The Judaeo-Christian Myth
And, an explanation of many origins
Note: This substack is book-length. It is far too long for email and is a very long read. It will take you some time to go through. Nonetheless, I hope you find it edifying and a blessing.
It has been said that the Pagan opts to worship what he cannot be bothered to read, while the Christian reads what he cannot be bothered to worship. Arguably, on the topic of this substack, both the Christian and the Pagan are equal… Equal in their incompetence with regards to eschatology, history, and all those logos words.
To get to my point:
There is no such thing as a Judaeo-Christian identity.
To most Americans, these words will trigger some emotional response, to either fight the claim, or celebrate it. Even some of you who now celebrate it likely have some parts of you still wanting to fight it - I know this psychological leach well. We’re told it is the sea with which our cultural and moral animus swims in - and yet, that hyphen in the term ought to immediately trigger our suspicions, if we be good Christian people.
Now, if you are reading this and you are from an Asiatic or African ancestry, it is unlikely this substack will be that relevant to you. This substack is primarily in response to European Neopagan claims regarding the Christian religion. You can read on if you wish to consider these things, but this substack will be very European focused, and you will likely not find anything here relevant to your faith or identity. I take no offense if you take off at this point. God bless you.
Now, as to the term “Judaeo-Christian”, the damage from that hyphen must be first emphasized. A great many of the Pagan’s rejection of Christianity derives from this, as well as - to a lesser extent - the atheist’s contestation. It signals to them that it is a foreign religion, come from a foreign land. Well, dear Christian reader, suppose I said they are right? Suppose I said we ought declare the pagans wise to see it as such. Suppose I said: “Pity the Christian that doesn’t”?
The question ought not be if Judaeo-Christian anything is foreign - it most certainly is. The question is if Christianity can exist without this hyphen - it must certainly can.
That hyphen ought to alert you that this is some kind of Frankensteinian mess in need of dissection. Were it not so, a term would exist to describe it without that hyphen. Train yourself in this: Where there be a hyphen, there be an agenda. I’ve heard it said that “Abrahamic” is more appropriate, but even the pagans can tell Medieval Europe was not the same as Medieval Islam, when pushed on the issue - and if not, they’re probably just atheists bored of atheism.
But, let us first establish an origin to the term, for both the Pagan and Christian appear wholly innocent to its origins, and whereabouts of its birth. If we use tools such as Google Books, we can set a broad publication range for the term - let’s say 1000AD through 1800AD - and find that it was, possibly, wholly absent from the Englishman’s tongue until the 19th century. Wikipedia seems to agree - not that it’s a reliable source - that the first use of the term comes from a letter by Alexander McCaul, dated 1821, in which he spoke of Jews who had abandoned Judaism and came to Christ. This is obviously not quite the same as the term is used today. So, if we expand our criteria across Europe - including the German phrase Judenchristlich, as well as the French equivalent - we find the term was used either to make fun of Christians attempting to live as Jews, or to Jews who had abandoned Judaism for Christ. One such amusing anecdote can be found back in 1589. American proponents of Judaeo-Christian morals may do well to learn it:
If you who are a Christian and live a Jewish life, why are you forcing the Jews to live a Christian life: You want to be snowed on and say to that the Jews should not be snowed on themselves
-Danck vnd Abdanck, By Sigmund Ernhoffer | 1589(That may be from Galatians, but my German comprehension isn’t great.)
Regardless, the valuable data here is that, up to 1800, there is no use of the term “Judaeo-Christian” in the style we are familiar with today. That being, the so-called Judaeo-Christian morals, ethics, and culture shared between the two faiths. So at the very least, I can fix two axioms for this development:
Firstly: Judaeo-Christian identity was rejected up to the 19th c
Secondly: Judaeo-Christian identity has became popular since the 19th c
These axioms are useful in that we can limit our investigations to the past 223 years, between which we must understand how the Christian religion went from adversarial - most colorfully illustrated in Galatians 5:12 - to the near-wholly embracement of Judaic identity. This is vital in arguing with not only pagans, but also conservatives alike.
At this point I could be lazy, dear reader. It would be very easy to say these axioms point to one man in particular, responsible for creating a Judaeo-Christian identity: Friedrich Nietzsche. In his Der Antichrist he used the phrase, or rather he subverted the term, to mean what it does today. There is more to this story, however, and I will get into that later in this post. For now, know that he subverted this term so as to critique what he perceives as an ignored continuity between Judaism and Christianity - an argument I totally reject.
Now, if you’re a particular kind of autistic pagan reading this, settle down and hold your tongue. You can assume I’ve heard all your arguments for why Nietzsche is right. If you’re only seeking to repeat those lies - lies I acknowledge most Christians believe, mind you - then you need not read further. Go ahead and leave your to-be-deleted sperggery below in the comments. I already know you have decided you are right, you are the final word, and you hold the truth. This I cannot take from your heart, so there is no reason to read further. By your own words you know everything and there is nothing more this mere “Christcuck” could offer you.
Go ahead, off you go…
-If, however, you are not so insufferable, let me first question Nietzsche by asking a simple question:
What is Jewish?
Before we can contend with Nietzsche’s claims that Christianity is a Jewish religion, we must first identity what exactly makes something Jewish. I have asked this question around to some folks, and also ran a poll…
At 72%, blood relation won. Although all the options, and more, are worth discussing here, let’s start there, and slowly work back to Nietzsche’s claims.
