'Facts Are Facts' by Benjamin H. Freedman

3/1/2020 'Facts Are Facts' By Benjamin H.
Freedman
Rense.com
Facts Are Facts

Benjamin H. Freedman
1-2-4
Facts are Facts - I
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians
4:16.
The historic facts revealed here for the first time provide incontestable
evidence that their continued suppression will prove inimical to the security
of the nation, the peace of the world, the welfare of humanity, and the
progress of civilization.
DEDICATION
To all men of good will of all racial origins and of all religious faith.
Knowledge is a collection of facts. Wisdom is the use of knowledge. Without
facts there is no knowledge. Without knowledge there is no wisdom. Facts
prevent what nothing can cure. Facts are Man's best defense mechanism.
Without them men fumble, falter and fail. Without them nations decline and
fall. Wisdom wins wars before they start. Knowledge aborts national
hostilities. Wisdom obviates racial antipathies. Knowledge effaces religious
animosities. Emancipation from bigotry prefaces peace. Intolerance takes all
and gives nothing. Peace rewards reciprocal respect and regard. To all Men
of Good Will, "Pax Vobiscum !"
Benjamin H. Freedman
The Truth About Khazars
A facsimile reproduction of a letter addressed to Dr. David Goldstein, LLD.,

of Boston, Mass by its author Benjamin H. Freedman of New York City. A
little patience with the early pages will be rewarded with the startling truths
revealed herein.
960 Park Avenue
https://rense.com/general47/facys.htm 1/20
3/1/2020 'Facts Are Facts' By Benjamin H. Freedman
New York City
October Tenth1954.
SPECIAL DELIVERY
Dr. David Goldstein LL.D.,
Astor Post Office Station,
Boston, Massachusetts.
My Dear Dr. Goldstein;
Your very outstanding achievements as a convert to Catholicism impress me

as without a comparable parallel in modern history. Your devotion to the
doctrine and the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church defy any attempt at
description by me only with words. Words fail me for that.
As a vigorous protagonist persevering so persistently in propagating the

principles of the Roman Catholic Church, - its purposes, its policies, its
programs, your dauntless determination is the inspiration for countless others
who courageously seek to follow in your footsteps.
In view of this fact it requires great courage for me to write to you as I am

about to do. So I pray when you receive this communication from me you
will try to keep in mind Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?" I hope you will so favor me.
It is truly a source of great pleasure and genuine gratification to greet you at

long last although of necessity by correspondence. It is quite a
disappointment for me to make your acquaintance in this manner. It would
now afford me a far greater pleasure and a great privilege also if instead I
could greet you on this occasion in person.
Our very good mutual friend has for long been planning a meeting with you
in person for me. I still wish to do that. I look forward with pleasant
anticipation to doing this in the not too distant future at a time agreeable with
you.
You will discover in the contents of this long letter valid evidence for the
urgency on my part to communicate with you without further delay. You will
further discover this reflected in the present gravity of the crisis which now
jeopardizes an uninterrupted continuance of the Christian faith in its struggle
as the world's most effective spiritual and social force the Divine mission of
promoting the welfare of mankind without regard for their diversified races,
religions, and nationalities.
Your most recent article coming to my attention appeared the September

issue of The A.P.J. Bulletin, the official publication of the organization calling
themselves The Archconfraternity of Prayer for Peace and Goodwill to
Israel. The headline of article, News and Views of Jews and the purpose of
the organization stated in the masthead of the publication, "To Promote
Interest in the Apostolate to Israel" prompts me to take Father Time by his
forelock and promptly offer my comments. I beg your indulgence
accordingly.
It is with reluctance that I place my comments in letter form. I hesitated to

do so but I find it the only expedient thing under the circumstances. I beg to
submit them to you now without reservations of any nature for your
immediate and earnest consideration. It is my very sincere wish that you
accept the in the friendly spirit in which they are submitted. It is also my
hope that you will give your consideration to them and favor me with your
early reply in the same friendly spirit for which I thank you in advance.
In the best interests of that worthy objective to which you are continuing to
dedicate the years ahead as you have so diligently done for many past
decades, I most respectfully and sincerely urge you to analyze and to study
carefully the data submitted to here. I suggest also that you then take
whatever steps you consider appropriate and necessary as a result of your
conclusions. In the invisible and intangible ideological war being waged in
defense the great Christian heritage against its dedicated enemies your
positive attitude is vital to victory. Your passive attitude will make a negative
contribution to the total effort.
You assuredly subscribe fully to that sound and sensible sentiment that "it is
better to light one candle than to sit in darkness." My solitary attempts to
date "to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow" may prove
no more successful with you now than they have in so many other instances
where I have failed during the past thrifty years. In your case I feel rather
optimistic at the moment.
Although not completely in vain I still live in the hope that one day one of
these "candles" will burst into flame like a long smoldering spark and start a
conflagration that will sweep across the nation like a prairie fire and
illuminate vast new horizons for the first time. That unyielding hope is the
source of the courage which aids me in my struggle against the great odds to
which I am subjected for obvious reasons.
It has been correctly contended for thousands of years that "In the end Truth
always prevails." We all realize that Truth in action can prove itself a
dynamic power of unlimited force. But alas Truth has no self-starter. Truth
cannot get off dead-center unless a worthy apostle gives Truth a little push to
overcome its inertia. Without that start Truth will stand still and will never
arrive at its intended destination. Truth has often died aborning for that most
logical reason. Your help in this respect will prove of great value.
On the other hand Truth has many times been completely "blacked out" by
repeating contradictory and conflicting untruths over and over again, and
again, and again. The world's recent history supplies sober testimony of the
dangers to civilization inherent in that technique. That form of treason to

