not place any value on chastity. Having said this, it must be added that there is nothing in the Christian dogma that prevents a priest from marrying, although he is most certainly not obligated to do so.
It is not surprising that so many Protestants ended up embracing the Jewish Kabbalah, which simply consists of a reworking of certain Gnostic doctrines, as well as Freemasonry, which is nothing more than Judaism for Gentiles. Neither does it surprise us in the least that many Protestants ended up defending the aberrational doctrine of the Dual Covenant that the epistles of Saint Paul emphatically reject. The majority of Protestants are Zionists, they consider that the Israel of the flesh is still the chosen people, they have ended up worshiping mere mortals, worshiping the flesh and not the spirit of God. All their zeal and fervor are useless. The bloody irony is that modern Israel was not founded by true Jews, but by the Khazars, an Asian people who established a kingdom in southern Ukraine, Crimea and Kazakhstan (precisely in the territory where it has erupted a conflict that some want to turn into World War III). They converted to Talmudism in the eighth century.
Where do the Khazars really come from? For some scholars they are Turks, for others Mongols, for others they are Tatars, Uyghurs or Huns. Most likely, the Khazarian people are actually an agglutination of tribes of different ethnic components, since the peoples of the steppe traditionally absorbed the conquered peoples. A healthy tradition that they abandoned when they replaced shamanism with Judaism. But where did the tribe come from that conquered other tribes in its path and turned those assimilated into Khazars? The tribe that adopted the defeated? It is very possible that it came from Siberia, the region to which the Soviet communists sent dissidents and which they turned into a huge prison What is very clear is that they do not come from Judea, nor do they descend from Abraham.
There is a letter from King Joseph of the Khazars to Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, a Jewish doctor in the Muslim court of Cordoba, in which this Joseph does not trace the ancestry of the Khazars to the Hebrews but to Chazar, the seventh son of Togarma, brother of Ashkenaz and the son of Gomer, son in turn of Japheth Gomer was the brother of Magog, Meshech, and Tubal. These names along with that of Togarma figure prominently in Ezekiel 38 and 39 as the invaders of the land of Israel.
It is likely that even the rabbis who converted the Khazars to Talmudism were not Jews, but more likely Idumeans or Edomites. Idumeans like Herod whose temple was destroyed in the year 70 after Christ, and now the freemasons intend to rebuild it to worship the devil and the Antichrist in it. I do not want to imply that I have something against the Khazarian race, all races are equal in the eyes of God. I simply set out to discredit the claim of the Ashkenazi Khazars to be the chosen people of God. They are not. They never were. Saint Paul's considerations about the Jews that we find in the epistle to the Romans do not apply to them. Like the rest of the peoples and races of humanity, they can convert to the New Israel of the Spirit if they recognize Jesus Christ as Messiah. But it is ridiculous that they try to present themselves as a people chosen by God in preference to others. It is not surprising that the Rothschilds established their headquarters in a Protestant country like England. Or that they began their meteoric career in a country where Protestants proliferated like Germany. They were countries so to speak Judaized, where Freemasonry spread like wildfire. Sephardic Jews settled preferably in southern countries such as Spain or Turkey. In Africa or Asia Many of them converted to Christianity or emigrated to Hispanic America. It is symptomatic that they are looked down upon by the Ashkenazi Khazars. Most Protestants have ended up becoming anti-Christian Gnostics. And their Freemason agents have infiltrated the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and are wreaking havoc on the entire world.
Jose Francisco Fernández-Bullón.
monomakhos.com
The Septuagint vs the Masoretic Text: Which is More Authentic? — Monomakhos
For decades now, I’ve been fascinated by the Septuagint, the Old Testament as it was written in excellent Attic Greek. The …
I disagree. I do not know where to begin, the verbiage is vast. But your fundamental thesis, that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic, is deranged. First, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text. Most scholars think that the majority of the Masoretic text is the most accurate preservation of the ancient Hebrew text. The Septuagint, along with the Dead Sea scrolls, …More
I disagree. I do not know where to begin, the verbiage is vast. But your fundamental thesis, that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic, is deranged. First, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text. Most scholars think that the majority of the Masoretic text is the most accurate preservation of the ancient Hebrew text. The Septuagint, along with the Dead Sea scrolls, may preserve a more accurate rendering here and there. But the Jerusalem Bible used many of these alternate readings around 1966, and throughout the New Jerusalem Bible and currently the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, even these scholars are reverting back to the Masoretic text as being more accurate. I think this is a general trend. But the Septuagint is not only a translation, but a very free one at that. It so happens that some of these alternate readings were used in the New Testament as prophecies not so apparent in the Hebrew, but that does not make the Hebrew text faulty at all.
Furthermore, the Septuagint translation was made by Jews, approximately 285–247 BC, before the birth of Jesus, so if you are trying to devalue the contribution of Jews to the preservation of the Old Testament, or in the creation of the Septuagint, you are sorely mistaken in using the Septuagint as evidence.
St. Paul himself comments on the Jewish contribution in his Letter to the Romans 3: 1-4 “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!” (NRSVCE)
Your comment that “the Jewish scribes had purged of all references to Jesus Christ as Messiah” is a flat out lie. And the prophecies are still in the Masoretic text. Some of Isaiah is not read in the synagogues today, however, but it is all there in their Bible.
The Jews did not reject the Wisdom books (Apocrapha). Specifically, these books were written by primarily diaspora Jews and were accepted as scripture by many diaspora Jews, and some of them were written in Greek and not Hebrew, but at the Council of Jamnia held around A.D. 100 the Palestinian Jews, after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the beginning of the synagogue era of Judaism without Temple worship, they wanted to close the Hebrew canon of scripture and go into siege-mentality, or so-called circle-the-wagons mode against the Christians, who usurped their scriptures and used the Septuagint because these Gentile Christians spoke Greek and the Septuagint was already translated by Greek-speaking Jews living in Egypt.
I am with you here! It isn't about race but the Truth. But in a sense race is connected to this problem. If you are baptized then you are a child of God. But if you belong to the synagogue of Satan your father is the devil. our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