On Blood
There is a great irony in trying to claim Christianity is Jewish because Jesus, or the apostles, or early church had people of Jewish blood amongst them. Firstly, that is an incredibly materialistic argument. Even most pagans will contend matters more-so to metaphysics and spiritual than that of Blood - after all, how would one define Aryan blood for which to define an Aryan pagan religion? Is Aryan Blood the R1b haplogroup? Well, you’ve just declared Eastern Europe, with its majority R1a, is not White. Perhaps it’s R1a and R1b? Well, then say hello to your fellow white men in Somalia, Chad, and Niger, for they possess R1 blood majority as well:
Some of these purists will then argue it’s more about kinship, than specific blood genetics. After all, even though Italians and Germans have very similar blood genetics, their behavior and spiritual differences from kin association have produced distinct flavors of religion, both Pagan and Christian. This is a wise abandonment of materialist blood purity. Of course, then such people would have to confess the Christian religion amongst kin in Europe has lost its Judaic origins. Such Kinism is, to be clear, closer to my own beliefs than not. But more on that later. For now, let us leave the Pagans and Atheists to make sense of these contradictions and exceptions on their own time. This isn’t about Aryan blood purity - yet. This is about the claim that someone from a Jewish Heritage is inescapably bound to the nature of the Jewish religion.
We could be very simple here, of course. If you be a descendant of Abraham, you are most certainly a Jew. From this point, Atheists then argue Christianity, as an Abrahamic religion, cannot escape the Abrahamic influence - whatever that means. Of course, this is a Ship of Theseus argument. Is it still Judaic if all bloodkin from a Jewish lineage have died out and been replaced with Latins? For these reasons, it is rare such cavaliers stay within the bounds of blood from this initial claim. The Motte of Blood is quickly exchanged for the Bailey that anything made by a Jewish mind must be considered Jewish, and all its followers thus Judaic. The Pope, bishops, pastors, and the whole Christian scholastic tradition is then quickly hushed away as merely reformed Rabbi.
But this argument quickly collapses when one reviews the Pagan Purist’s own heritage. Many of them, unsurprisingly, take kindly to a certain mid-century painter, but casually ignore that the editor for Mein Kampf was a Jew. “What?” I can hear at least one person exclaim. Yes, dear reader, this is an oft-forgot anecdote in history - and a rather hilarious one. The hands that compiled Hitler’s thoughts into coherency were Emil Maurice’s, and along with being one of the founders of the SS and one of Hitler’s personal friends, he was the great-grandson of the Jew, Charles Maurice Schwartzenberger, a founder of Thalia Theater in Hamburg. In 1935 when Maurice submitted his ancestry for a marriage permit, Himmler became enraged that Hitler would keep at his right hand a Jew as his scribe and confidant. Amusingly, Hitler protected Maurice, declaring him an honorary Aryan. Even more amusing, as the allies certainly didn’t want a PR stunt prosecuting a Jew at Nurenberg, Mr Maurice ultimately was released, retiring to repair watches after the war.
But, while we entertain the Bailey that anything made by Jews is somehow contaminated by Judaism, I have no doubt that at least some of these Purists would happily throw out all of Mid-Century Germany in favor of their ancestral purity. Many claim we are in a Kali Yuga, of course. Ignoring the need to import some other Asiatic religion instead of Judaism, I could go through any one of their favorite members of their personal canon and find similar. Go back a few centuries and Luther, when writing the very spicy On the Jews and their lies, was both inspired by, and likely consulted with, the Jewish convert to Lutheranism named Anton Margaritha. Fast forward to today, and the Asatru Folk Assembly, one of the leading neopagan organizations today, has a Joseph Rozanek on their clergy list - a Jewish last name. From past, present, and future, this Bailey quickly collapses from the weight of exceptions and contradictions the purists must lay upon themselves. I would bet a shekel that I could find a Jewish educator, scribe, member, or confidant for any trusted Neopagan or Atheist scholastic figure - always check the last names of their favorite professors!
With the Bailey utterly destroyed, let’s return to the Motte. Does this make sense, dear reader? Am I to take this claim seriously that anything with Jewish Blood is Jewish? Is Mein Kampf a work of Judaism? Is Lutheranism merely a Jewish cult? Are the Asatru Folk merely an evolve Synagogue?
This is effectively a claim that Jewish blood is magic. A 99% Aryan becomes 100% Jew with even the tiniest of a drop. If such is the case, why be Aryan? Who would want to be Aryan? If a single drop can ruin thousands of years of genetic heritage, you are by far the weakest bloodline of all men. A pathetic creature - one whose extinction ought be celebrated as a work of eugenics.
But you, dear reader, are not so anti-White as to believe this, I think. Neither am I. Why would either of us be here - I the writer, you the reader - if either of us were? If we wanted to hate whitey, we need only turn on the news. Surely neither of us are so much the fool to be caught by this Motte and Bailey nonsense. Reason demands you look to your ancestor’s achievements and deny this bloodmagic. You surely must believe your blood - the blood that ruled the continents not more than a century ago - is not so incredibly weak so as to be ruined by a single foreign drop. I trust you value your blood and heritage more than these ridiculous lies. I trust you know the history of your people, or at the very least are learning it.
Of course, here some cavalier will declare “ah, you see? He doesn’t care if our purity is muddied and we all turn Muslim!” Swallow your tongue before you choke on your lies. I said earlier kin is far better a metric than blood genetics, and if your kin are being erased, you’re not being very good to your kin, now are you? But beyond that, you surely should worry when your elites dump millions of refugees into your cities with no plans on returning them, integrating them, or managing them. Such is not the minor drop of some foreign raping invader I speak of, which quickly dilutes and is forgot. I make no claims what the European elite are doing today is equivalent to a repelled Ottoman or Mongol invasion. But more on kinship later. For now, let’s go on the assault on blood purity.