Truth is treachery to mankind. You must be very careful, my dear Dr.
Goldstein, not to become unwittingly one of the many accessories before and
after the fact who have appeared upon the scene of public affairs in recent
years.
Whether unwittingly, unwillingly or unintentionally many of history's most

noted characters have misrepresented the truth to the world and they have
been so believed that it puzzles our generation. As recently as 1492 the
world was misrepresented as flat by all the best alleged authorities on the
subject. In 1492 Christopher Columbus was able to demonstrate otherwise.
There are countless similar other instances in the history of the world.
Whether these alleged authorities were guilty of ignorance or indifference is

here beside the point. It is not important now. They were either totally
ignorant of the facts or they knew the facts but chose to remain silent on the
subject for reasons undisclosed by history. A duplication of this situation
exists today with respect to the crisis which confronts the Christian faith. It is
a vital factor today in the struggle for survival or the eventual surrender of
the Christian faith to its enemies. The times in which we are living appear to
be the "zero hour" for the Christian faith.
As you have observed no institution in our modern society can long survive
if its structure is not from its start erected upon a foundation of Truth. The
Christian faith was first erected upon a very solid foundation of Truth by its
Founder. To survive it must remain so. The deterioration, the disintegration,
and finally the destruction of the structure of the Christian faith today will be
accelerated in direct ratio to the extent that misrepresentation and distortion
of Truth become the substitutes of Truth. Truth is an absolute quality. Truth
can never be relative. There can be no degrees to Truth. Truth either exists
or it does not exist. To be half-true is as incredible as to be half-honest or to
be half- loyal.
As you have undoubtedly also learned, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in their

attempt to do an "ounce" of good in one direction many well-intentioned
persons do a "ton" of harm in another direction. We all learn that lesson
sooner or later in life. Today finds you dedicating your unceasing efforts and
your untiring energy to the task of bringing so-called or self-styled "Jews"
into the Roman Catholic Church as converts. It must recall to you many
times the day so many years ago when you embraced Catholicism yourself
as a convert. More power to you, and the best of luck. May your efforts be
rewarded with great success.
Without you becoming aware of the fact, the methods you employ contribute
in no small degree to dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their
Christian faith. For each "ounce" of so-called good you accomplish by
conversion of so-called or self-styled "Jews" to the Christian faith at the
same time you do a "ton" of harm in another direction by diluting the
devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. This bold
conclusion on my part is asserted by me with the firm and fair conviction

that the facts will support my contention. In addition it is a well-known fact
that many "counterfeit" recent conversions reveal that conversions have
often proved to be but "infiltrations" by latent traitors with treasonable
intentions. The attitudes you express today and your continued activity in
this work require possible revision in the light of the facts submitted to you in
this letter. Your present philosophy and theology on this subject seriously
merit, without any delay, reconsideration on your part. What you say or
write may greatly influence a "boom" or a "bust" for the Christian faith in the
very near future far beyond your ability to accurately evaluate sitting in your
high "white ivory tower." The Christians implicitly believe whatever you
write. So do the so-called or self-styled "Jews" whom you seek to convert.
This influence you wield can become a danger. I must call it to your
attention.
Your reaction to the facts called to your attention in this letter can prove to
be one of the most crucial verdicts ever reached bearing upon the security of
the Christian faith in recent centuries. In keeping with this great responsibility
I sincerely commend this sentiment to you hoping that you will earnestly
study the contents of this letter from its first word to its very last word. All
who know you well are in the fortunate position to know how close this
subject is to your heart. By your loyalty to the high ideals you have observed
during the many years you have labored so valiantly on behalf of the
Christian faith you have earned the admiration you enjoy. The Christian faith
you chose of your own free will in the prime of life is very proud of you in
more ways than as a convert.
Regardless of what anyone anywhere and anytime in this whole wide world
may say to the contrary, events of recent years everywhere establish beyond
any question of a doubt that the Christian faith today stands with one foot in
the grave and the other on a banana peel figuratively speaking of course.
Only those think otherwise who deliberately shut their eyes to realities or
who do not chose to see even with their eves wide open. I believe you to be
too realistic to indulge yourself in the futile folly of fooling yourself.
It is clear that the Christian faith today stands at the cross-roads of its
destiny. The Divine and sacred mission of Christian faith is in jeopardy today
to a degree never witnessed before in its long history of almost 2000 years.
The Christian faith needs loyal friends now as never before !. I somehow
feel that you can always be counted upon as one of its loyal friends. You
cannot over-simplify the present predicament of the Christian faith. The
problem it faces is too self-evident to mistake. It is in a critical situation.
When the day arrives that Christians can no longer profess their Christian
faith as they profess it today in the free world Christian faith will have seen
the beginning of its "last days." What already applies to 50% of the world's
total population can shortly apply equally to 100% of the world's total
population. It is highly conceivable judging from present trends. The
malignant character of this malady is just as progressive as cancer. It will
surely prove as fatal also unless steps are taken now to reverse its course.
What is now being done toward arresting its progress or reversing its trend?
My dear Dr. Goldstein, can you recall the name of the philosopher who is
quoted as saying that "Nothing in this world is permanent except change" ?
That philosophy must be applied to the Christian faith also. The $64.
question remains whether the change will be for the better or for the worse.
The problem is that simple. If the present trend continues for another 37
years in same direction and at the same rate traveled for the past 37 years
the Christian faith as it is professed today by Christians will have disappeared
from the face of the earth. In what form or by what instrumentality the
mission of Jesus Christ will thereupon and thereafter continue to make itself
manifest here on earth is as unpredictable as it is inevitable.
In the existing crisis it is neither logical nor realistic to drive Christians out of
the Christian "fold" in relatively large numbers for the dubious advantage to
be obtained by bringing a comparatively small number of so-called or self-
styled "Jews" into the Christian "fold".
It is useless to try to deny the fact that today finds the Christian faith on the
defensive throughout the world. This realization staggers the imagination of
the few Christians who understand the situation. This status of the Christian
faith exists in spite of the magnificent contributions of the Christian faith to
the progress of humanity and civilization for almost 2000 years. It is not my
intention in this letter to expose the conspirators who are dedicating
themselves to the destruction of the Christian faith nor to the nature and
extent of the conspiracy itself. That exposure would fill many volumes.
The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at
home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy. The world-
wide network of diabolical conspirators implement this plot against the
Christian faith while Christians appear to be sound asleep. The Christian
clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspiracy
than other Christians. They seem to bury their heads in the sands of
ignorance or indifference like the legendary ostrich. This ignorance or
indifference on the part of the Christian clergy has dealt a blow to the
Christian faith already from which it may never completely recover, if at all.
It seems so sad.
Christians deserve to be blessed in this crisis with a spiritual Paul Revere to