Against Blood
By what metric would you suggest I measure Jewish blood? Would you have me assume all Israel is the blood of Abraham? This is blatantly false - or do you forget that one of David’s most loyal and mighty warriors was Uriah the Hittite? For those of you unaware, Hittites possess no familial relation to Abraham. They were, mostly, the children of Canaan, not Shem. You may recall, if you’ve read anything biblical, that the Sons of Canaan were condemned to death in Palestine - and yet, by the days of David many had entered into confederation with Israel as foreign adoptees. It is worth mentioning that the Hittites themselves were also a confederation, and included a few Japhetic offspring. That means, dear reader, that the hills of Antolia, Syria, and Lebanon included a number of Caucasian peoples who were your typical blue-eyed, blonde-haired proud Aryan warriors - The purebloods these purists fantasize over. Said Aryans, along with a number of Canaan tribes, added their bloodlines into that of Israel.
Let us reflect here, for a moment, on who the Hitties were. What is called the Hittite Empire today in scholarship is merely an academic term for the peoples of the Anatolian hill country. Just as the Byzantines are an ad-hoc term for a people who called themselves Romans, it is likely the Hittites did not entirely call themselves Hittites. Amongst the Empire were the Luwians, for instance; an Indo-European people along the coasts of Lebanon and Turkey.
Hittites sometimes depicted various members of their confederation with vivid dark-blue eyes, suggesting that their confederation, in part, included a number of Indo-European folk.
But things get even more interesting here. If we investigate the Luwian pantheon, we start to notice something particularly familiar. How shall I say this, dear reader? There is a god named Tarḫunz who carries a hammer and controls the thunder. He battles a world-serpent, too! Sound familiar?
If not, then let me be blunt: The Luwians worshiped Thor, or rather, an early incarnation of Thor. If you need more evidence, followers of Tarhunz are known to have carried with them hammer-shaped pendants in similar style to the hammer pendants of Neopagans today.
Often these hammer Pendants doubled as signatory stamps with which a nobleman could sign a contract with. They often featured rich stories or family seals, which ensured the honor of the signatory and reinforced their noble births:
But, it is even more-so obvious this is an early incarnation of Thor when we look at Tarhunz’s father, Enki. He is clearly an early incarnation of Odin: An old man in a wizard’s hat, sometimes carrying a staff, other times accompanied with a bird of wisdom, just as old Odin had his crow and staff too.
There are even poems about the Eye of Enki in similar style of Odin’s eye.
King Enki emerges from the abzu; he has to raise but one eye from the abzu to destroy for him the foreign lands from where he stands, to destroy for him the cities from where he sits
You can read more about the Evil Eye poems here.
But let me take this even further, dear reader, in order to remove any doubt. Did you know that the Northman’s bronze age appears to have run off trade with Cyprus? You can read more about those wonderfully complex Bronze-age trade routes here, and there’s even more to read here. A map may help make these routes more obvious, and this blog overviews much of this data to an academic level as well. To summarize the findings:
We are presenting analytical data for 33 bronze artefacts, ranging from the Late Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age from the copper ore bearing districts of Dalsland, Värmland and Småland, and none of these items matched the local ore signatures. This finding is consistent with previous analyses of bronze artefacts from Sweden (Kresten, 2005; Schwab et al., 2010). Moreover, there are no evident traces of Bronze Age copper mining from these districts, neither numerous finds of stone hammers nor prehistoric mines (Janzon,1984; cf. O’Brien, 2004). Another important fact to consider is that manufactured metal (typology) from a certain region should not automatically be equated with the use of ores from the same region (Chernykh, 1992; O’Brien, 2004). It is therefore important to stress that it could be vast distances between the different steps involved in the metallurgical “chaîne operatoire” (Ottaway, 2001): from ore extraction via refining, transport and exchange to local manufacture which will make the picture even more complex.
Oh, but dear reader, it gets even more interesting: There is little to no evidence Thor was worshipped prior to the Bronze Age collapse…
Now, when I’ve explained to Neopagans these facts, they have often told me that I am being subversive, or wrong - without any actual argument. Most of these people are assuming I am arguing the Scandanavian peoples are descendants of the Luwians. No, dear reader, this is not what I am saying - although it is possible some migrated after the collapse. But, for the vast majority of Scandinavians, it is clear the Northmen migrated from the Steppes as part of the PIE migration, as most academics confess the genetic data shows. What I am saying is that the Northmen’s religion before the time of Odin and Thor bares little to no familiarity with the deities we relate to the Norse today. The original religion of the Northmen appears to have been some kind of spring-time cult from when the climate was warmer. There is a large number of deer and waterbird icons - symbols of the springtime. My own suspicion is that as the climate chilled in the Bronze Age collapse, Spring failed to show in the degree the Northmen grew accustomed to. Their old gods failed, and the gods of the Bronze traders - gods of lightning, fire, metal, and industry - represented things the Northmen needed for their new colder life. This is why, after the Bronze Age collapse, the songbirds and deer icons become near-extinct (Save for Loki’s helmet and a few other myths), and the icons of the hammer, the lighting bolt, and the fire become more prevalent. Else, curious, isn’t it? That two peoples trading with each other would just so happen to eventually worship two awfully similar deities.
There is somewhat of a contradiction in my theory, though. Why would they turn to the gods of the now-doomed Bronze trade? It’s called a collapse because bronze was abandoned! Though, one could argue that without the trade, the Northmen were forced into steel and industry of their own, and thus began the Iron Age. This new independent economy need not depend on trade with the Luwians, but the gods of industry and battle would still be more favorable than the gods of spring and life - so long the climate remained cold.
Now, I could make fun of the Neopagans here, noting they worship middle eastern deities as much as Christians do. But this is rather low-hanging fruit, and disrespectful. Besides, the people who worshipped these gods in Anatolia were, as I said, most certainly Aryan people who would look just like Northmen anyway. The religion was, one may say, still in the family. These were beliefs of the sons of Japeth, be they sons in Anatolia, or sons in Norway. No, dear reader, let’s not insult a continuity of tradition that has virtue. Rather, let’s return to the Luwians with the greater context that these people were, more or less, Bronze Age Anatolian Proto-Vikings (What a mouthful).
After the Hittite Empire collapsed, the Luwian people reconsolidated themselves along the Levantine coast, entering into confederation with Israel. These are also known as the Syro-Hittite states. They were the successors of the Hittite Empire, consisting primarily of the Southern Luwian confederates.
Thus, as a consequence, one of King David’s greatest warriors was Uriah the Hittite, an Aryan whose great grandparents likely worshipped Thor and Odin.
In fact, if your heart desire to stretch this argument as far as it can go, there is a rather convoluted way you might argue Odin is a corruption of YHWH: To the untrained ear, Uriah sounds like a Hebrew name meaning “Yahweh is my Light”, and this is true. But what you may not be aware is that there were a number of local variations to Enki, the father of Tarhunz. These include Ia, Ea, and Ae. Incidentally, these were also alternative names for Yah. You tell me, dear reader. What are the chances two people living along the Levantine coast had the same variations in pronunciation for their god? Most well documented, the pronunciation of Enki as Ae and Ia show up in the familiar Gilgamesh tale. Educated readers will recall Iesus and Aia were Greek approximations Jesus and YHWH respectively, as well as used for Enki when the Greeks translated Gilgamesh. You can also find Gilgamesh as a character in a number of Dead Sea Scroll texts, as well as rabbinical traditions associating Gilgamesh with the biblical Nimrod - names, you may have guessed, were rather flexible to these people - often people had multiple names per the city states they ruled.
This argument by itself is, again, rather convoluted. But if it helps you ponder God’s work across the border of Israel, there is another thread of speculation for you to chase.
Now, while many 19th century atheists drooled at the claim that the Bible was merely a plagiarization, or corruption, of a supposedly older Babylonian Text, it appears the number of exceptions and contradictions they ignored to get to that claim totally collapse it. Rather, it appears no one in the classical era actually thought these religions were different, or that these stories were plagiarizations of each other. They appear to have viewed them as a cultural continuity between local variations and accents - Oh, and fun fact, Dr David R Montgomery, professor at U Washington, mentions in his book The Rocks Don’t Lie that the boat-builder Uta-na’ishtim in Gilgamesh, can be abbreviated to Noach in local dialects - though he is a geologist, not a linguist, and is merely repeating local lore he found. But, in a broad sense, we can disprove the 19th century claims of plagiarization in favor for a regional consensus, whereupon Enki, Ae, Ie, Ia, and Yah, are all abbreviations of the same character, with Odin/Wotan and Thor being corruptions of these Luwian figures, through trade.
So, Uriah’s name might be said to be “Odin’s Enlightenment”. But, if this is a bit of a stretch (and it is!), you can rest well knowing that, at the very least, Uriah’s ancestors worshipped Thor before Yah. So, the conversion of the Norse is not some foreign invasion. It is merely an extension of the experience of these southern Indo-European converts, downriver.
Still, I wonder if Neopagans know that some of King David’s greatest warriors were Aryans of an Odinic origin…
While some of my words here may be hard to stomach, or a revelation, I’m open to hear responses to it in the comments. But I consider the blood topic here firmly dispatched. To declare that Israel only consists of Jewish blood is a grave error that ignores the extent that Israel entered into confederation with its Indo-European and African neighbors. If the Luwian traders settled to some degree among the Norse and did not make the Norse Jewish, then likewise the Gentile converts to Christianity did not inherit a Judaic nature from Israel - a confederation, once again, in which Jews were only one tribe of many.
On Torah
The second place winner of my aforementioned twitter poll asking what makes something Jewish was if they were Torah obedient. Now, this ought to really be laughed at as being second place, given that historic Jewish organizations are nefarious practitioners of usury - strictly forbidden in Torah. How, exactly, shall we define Torah obedient? God himself says Israel was complete and utter trash at being obedient, after all. Yet, let us say - for sake of argument - that being Torah obedient means to at least attempt to obey it, even if you do fail. Many Pagans and Atheists will then declare Christianity to be the continuation of Torah. Some will use Christ’s own words that he did not overthrow the law, but fulfilled it, to mean Christians ought still follow it. Yet others will say the New Testament is just Torah part two. The arguments are many, but they are all based on a grave miscalculation: That the entire Old Testament is Torah. This is not, necessarily, the case.
Torah, it may surprise you, does not have a firm definition. The Oral Torah primarily concerns itself with the Mosaic teachings and, ignoring most of the pre-Mosaic writings. In some instance, the Torah includes the rabbinical commentaries. In other instances, it means the first five books of the Old Testament, commonly called the Pentateuch. In yet other instances, it can mean the whole of the Old Testament. If we say Torah, for argument’s sake, means law or teaching, we also meet the problem of which - this being itself a topic of debate as well. I’m sure you’ve heard the stereotype that Rabbi will debate if the sky is blue - this reflects in this problem. So before we define Jewishness as being Torah obedient, we must first make an attempt to define Torah.
As we are primarily interested in what is specifically Jewish, I will be simple here. Torah is the Mosaic Law. The definitive norms, rituals, and standards of care related to living a distinctly Jewish life. There, let’s roll with that! If you disagree, tell me why in the comments - but I will probably call you an idiot.
So, is Christianity Jewish in this context? Do Christians submit to the Mosaic law? Do we avoid the flesh of pigs? Do we avoid shellfish? Do we seek to avoid mixed fabrics? Are we a people who regularly do anything at all that the Jews do? Have we ever?