ride across the nation warning Christians that their enemies are moving in on
them fast. My dear Dr. Goldstein, will you volunteer to be that Paul Revere?
Of equal importance to pin-pointing the enemies who are making war upon
the Christian faith from the outside is the necessity to discover the forces at
work inside the Christian faith which make it so vulnerable to its enemies on
the outside. Applying yourself to this specific phase of the problem can
prove of tremendous value in rendering ineffective the forces responsible for
this dangerous state of affairs.
The souls of millions of Christians who are totally unknown to you are quite
uneasy about the status of the Christian faith today. The minds of countless
thousands among the Christian clergy are troubled by the mysterious
"pressure" from above which prevents them exercising their sound judgment
in this situation. If the forces being manipulated against the Christian faith
from the inside can be stopped the Christian faith will be able to stand upon
its feet against its enemies as firmly as the Rock of Gibraltar. Unless this can
be done soon the Christian faith appears destined to crumble and to
eventually collapse. An ounce of prevention is far preferable to a pound of
cure you can be sure in this situation as in all others.
With all the respect rightly due to the Christian clergy and in all humility I
have an unpleasant duty to perform. I wish to go on record with you here
that the Christian clergy are primarily if not solely responsible for the internal
forces within the Christian faith inimical to its best interests. This conclusion
on my part indicates the sum total of all the facts in my book which add up
to just that. If you truly desire to be realistic and constructive you must "hew
to the line and let the chips fall where they may". That is the only strategy
that can save the Christian faith from a fate it does not deserve. You cannot
pussy-foot with the truth any longer simply because you find that now "the
truth hurts", - someone you know or like.
At this late hour very little time is left in which to mend our fences if I can
call it that. We are not in a position to waste any of our limited time.
"Beating it around the bush" now will get us exactly nowhere. The
courageous alone will endure the present crisis when all the chips are down.
Figuratively and possibly literally there will be live heroes and dead cowards
when the dust of this secular combat settles and not dead heroes and live
cowards as sometimes occurs under other circumstances. The Christian faith
today remains the only "anchor to windward" against universal barbarism.
The dedicated enemies of the Christian faith have sufficiently convinced the
world by this time of the savage methods they will adopt in their program to
erase the Christian faith from the face of the earth.
Earlier in this letter I stated that in my humble opinion the apathy of the
Christian clergy might be charged with sole responsibility for the increasing
dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for the Christian faith. This is
the natural consequence of the confusion created by the Christian clergy in
the minds of Christians concerning certain fundamentals of the Christian
faith. The guilt for this confusion rests exclusively upon Christian leadership
not upon Christians generally. Confusion creates doubt. Doubt creates loss of
confidence. Loss of confidence creates loss of interest. As confusion grows
more, and more, and more, confidence grows less, and less, and less. The
result is complete loss of all interest. You can hardly disagree with that, my
dear Dr. Goldstein, can you?
The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning fundamentals of the