As you should know, the New Testament declares that the Gentile Christian is not required to follow the Law of Moses. Some illiterate Pagans and Atheists will thus use this to say Christianity is antithetical to tradition and submission - that progress inc was inevitable from this break. I will say, simmer down. I have a secret to show you about this, from the Old Testament. But for now, the Pagans and Christians can agree that Christianity has failed to maintain Torah. So, why do you call Christianity a Jewish religion, if it fails to obey the Jewish Law? I am not required to answer your obviously self-contradictory claims, if you ejaculate them. These exceptions and contradictions you pile up are for you alone to resolve. I need not suffer them at all. Suffice is it to say, by your own words, Christians do not follow Torah. They are thus, not Jewish. So what are they?
As to regards to the Law not being overturned, but accomplished in Christ, this is simple - albeit, very forgotten by the vast majority of Americans. Christ was king of the Jews, and the perfect Jew. As King, he wrote a will for his heirs - and he declared the gentiles co-heirs. Thus with Christ’s death, the gentile inherits all the promises of God to Israel without need to submit to the Mosaic Covenant. In this way, the Mosaic Covenant is not overturned - the gentile simply is not submitted unto it. So what Covenant is he submitted to? Well, the New Covenant, of course, that Christ declared in his gospel. But there’s more to this…
Against Torah.
Now, if we say Torah, with regards to creating a distinct Jewishness in someone, is the Law of Moses, we naturally have to speak about all the laws from before Moses. It may surprise you, dear reader, that God did not only give the Jews a law and covenant. Noah, as father of those who survived the flood, was both king and prophet. As such, his commands and teachings were a covenant and law unto themselves, distinct from Moses and God’s covenant with Israel. We know they are distinct, because the Rabbi say they are. If the Jew be wrong about his own religion, though, then you need not continue reading. You surely know more than anyone!
The Rabbi say that Noah made Seven Laws for all humanity. A man need not be Jewish to enter heaven, only obedient to Noah’s covenant. Moses’ covenant is for the Jews. Noah’s covenant is for mankind. Those laws are as follows:
Do not worship idols.
Do not curse God.
Do not commit murder.
Do not commit adultery or sexual immorality.
Do not steal.
Do not eat flesh torn from a living animal.
Establish courts of justice to enforce these laws.
Yes, dear reader, it is possible - even in Judaism - to be saved and not be circumcised. A pity how many Americans have forgotten that.
Interestingly enough, a near-perfect copy of these laws shows up in Acts 15:23-29…
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols,
from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals
and from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
These summaries more or less overlap with Noah’s covenant, even if they are a bit different, because as the original now-extinct Jewish Christians writers of this letter point out, the Gentiles are not required to follow the Law of Moses. They are not expected to be Jewish, nor ought they be called Jewish. As the Medieval rabbi Joseph Albo wrote in Sefer HaIkkarim:
For this reason you will find that the Noachian and the Mosaic laws, though differing in matters of detail, as we shall see, agree in the general matters which come from the giver. They both existed at the same time. While the Mosaic law existed in Israel, all the other nations had the Noachian law, and the difference was due to geographical diversity, Palestine being different from the other lands, and to national diversity, due to difference in ancestry
So I ask our dear Pagan readers, are they Jewish if they think murder is wrong, or unfaithfulness is a grave sin? Are they Jewish if they abstain from animal abuse? If not, then neither are Christians. Far from being lawless breakers of tradition, the Gentile is obedient to Noah’s Covenant - a far older, and in my opinion far superior covenant. One which the Gentile Christians submit to, in addition to inheriting the Mosaic promises through Christ’s will. You see, hopefully, how much better off the Gentile Christian is to anyone else…
But, we shall not stop there on the Noahic Covenant. Noah’s Covenant also contained within it three blessings, for each son of Noah, which he spoke thus in Genesis 9 - I will reconstruct it as a single paragraph:
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.
Does this frighten you, dear reader? Are you worried some people are born kings and others born slaves, and that mankind is not equal in status, but only equal in the offer of salvation? Be afraid, then! For these words of Noah are meant to strike fear and humbling into you. For within these words of the Noahic Covenant, details are given that history testifies to.
Firstly, we see that Shem shall be a priest. That is, Israel’s role - the role of being a Jew - is to be a priest. A role, mind you, they forfeited when they abandoned Christ. Likewise, Canaan - Son of Ham - is severely cursed to servitude. But we ought read this correctly: Cursed to servitude so long he disrespects his fathers. The freedom of Canaan comes in respecting his fathers. Some have said, this applies to Ham. I lean more-so that Ham received neither curse nor blessing. Decide as you wish. But, behold Japeth. He is promised dominion, so long he comes into the tents of Shem. Some context here, dear reader. To live in another’s tent is an idiom which means to submit to his God. That is, so long as the Sons of Japeth go to church, they shall rule over their brothers. If they cease to, they shall lose dominion.
I ask you, dear reader, if these blessings and curses are testified by history. Did the Sons of Japeth come to rule over their brothers when they submitted to Christ, the only true heir of Shem? I’d say imperialism and colonialism proves they did. Do the Sons of Ham tend to end up being slaves when they disrespect their fathers? I’d say FBI crime statistics point to the fact that they do. And likewise, has Israel lost its role as priest and become a ravaging enemy? Well, as I do not believe Christianity is Jewish, let the reader make his own conclusions.
The Neopagan ought hear these words and tremble. Meditate on them good and long. God made his own, distinct, independent covenants with the Sons of Japeth. Not a Jewish covenant, an Aryan covenant. And until you start going to church, you will never rule the world again.
Thus, I wish to conclude this matter of Torah. Christians are not bound by it at all, nor are they hypocrites to do so. They are obedient to Noah’s Covenant, the older one before Moses. The one which predates Israel entirely, and which - if it is an encouragement to you - doesn’t even come from the Jews. But as to the promises to Israel, any ancestor of Noah inherits all the promises to Israel, through adoption in Christ.