Christian faith is unwarranted and unjustified. It need not exist. It would not
exist if the Christian clergy did not aid and abet the deceptions responsible
for it. The Christian clergy may be shocked to learn that they have been
aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of the Christian faith. Many of the
Christian clergy are actually their allies but may not know it. This phase of
the current worldwide campaign of spiritual sabotage is the most negative
factor in the defense of the Christian faith.
Countless Christians standing on the sidelines in this struggle see their

Christian faith "withering on the vine" and about ripe enough to "drop into
the lap" of its dedicated enemies. They can do nothing about it. Their cup is
made more bitter for them as they observe this unwarranted and this
unjustified ignorance and indifference on the part of the Christian clergy.
This apathetic attitude by the Christian clergy offers no opposition to the
aggressors against the Christian faith. Retreat can only bring defeat. To
obviate surrender to their dedicated enemies the Christian clergy must "about
face" immediately if they expect to become the victors in the invisible and
intangible ideological war now being so subversively waged against the
Christian faith under their very noses. When will they wake up?
If I were asked to recite in this letter the many manners in which the
Christian clergy are confusing the Christian concept of the fundamentals of
the Christian faith it would require volumes rather than pages to tell the
whole story. Space alone compels me here to confine myself to the
irreducible minimum. I will limit myself here to the most important reasons
for this confusion. Brevity will of necessity limit the references cited to
support the matters presented in this letter. I will do my best under the
circumstances to establish the authenticity of the incontestable historic facts I
call to your attention here.
In my opinion the most important reason is directly related to your present

activities. Your responsibility for this confusion is not lessened by your good
intentions. As you have heard said so many times "Hell is paved with good
intentions". The confusion your articles create is multiplied a thousand-fold
by the wide publicity given to them as a result of the very high regard in
which you personally are held by editors and readers across the nation,
Christian and non-Christian alike. Your articles constantly are continually
reprinted and quoted from coast to coast.
The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is
the constantly repeated utterance "Jesus was a Jew". That also appears to be
your favorite theme. That misrepresentation and distortion of an
incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest
pretext. They utter it constantly, also without provocation. They appear to be
"trigger happy" to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so.
Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted
misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact by the
Christian clergy with information known by them now to the contrary which
comes to them from sources believed by them to be equally reliable.
This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can
extricate themselves from their present predicament now only by resorting to
";the truth, the whole truth, and nothing the truth". That is the only formula
by which the Christian clergy can recapture the lost confidence of Christians.
As effective spiritual leaders they cannot function without this lost
confidence. They should make that their first order of business.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, you are a theologian of high rank and a historian of
note. Of necessity you also should agree with other outstanding authorities
on the subject of whether "Jesus was a Jew". These leading authorities agree
today that there is no foundation in fact for the implications, inferences and
the innuendoes resulting from the incorrect belief that "Jesus was a Jew".
Incontestable historic facts and an abundance of other proofs establish
beyond the possibility of any doubt the incredibility of the assertion so often
heard today that "Jesus was a Jew".
Without any fear of contradiction based upon fact the most competent and
best qualified authorities all agree today that Jesus Christ was not a so-called
or self-styled "Jew", They now confirm that during His lifetime Jesus was
known as a "Judean" by His contemporaries and not as a "Jew", and that
Jesus referred to Himself as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew". During His
lifetime here on earth Jesus was referred to by contemporary historians as a
"Judean" and not as a "Jew". Contemporary theologians of Jesus whose
competence to pass upon this subject cannot be challenged by anyone today
also referred to Jesus during his lifetime here on earth as a "Judean" and not
as a "Jew".
Inscribed upon the Cross when Jesus was Crucified were the Latin words
"Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". Pontius Pilate was the author of that
infamous inscription. Latin was Pontius Pilate's mother-tongue. No one will
question the fact that Pontius Pilate was well able to accurately express his
own ideas in his own mother-tongue. The authorities competent to pass upon
the correct translation into English of the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudeorum" agree that it is "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". There
is no disagreement upon that by them.
During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was not regarded by Pontius Pilate
nor by the Judeans among whom He dwelt as "King of the Jews". The
inscription on the Cross upon which Jesus was Crucified has been incorrectly
translated into the English language only since the 18th century. Pontius
Pilate was ironic and sarcastic when he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the
Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". About to be Crucified, with
the approval of Pontius Pilate, Jesus was being mocked by Pontius Pilate.
Pontius Pilate was well aware at that time that Jesus had been denounced,
defied and denied by the Judeans who alas finally brought about His
Crucifixion as related by history.
Except for His few followers at that time in Judea all other Judeans abhorred
Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which He stood. That
deplorable fact cannot be erased from history by time. Pontius Pilate was
himself the "ruler" of the Judeans at the time he ordered inscribed upon the
Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum", in English "Jesus
the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". But Pontius Pilate never referred to
himself as "ruler" of the Judeans. The ironic and sarcastic reference of
Pontius Pilate to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans" can hardly be accepted as
recognition by Pontius Pilate of Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". That is
inconceivable by any interpretation.
At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in
Judea for the Roman Empire. At that time in history the area of the Roman
Empire included a part of the Middle East. As far as he was concerned
officially or personally the inhabitants of Judea were "Judeans" to Pontius
Pilate and so- called "Jew" as they have been styled since the 18th century.
In the time of Pontius Pilate in history there was no religious, racial or
national group in Judea known as "Jew" nor had there been any group so
identified anywhere else in the world prior that time.
Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the Roman