On Midrash and other matters
There is not much more to write about the other options in that Twitter Poll. I’m sure it’s common-sense Christians do not read the Midrash, nor do they speak Hebrew to any particularly popular amount. But, there are some minor issues to give mention to here. For instance, that the Jews themselves relied on Greek manuscripts for their religion - some possibly Christian in origin. There is also worth mention that the Rabbis themselves, accidentally, confess to Christ’s deity. Oh yes, dear reader, this is one of my favorite little anecdotes. Hidden away in Yona 39, the rabbis say thus:
The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually.
I will skip the various rabbinical miracles at the temple and be brief. 40 years before the destruction of the Temple was when Christ was crucified. Thus the Jews confess the Holy Spirit left the temple when Christ was doing his 3 year ministry that ended with his death and resurrection. Whether this occurred when he was baptized, or crucified, I care not. Sufficient is the statement that it aligns with Christ’s ministry. A sure sign the Christian Church was a new beginning, distinct from Judaism, and not merely its continuation - which God outright abandoned by departing from the Temple and going unto the hearts of the Gentiles.
In another tale, Emperor Julian the Apostate wanted to disprove Christianity by rebuilding the Temple of Solomon and prove Christ’s words a lie. Both Pagan and Christian sources declare a fireball from heaven consumed the temple mount and killed or injured all. The Emperor abandoned his plans.
Of tales like these, I have many. Sufficient is it to point to a clear cutting off of Israel, and a grafting in of the Gentile Christians.
On the language itself, it’s worth noting that the Jews didn’t even speak Hebrew for most of the Middle Ages. Their manuscripts were Greek up until the creation of the Masoretic texts in the 11th century. Hebrew more or less went extinct in the Middle Ages. Many of my readers may not be aware, but the Hebrew spoken in Israel today is an artificial reconstruction from the past three centuries. As Zionism began to grow in that time, a desire began festering to rebuild the identity. Thus, Modern Hebrew was born. There actually isn’t much of a continuity to this, and the pronunciation differences between remnant Jews in Iran and Baghdad to that of European Jews with their invented Modern Hebrew is an amusing flashpoint between Zionists and Palestinian natives.
I could go fetch sources about this, but we’re at 5000 words give or take, and I trust you can investigate this on your own time. Here’s the wikipedia page.
Suffice to say, Modern Judaism is an artificial invention by Zionists attempting to post-rationalize and ad-hoc an identity that had been long-dead outside of a few Synagogues in Palestine, Alexandria, Baghdad, and parts of Iran. It came out of a long Medieval record of contradictory and heretical beliefs. For instance, did you know Zionism itself was the product of a failed Messiah attempting to reform Medieval Judaism? Here’s the wikipedia article for that too! Read it on your own time. Many of these stories are deserving of a more thorough and focused substack in their own right. This substack is focused on disproving the term Judaeo-Christian. In many ways, far from Christianity being a Jewish religion, Modern Judaism is revealed to be a Medieval invention - a resurrection of a dead faith by Gnostics trying to get serious about who they were. They never did figure out how to deal with the sacrificial system now that the temple has been gone for nearly two thousand years, but if you are a Christian, you already knew that the natural conclusion to Rabbinical Judaism is its own obliteration.
But, we need not limit ourselves the Temple’s destruction, either! Here I want to suggest something. We Christians know from the Book of Hebrews that there were other priesthoods besides the Jewish one. We know of Melchizedek, for instance, who had his own priesthood. We know of the Magi, priests of Zoroaster, of whom at least some were converted to faith in the Messiah through Daniel. (I will mention here, I actually think Daniel and Zoroaster are the same person, but that is for another substack).
Paul says “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also” in Hebrews. If we can say the priests of Melchizedek are of a different sort than the Priests of Judaism, and also the Yahwehists of Zoroaster, we may wish to say these constitute alternative non-Jewish lineages. I hazard to say a different religion - rather, a religion with different covenants for various people. (Note here, this means there is likely some long-lost priesthood of Japeth as well, as well as one amongst the Hamites and Canaanites).
Thus, if the Prophets predate the Temple priests - and continued after - we must ask if they constitute something independent from Judaism entirely. Two lineages - that of the rural prophets, and that of the urban priests. When you have time, go through the many condemnations that the rural prophets laid before the temple priests. Tell me if they are actually Jewish. If you can find out how, post it in the comments!
I wish to suggest that Christianity is more-so a continuation of the Prophet’s lineage, not the priestly one at the temple. It can be said, the desert prophet has always been in conflict with the urban priest. So much so is this divide, that Paul himself declared the Pharisees the Synagogue of Satan - let the reader understand who that is today.
Other Thought
For me, and this is my personal speculation, I think the greatest evidence that Christianity is not Jewish comes in the form of what Judaism even was in the days of Christ. Namely, it was not a singular religion. What became the Judaism we know of today is primarily derived from the Pharisees. But they were only the Jewish religion in Jerusalem. Jesus was not from Jerusalem. Moreover, there were a number of other denominations around the region indirectly related to the Jewish Pharisees. There were the Sadducees, who wished to see Judaism reformed into a Hellenistic religion. There were the Zealots, who wished to see Judaism become a militant force once again. There were the Essenes, who entirely rejected the Temple and the priest and the entire sacrificial system - by far, the least Jewish of them all. There were also the Samaritans, who descend from the other 11 tribes of Israel, and various Indo-European and Canaanite peoples neighboring them. These people had their own Holy Mountain they went to, and were not called Jews at all - though they worshipped YHWH and obeyed - in varying degrees - either the Laws of Moses or the Laws of Noah. There were yet still, the Magi who came to visit Christ from the East. These Zoroastrians came to believe YHWH through prophet Daniel, and made their own pact with God through Daniel’s promises. We can see echoes elsewise, such as the Greek Titans having similar names to the Sons of Noah, and the mention by Plato and Socrates that the gods were mostly an invention of city-states trying to create stability - that there was a secret high God that the City States were trying to erase:
Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true… Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him... Then we must not listen to Homer or to any other poet who is guilty of the folly of saying that two casks lie at the threshold of Zeus, full of lots, one of good, the other of evil lots... Shall I ask you whether God is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in one shape, and now in another --sometimes himself changing and passing into many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of such transformations; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in his own proper image?... Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being, as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every god remains absolutely and for ever in his own form.