Empire officially or personally in the wide variety of forms of religious
worship then practiced in Judea. These forms of religious worship extended
from phallic worship and other forms of idolatry to the emerging spiritual
philosophy of an eternal omnipotent and invisible Divine deity, the emerging
(Jehovah) concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame approximately
2000 years. As the administrator for the Roman Empire in Judea it was the
official policy of Pontius Pilate never to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the
local population. Pontius Pilate's primary responsibility was the collection of
taxes to be forwarded home to Rome, not the forms of religious worship
practiced: by the Judeans from whom those taxes were collected.
As you well know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means
"ruler, leader" in English. During the lifetime Jesus in Judea the Latin word
"rex' meant only that to Judeans familiar with the Latin language. The Latin
word "rex" is the Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rectus" in English means as
you also well know "to rule, to lead". Latin was of course the official
language in all the provinces administered by a local administrator of the
Roman Empire. This fact accounts for the inscription on the Cross in Latin.
With the invasion of the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons, the English
language substituted the Anglo-Saxon "king" for the Latin equivalent "rex"
used before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The adoption of "king" for "rex" at
this late date in British history did not retroactively alter the meaning of the
Latin "rex" to the Judeans in the time of Jesus. The Latin "rex" to them then
meant only "ruler, leader" as it still means in Latin. Anglo-Saxon "king" was
spelled differently when first used but at all times meant the same as "rex"; in
Latin, "leader" of a tribe.
During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate that Jesus
was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as their "ruler" or
their "leader". In spite of this situation in Judea Pontius Pilate did not hesitate
to order the inscription of the Cross "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". By
the wildest stretch of the imagination it is not conceivable that this sarcasm
and irony by Pontius Pilate at the time of the Crucifixion was not solely
mockery of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and only mockery. After this reference to
"Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" the Judeans forthwith proceeded
to Crucify Jesus upon that very Cross.
In Latin in the lifetime of Jesus the name of the political subdivision in the
Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was "Iudaea". It was then
administered by Pontius Pilate as administrator for the Roman Empire of
which it was then a part. The English for the Latin "Iudaea" is "Judea".
English "Judean" is the adjective for the noun "Judea". The ancient native
population of the subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as
Palestine was then called "Iudaeus" in Latin and "Judean" in English. Those
words identified the indigenous population of Judea in the lifetime of Jesus.
Who can deny that Jesus was a member of the indigenous population of
Judea in His lifetime?
And of course you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in Latin the Genetive
Plural of "Iudaeus" is "Iudaeorum". The English translation of the Genetive
Plural of "Iudaeorum" is "of the Judeans" It is utterly impossible to give any
other English translation to "Iudaeorum" than "of the Judeans": Qualified and
competent theologians and historians regard as incredible any other
translation into English of "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" than "Jesus the
Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". You must agree that this is literally correct.
At the time Pontius Pilate was ordering the "Iesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudaeorum" inscribed upon the Cross the spiritual leaders of Judea were
protesting to Pontius Pilate "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the
Judeans" but to inscribe instead that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of
the Judeans". The spiritual leaders of Judea made very strong protests to
Pontius Pilate against his reference to Jesus as "Rex Iudaeorum" insisting
that Pontius Pilate was not familiar with or misunderstood the status of Jesus
in Judea. These protests are a matter of historical record, as you know.
The spiritual leaders in Judea protested in vain with Pontius Pilate. They
insisted that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans" but that
Pontius Pilate was "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the Judeans". For
after all Pontius Pilate was a foreigner in Judea who could not understand
the local situations as well as the spiritual leaders. The intricate pattern of the
domestic political, social and economic cross- currents in Judea interested
Pontius Pilate very little as Rome's administrator.
The Gospel by John was written originally in the Greek language according
to the best authorities. In the Greek original there is no equivalent for the
English that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans". The
English translation of the Greek original of the Gospel by John,19, reads "Do
not inscribe 'the monarch (basilcus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios), but that He
Himself said I am monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios)". "Ioudaia" is

the Greek for the Latin "Iudea" and the English "Judea". "Basileus" is the
Greek "monarch" in English. "Rex" is the nearest word in Latin for "basileus"
in Greek. The English "ruler", or its alternative "leader", define the sense of
Latin "rex" and Greek "basileus" as they were used in the Greek and Latin
Gospel by John.
Pontius Pilate "washed his hands" of the protests by the spiritual leaders in
Judea who demanded of him that the inscription on the Cross authored by
Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted upon. Pontius Pilate
very impatiently replied to their demands "What I have written, I have
written". The inscription on the Cross remained what it had been, "Iesus
Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", or "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" in
English.
The Latin quotations and words mentioned in this letter are verbatim
quotations and the exact words which appear in the 4th century translation of
the New Testament into Latin by St. Jerome. This translation is referred to
as the Vulgate Edition of the New Testament. It was the first official
translation of the New Testament into Latin made by the Christian Church.
Since that time it has remained the official New Testament version used by
the Catholic Church. The translation of the Gospel by John into Latin by St.
Jerome was made from the Greek language in which the Gospel of John was
originally written according to the best authorities on this subject.
The English translation of the Gospel by John 19:19, from the original text in
the Greek language reads as follows, "Pilate wrote a sign and fastened it to
the Cross and the writing was 'Jesus the Nazarene the monarch of the
Judeans' ". In the original Greek manuscript there is mention also made of
the demands upon Pontius Pilate by the spiritual leaders in Judea that
Pontius Pilate alter the reference on the Cross to Jesus as "Ruler of the
Judeans". The Greek text of the original manuscript of the Gospel by John
establishes beyond any question or doubt that the spiritual leaders in Judea at
that time had protested to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was "not the ruler of the
Judeans" but only "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans".
There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the

implications, inferences and innuendoes that the Greek "Ioudaios", the Latin
"Iudaeus", or the English "Judean" ever possessed a valid religious
connotation. In their three respective languages these three words have only
indicated a strictly topographical or geographic connotation. In their correct
sense these three words in their respective languages were used to identify
the members of the indigenous native population of the geographic area
known as Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. During the lifetime of Jesus there
was not a form of religious worship practiced in Judea or elsewhere in the
known world which bore a name even remotely resembling the name of the
political subdivision of the Roman Empire; i.e., "Judaism" from "Judea". No
cult or sect existed by such a name.
It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence
until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any
language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English for the first time
in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She
shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of
the word "Jew" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew"
had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the
word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any
of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In
his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is
the reason? I am a Iewe, hath not a Iewe eyes ?"
In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament
Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel by John
reference to the inscription on the Cross, "Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th
century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New
Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This
translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by
the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament
in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the
revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first
translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of
the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century
"Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th
century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there
is no longer doubt.
The available original manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century
accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in
the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many
earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to
the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these
English forms included successively: "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw",
"Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "low", "Iewe", "Ieue", "Iue", "Ive", "lew", and then
finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for
"Jew" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes",
"Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the
18th century, "Jew".
With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first
time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities
of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of
the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then
widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among
families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any
language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew"
appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it
was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all
editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word
"Jew" thus was stabilized.
As you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the best known 18th century editions
of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the
King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New
Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not
appear in it. The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament
into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew"
did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well
known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.
Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai)
and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were
distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world.
They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor
did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the
accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". How could
they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not
and they did not. It was a new English word to them.
When you studied Latin in your school days you were taught that the letter
"I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is pronounced like the
letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in words like "yes", "youth" and
yacht". The "I" in "Iudaeus" is pronounced like the "Y" in "yes", "youth" and
yacht" in English. In all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th
century "Jew" the letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes",
"youth" and yacht". The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" where it was
used in place of the letter "I".
The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a

development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in "Jew"
is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice", "jolly", and "jump". This
is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century the "J" in
"Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the English "yes", "youth" and
yacht". Until the 18th century and perhaps even later than the 18th century
the word "Jew" in English was pronounced like the English "you" or "hew",
and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews". The present pronunciation of
"Jew" in English is a new pronunciation acquired after the 18th century.
The German language still retains the Latin original pronunciation. The
German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew". The "J" in the
German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth"
and yacht". The German "J" is the equivalent of the Latin "I" and both are
pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth" and yacht". The
German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable of the Latin "ludaeus" and is
pronounced exactly like if. The German "Jude" is the German contraction
and corruption of the Latin "ludaeus" just as the English "Jew" is the
contraction and corruption of the Latin "ludaeus". The German "J" is always
pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth" and yacht" when it is the
first letter of a word. The pronunciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not
an exception to the pronunciation of the "J" in German.
The English language as you already know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, is largely
made up of words adopted from foreign languages. After their adoption by
the English language foreign words were then adapted by contracting their
spelling and corrupting their foreign pronunciation to make them more easily
pronounced in English from their English spelling. This process of first
adopting foreign words and then adapting them by contracting their spelling
and corrupting their pronunciation resulted in such new words in the English
language as "cab" from the French "cabriolet" and many thousands of other
words similarly from their original foreign spelling. Hundreds of others must
come to your mind.
By this adopting-adapting process the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek

"Ioudaios" finally emerged in the 18th century as "Jew" in the English
language. The English speaking peoples struggled through 14 centuries
seeking to create for the English language an English equivalent for the Latin
"Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" which could be easily pronounced in
English from its English spelling. The English "Jew" was the resulting 18th
century contracted and corrupted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek
"Ioudaios". The English "Jew" is easily pronounced in English from its
English spelling. The Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" cannot be as
easily pronounced in English from the Latin and Greek spelling. They were
forced to coin a word.
The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate
Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliffe Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif
Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes". That was the 14-th
century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hew-
weeze", in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular. In
the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English the Gospel by John,19:19, reads "ihesus of
nazareth kyng of the iewes". Prior to the 14th century the English language
adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon
words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus". The Anglo-Saxon
also meant "tribal leader".
In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525