-Plato’s Republic (Book 3?)
There are more still beyond that. Suffice to say, YHWH was not only the God of the Jews. He was well known to others, too. To declare that any interest in this God - the High God above all - to all be Jewish fables, is rather silly me thinks. But, if at the end of this text the Pagan is left with nothing but a cry that all he hates is Jewish, then I shall say all I hate is Pagan, and part ways with dealing with such an immature complainer.
A Note on the Essenes
On the Essenes, I make one final note: They appear to be the true origins of Christianity, not the Jews. For the Essenes confessed in Enoch that God is three persons, though one God:
There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days.
He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.
Do note, Enoch was written sometime between 300BC - 100BC. It predates Christianity by centuries, and the doctrine of the Trinity by still more centuries. With the Trinity formally made doctrine at Nicaea in the 4th century, this makes the Enochian Trinity upwards of 600 years older than the Christian doctrine - of course, as Christians, we would confess all the Old Testament is Trinitarian too. But let the Pagan struggle with Enoch.
This Trinitarian deity of the Essenes is rather distinct from the Monotheism of the Jews. There are other parts of Enoch which confesses all three members of the Trinity are from before creation and are eternal. Furthermore, the New Testament writers sometimes quote from the Essene texts to justify their split with the Jews. If it be a split, then indeed it no longer be Jewish, my dear Pagan and Atheist readers.
While weak and incredulous men may make conspiracies that such books were removed or rejected by the Christian church, this is simply nonsense. It was and remains a canonical book in the Ethiopian Church. So at least some Christians in far off Ethiopia believed it to be Christian. Suffice I can tell, it was not even known to still exist in the West. Yet still, if the Pagan or Atheist wishes to declare Christianity is still Jewish because it was built off the beliefs of a rejected Israelite cult, then I leave them to make sense of that contradiction.
On the Errors of Friedrich Nietzsche
With the summation of this tract, let us now return to the claims of Nietzsche. It is worth noting that Antichrist, the text in which he subverted the term “Judaeo-Christian” to mean as we understand it today, was itself something of a response to another book by the same title, L'Antechrist, by Ernest Renan - written some 20 years prior. Nietzsche does indeed mention this man directly in his own text, so we must understand that Nietzsche was more-so criticizing the liberalization of Christianity occurring in France and Prussia at the time, than with historic Christianity. But whether he conflates the two by ignorance or malice, I care not. He is wrong in either approach. We can be very simple here, as always, and point to the glowing bright fallacy at the core of Nietzsche’s works: That the slave can never be honest. This is a Motte & Bailey worth investigating more another time, but suffice to say: Nietzsche works with the Motte that slaves are inherently dishonest, while masters are inherently honest, to then jump to the Bailey that Christianity is a Jewish religion because they are both slave morality. This is easy to dismiss: Paul confesses he is a slave, and thus he is honest.
The wise amongst you will recall this paradox exists within the Gospels themselves. When Paul calls Epimenides correct that all Cretens are liars, he is using a paradox. Obviously if all Cretens are liars, Epimenides is not to be trusted when he calls his people liars - for he, a Creten, must be lying too. Nietzsche has a similar paradox here, when he says all slaves are dishonest, but Paul must be telling the truth when he says he is a slave - thus are Christians no longer slaves if slaves only lie?
This is all very convoluted, but it’s wise for Nietzsche to place his lie hidden away in a paradox like that. A pity few Pagans and Atheists ever notice.
Rather than dismissing Nietzsche as a babbling idiot, let us reflect on some of his claims in light of this rather long text I’ve put together - just to be sure the man is wrong.
Where Nietzsche says:
Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism.
We Christians can point to Noah’s Covenant as the proof we predate Judaism. We do not suffer this tendency in Modern Judaism to hand-wave obviously failed messiahs and prophets that the Zionists have collected these 2,00 years of waiting. We got our Messiah 2,000 years ago, and he gave us as an inheritance, the promises of Israel - which we inherited with Christ’s death, to enjoy with him with His resurrection. Christ, the perfect Jew, accomplished the Old Testament - and in so doing, granted us all the blessings of Israel without need to submit to Moses’ Torah and its demands. Nietzche had it backwards. Christianity is not the final consequence of Judaism, Judaism is the natural consequence of rejecting Christ’s inheritance.
Where Nietzsche says:
In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a noble morality and a ressentiment[slave] morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail.
We Christians can point to Noah’s promises to the sons of Japeth, that some men are born to rule, and other men are born to be ruled. The equality of souls - that all be offered the gift of salvation - is an entirely independent matter than the order of creation that Noah outlined. We reject Nietzsche’s equivocation of the two. Furthermore, we deny that a slave morality is resentful, as evident by the aforementioned Epimenides paradox. If slaves are always liar, then Paul lied when he said he was a slave, and thus Pauline Christianity is that of the noble, not the slave. If Slaves are not always liars, and Paul spoke honestly when he called himself a slave of Christ, then Nietzsche be proven a liar himself.
Where Nietzsche says:
To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,—that is to say, to the priestly class—décadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and in confusing the values of “good” and “bad,” “true” and “false” in a manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it.