Jesus was likewise described as One of the "lewes". In the Coverdale Edition
published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "lewes". In the
Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John,19:19, reads "Iesus of Nazareth,
kynge of the Iewes". In the Cranmer Edition published in 1539 Jesus was
again described as One of the "Iewes". In the Geneva Edition published in
1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Rheims
Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves". In the
King James Edition published in 1604-1611 also known as the Authorized
Version Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes". The forms of the
Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations
were made.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John, 19:19, from the Greek in
which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the
Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch' ". In the original Greek
manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and
the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in
Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English.
There is no reason for any confusion.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted understanding today of the

English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences
and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of
these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or
elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed
by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew"
today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded
as a synonym for "Jew".
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.
The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little relation to
its original and correct meaning as the "secondary meaning" today for the
word "camel" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "camel",
or the "secondary meaning" today for the word "ivory" bears to the original
and correct meaning of the word "ivory". The "secondary meaning" today
for the word "camel" is a cigarette by that name but its original and correct
meaning is a desert animal by that ancient name. The "secondary meaning"
of the word "ivory" today is a piece of soap but its original and correct
meaning is the tusk off a male elephant.
The "secondary meanings" of words often become the generally accepted

meanings of words formerly having entirely different meanings. This is
accomplished by the expenditure of great amounts of money for well-
planned publicity. Today if you ask for a "camel" someone will hand you a
cigarette by that name. Today if you ask for a piece of "ivory" someone will
hand you a piece of soap by that name. You will never receive either a desert
animal or a piece of the tusk of a male elephant. That must illustrate the
extent to which these "secondary meanings" are able to practically eclipse the
original and correct meanings of words in the minds of the general public.
The "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" today has practically totally
eclipsed the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew" when it was
introduced as a word in the English language. This phenomena is not
uncommon.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary meaning"
of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that
"secondary meanings" can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary
word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every
available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled "Jews"
for three centuries has created a "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew"
which has completely "blacked out" the original and correct meaning of the
word "Jew". There can be no doubt about that.
There is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards
a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct
and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted "secondary
meaning" of the word &"Jew" today with practically no exceptions is made
up off our almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a
so-called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a person who today professes the form
of religious worship known as "Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong
to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly
the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible
history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain
superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national
groups, all rolled into one.
The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is

fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians
regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible
today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless
Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and
innuendoes of the word "Jew" today, to the preponderant majority of
intelligent and informed' Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict
with incontestable historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer
are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and
repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now
approaches a psychosis.
Countless Christians know today that they were "brain washed" by the
Christian clergy on the subject "Jesus was a Jew", The resentment they feel
is not yet apparent to the Christian clergy. Christians now are demanding
from the Christian clergy "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth". It is now time for the Christian clergy to tell Christians what they
should have told them long ago. Of all religious groups in the world
Christians appear to be the least informed of any on this subject. Have their
spiritual leaders been reckless with the truth?
Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged

assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His lifetime was a Member of
a group in Judea which practiced a religious form of worship then which is

today called "Judaism", or that Jesus in His lifetime here on earth was a
Member of the racial group which today includes the preponderant majority
of all so-called or self-styled "Jews" in the world, or that the so- called or
self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of
the nation in Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on
earth, or that the cultural characteristics of so-called or self-styled "Jews"
throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics of
Jesus during His lifetime here on earth and His teachings while He was here
on earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe that the race,
religion, nationality and culture of Jesus and the race, religion, nationality and
culture of so- called or self-styled "Jews" today or their ancestors have a
common origin or character.
The resentment by Christians is more ominous than the Christian clergy

suspect. Under existing conditions the Christian clergy will find that
ignorance is not bliss, nor wisdom folly. Christians everywhere today are
seeking to learn the authentic relationship between the so-called or self-styled
"Jews" throughout the world today and the "Judeans" who populated "Judea"
before, during and after the time of Jesus. Christians now insist that they he
told correctly by the Christian clergy about the racial, religious, national and
cultural background of the so- called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the
world today and the basis for associating these backgrounds with the racial,
religious, national and cultural background of Jesus in His lifetime in Judea.
The intelligent and informed Christians are alerted to the exploded myth that
the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the direct
descendants of the "Judeans" amongst whom Jesus lived during His lifetime
on earth.
Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why
the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world for three centuries
have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the
"Judeans" in the time of Jesus were "Jews" rather than "Judeans", and that
"Jesus was a Jew". Christians are becoming more and more aware day by
day of all the economic and political advantages accruing to the so-called or
self-styled "Jews" as a direct result of their success in making Christians
believe that "Jesus was a Jew" in the "secondary meaning" they have created
for the 18th century word "Jew". The so-called or self-styled "Jews"
throughout the world today represent themselves to Christians as "Jews"
only in the "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew". They seek to thereby
prove their kinship with Jesus. They emphasize this fiction to Christians
constantly. That fable is fast fading and losing its former grip upon the
imaginations of Christians.
To allege that "Jesus was a Jew" in the sense that during His lifetime Jesus
professed and practiced the form of religious worship known and practiced
under the modern name of "Judaism" is false and fiction of the most
blasphemous nature. If to be a so-called or self-styled "Jews" then or now
the practice of "Judaism" was a requirement then Jesus certainly was not a
so-called "Jew". Jesus abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship
practiced in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practiced today
under its new name "Judaism". That religious belief was then known
as"Pharisaism". The Christian clergy learned that in their theological
seminary days but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to
Christians.
The eminent Rabi Louis Finkelstein, the head of The Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, often referred to as "The Vatican of Judaism", in his
Foreword to his First Edition of his world-famous classic "The Pharisees,
The Sociological Background of Their Faith", on page XXI states:
"... Judaism . . . Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became

Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism.
But throughout these changes in name ... the spirit of the ancient Pharisees
survives, unaltered ... From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North
Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and
eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered "demonstrates
the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious
movement ..."
The celebrated Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in his great classic quoted from
above traces the origin of the form of religious worship practiced today
under the present name "Judaism", to its origin as "Pharisaism" in Judea in
the time of Jesus. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein confirms what the eminent Rabbi
Adolph Moses states in his great classic "Yahvism, and Other Discourses", in
collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi H.G. Enlow, published in 1903 by
the Louisville Section of the Council of Jewish Women, in which Rabbi
Adolph Moses, on page 1, states:
"Among the innumerable misfortunes which have befallen ... the most fatal
in its consequences is the name Judaism... Worse still, the Jews themselves,
who have gradually come to call their religion Judaism ... Yet, neither in
biblical nor post-biblical, neither in talmudic, nor in much later times, is the
term Judaism ever heard ... the Bible speaks of the religion .... as 'Torath
Yahve', the instruction, or the moral law revealed by Yahve... in other
places... as 'Yirath Yahve', the fear and reverence of Yahve. These and other
appellations continued for many ages to stand for the religion... To
distinguish it from Christianity and Islam, the Jewish philosophers sometimes
designate it as the faith or belief of the Jews ... it was Flavius Josephus,
writing for the instruction of Greeks and Romans, who coined the term
Judaism, in order to pit it against Hellenism ... by Hellenism was understood
the civilization, comprising language, poetry, religion, art, science, manners,
customs, institutions, which... had spread from Greece, its original home,
over vast regions of Europe, Asia and Africa ... The Christians eagerly seized
upon the name... The Jews themselves, who intensely detested the traitor
Josephus, refrained from reading his works ... hence the term Judaism
coined by Josephus remained absolutely unknown to them ... it was only in
comparatively recent times , after the jews became familiar with modern
Christian literature that they began their religion Judaism, ." (emphasis
supplied).
This statement by the world's two leading authorities on this subject clearly
establishes beyond any question or any doubt that so-called "Judaism" was
not the name of any form of religious worship practiced in Judea in the time
of Jesus. The Flavius Josephus referred to in the above quotation lived in the
1st century. It was he who coined the word "Judaism" in the 1st century
explicitly for the purpose recited clearly above. Religious worship known and
practiced today under the name "Judaism" by so-called or self-styled "Jews"
throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus
under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of
The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most
competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject. The form of
religious worship known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus was a
religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud. The Talmud in the
time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who
practiced "Pharisaism". The Talmud today occupies the same relative
position with respect to those who profess "Judaism". The Talmud today
virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-
styled "Jews" whether they are aware of that fact or not. Their spiritual
leaders make no attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of
so-called or self-styled "Jews". They extend their authority far beyond the
legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal outside
religion.
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros

'Facts Are Facts' by Benjamin H. Freedman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

'Facts Are Facts' by Benjamin H. Freedman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

'Facts Are Facts' by Benjamin H. Freedman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/1/2020 'Facts Are Facts' By Benjamin H.

Facts Are Facts

Facts are Facts - I

The Truth About Khazars

A facsimile reproduction of a letter addressed to Dr. David Goldstein, LLD.,

960 Park Avenue

New York City

Dr. David Goldstein LL.D.,

Astor Post Office Station,

My Dear Dr. Goldstein;

Your very outstanding achievements as a convert to Catholicism impress me

As a vigorous protagonist persevering so persistently in propagating the

In view of this fact it requires great courage for me to write to you as I am

It is truly a source of great pleasure and genuine gratification to greet you at

Your most recent article coming to my attention appeared the September

It is with reluctance that I place my comments in letter form. I hesitated to

dangers to civilization inherent in that technique. That form of treason to

Whether unwittingly, unwillingly or unintentionally many of history's most

Whether these alleged authorities were guilty of ignorance or indifference is

As you have undoubtedly also learned, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in their

conclusion on my part is asserted by me with the firm and fair conviction

Christians deserve to be blessed in this crisis with a spiritual Paul Revere to

The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning fundamentals of the

Countless Christians standing on the sidelines in this struggle see their

In my opinion the most important reason is directly related to your present

Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the Roman

Himself said I am monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios)". "Ioudaia" is

There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the

The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a

By this adopting-adapting process the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek

In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525

My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted understanding today of the

The "secondary meanings" of words often become the generally accepted

The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is

Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged

a group in Judea which practiced a religious form of worship then which is

The resentment by Christians is more ominous than the Christian clergy

"... Judaism . . . Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became

Email This Article

This Site Served by TheHostPros

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.