We Christians can point to God’s condemnations of Israel’s decadent priests through the prophets. There has always been two lineages in the Old Testament: The faithful prophet, and the degenerate priest. John the Baptiste - the son of a chief priest - rejected the Temple and lived life similar to the Essenes. Jesus, having been baptized into the communion of the Baptiste, embraced this message and rejected the degenerate priesthood of the Temple too. We have proof in the very words of the Rabbi that God’s presence left the degenerate temple, as mentioned prior. Christianity is not part of this confusion of good and bad, true and false. Nietzsche is projecting Judaism’s failures onto Christianity’s successes. As to Paul the Pharisee, he too rejected the priesthood and embraced the Noahic covenant - becoming the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Where Nietzsche says:
The gospels are invaluable as evidence of the corruption that was already persistent within the primitive community. That which Paul, with the cynical logic of a rabbi, later developed to a conclusion was at bottom merely a process of decay that had begun with the death of the Saviour.
We Christians can point to Paul’s work in strengthening the Noahic Covenant for the Gentiles, rather than forcing them into the Synagogue of Satan, with all its bodily mutilations and resentments. We remind dear Nietzsche he is a liar himself, when he said Paul was a liar, as Paul called himself a slave. If he be a liar, then he is not a slave. If he be truthful, Nietzsche be the liar. It is not our concern to deal with these paradoxes Nietzsche chose to hide his lies in - we merely take away the veil to show them what they are: lies of a man full of his own arrogance, and clueless about the Christian religion - though we confess he is a product of the confusions of European secularization at the time.
Where Nietzsche says:
The whole disaster was only made possible by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the Jewish: once a chasm began to yawn between Jews and Judaeo-Christians, the latter had no choice but to employ the self-preservative measures that the Jewish instinct had devised, even against the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews had employed them only against non-Jews. The Christian is simply a Jew of the “reformed” confession.—
We Christians can show that the conclusion of Judaism - with all the words of their Rabbi and prophets - is its own obliteration. The loss of the temple confesses its obliteration. The remarks in Yoma and elsewhere that the Spirit of God left the Temple, and the miracles of forgiveness ceased, all confess to this abolition. Judaism died with Christ - the perfect Jew. The Mosaic law is not overthrown, it is accomplished by Christ - who in his will, gave us as an inheritance, all the promises God had for the Jew - without our need to submit to its demands of mutilation and slaughter. Far from being a reformed confession of Judaism, we are the continuation of the Noahic covenant, having been also given an inheritance from the Mosaic - Christ being our bridge through which this work is done.
There is no need for self-preservation by means of attacking kin - we have no kinship with Judaism, and our Lord - though he be the King of the Jews - shall also be the judge of Israel. Judaism is concluded in Christ, and we the inheritors of its promises may live life as co-heirs of its dead king, to share as risen kin, by adoption. Under the Noahic laws, we remain faithful to what was demanded by our ancient father Noah, and we eagerly await the return of our King, Jesus Christ. Though our King be a Jew, he is not Jewish - that Medieval Frankenstein religion reconstructed from contradictions and exceptions. The poor pagans, in their rush to hate God, merely copy the lies of the Rabbi.
Where Nietzsche says:
The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.... For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The “equality of souls before God”—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order —this is Christian dynamite.... The “humanitarian” blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the “humanitarianism” of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anæmic and “holy” ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself....
We Christians need only celebrate that Noah offered all his sons equal opportunity to be saved, but unequal burdens to carry as per their different behaviors. There are still slaves, there are still nobles. Some slaves are honest, others liars. Some nobles honest, others liars. We need not bind ourselves to Nietzsche’s false dichotomization, which falls apart by its shoddy construction. Nietzsche hid his lies in paradoxes, but they are easy to see. Far from Christianity being a parasite, it is the freedom to live a simple life under simple teachings of a perfect Savior. Teachings Paul by no meant contradicted, subverted, nor corrupted. Such actions were done by Nietzsche by his many projections, lies, and paradoxes.
End
And so, dear reader, I hope you see why Christianity is not a Jewish religion, why Judaeo-Christian [insert word here] is a nonexistent lie, and why all the lies of the Pagans and Atheists are the ramblings of madmen, ignorant of their own history.
I wish you the greatest blessings in Christ to learn these things, and submit to them, if you judge them true. But by all means, leave comments if you wish to hear more on any particular issue. But most of all, I hope it was edifying.
Partial Bibliography.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Danck_vnd_Abdanck/OGBmAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml
Hein, Bastian (2015). Die SS: Geschichte und Verbrechen [The SS: History and Crimes] (in German). Munich: Beck. ISBN 3-406-67513-1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070928132039/http://clclutheran.org/library/jtheo_arch/jtdec1999.pdf
https://runestone.org/joseph-rozanek-iv-ordained-gothi/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Luwian_Identities/a_B8VOPZlYIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Luwian+indo-european&printsec=frontcover
https://www.ancientpages.com/2017/08/11/3000-year-old-female-statue-unearthed-in-turkey/
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/327799
https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/0530144305_Kotze_FINAL.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/representations-of-oxhide-ingots-in-scandinavian-rock-art-the-sketchbook-of-a-bronze-age-traveller/A09F2EEC28FAAEB166CABC172D12FB6D
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/connected-histories-the-dynamics-of-bronze-age-interaction-and-trade-15001100-bc/46BCCABC4C8D05B5D5846D891D51F92D
https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/09/11/ore-trade-network-from-cyprus-to-scandinavia-and-the-reverse-during-the-bronze-age/
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/128506/7-mitzwot-and-gentiles-in-hell-for-the-sins-of-israel
https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.39b.5?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674993310
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28587
https://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrewtoc.htm
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/shabbetai-zevi
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D3
http://www.qbible.com/enoch/46.html
http://www.qbible.com/enoch/48.html
https://genius.com/Friedrich-nietzsche-the-antichrist-full-text-annotated
I wrote an article on this topic today, and was then recommended this by my friend Blood and Rain This is a fantastic piece.
"Where there be a hyphen, there be an agenda."
I want this in gold letters on an onyx slab.