The Myth of Judeo-Christianity Exposed
Before the Zionist movement, Christians understood the jooz to be Christ-killers and mockers of Christianity. Modern Judeo-Christianity is a complete fabrication by the Zionists and crypto-jooz.
Pastors Steve and Eli explained the deceptive word “Judeo-Christianity”:
The Document we are reading from. You can follow along and appreciate the author’s argument:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)
The consensus amongst Reformed commentators, as well as the church fathers, regarding Paul’s rebuke of the Galatians is that the Apostle was warding an ethnos young in the faith away from the the teachings of Judaizers: principally, Jewish converts corrupting the doctrine of Gentile churches by Talmudic interpretive lenses, and thereby subtly introducing ‘other gospels.’ Thus, Paul’s stern admonishment of the Galatians is the same which he imparted to Titus for dealing with the Judaizers and the “Jewish fables” with which they subverted the Cretian church:
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (Titus 1:10-14)
This same Judaizer issue would plague Christendom throughout history in the phenomenon involving marranos, conversos, anusim, cristianos nuevos (“New Christians”), or crypto-Jews. Most sources – including the mainstream Jewish ones – acknowledge that these converted Jews never truly embraced Christianity, but tended to maintain their practice of Judaism in secret. The popular consensus amongst Jewish thinkers on this is seen in Moshe Maimon’s 1892 painting, “Marranos: Secret Seder.” While in many cases occupying positions of power with respect to church, state, and commerce, the crypto-Jews have yet maintained distinct, insular, and clandestine communities all their own even up to the present – a fact actually celebrated in the Jewish community. But if the Jews proved persistently unassimilable to the Christian faith even after generations of professing it, Christians were conversely persistent in giving them the benefit of the doubt, speaking of them out of charity as “New Christians.” The modern corollary of which might be something like “baby Christians” or “carnal Christians.” Yet always upon conversion, the cryptos tended to seize levers of power in the churches and, from there, reinterpret the faith through Judaized lenses. But even the term “New Christians” became a double entendre as their interpretation produced a “new Christianity.” While some maliciously lied in their professions of the Christian creed, keeping with the Talmud by holding Christ in contempt, others believed in a halfway sort of Christianity – that Christianity was only rightly understood through a Judaic perspective. Still others seemed to hold Christianity and Judaism as coequals in dualistic tension. But even in the breadth of these perspectives, none of these said positions are benign. Even the least aggressive version of ‘converso Christianity’ is at odds with orthodoxy, and, therefore, heretical. Thus the “New Christians” found themselves ever at odds with the “Old Christians,” i.e., the Gentiles who comprised the mega-majority of Christian orthodoxy. This unassimilability (false profession of faith) counterpoised with Jews’ native ambition is evident even in Christendom’s attempts to ferret out crypto-Jews – the Spanish Inquisition – wherein the inquisitors themselves were found by King Philip II of Spain to have had so many marranos in their number that he termed them “a synagogue of Hebrews,” according to Jewish intellectual Marc Shapiro. Indeed, according to Dr. Robert Maryks of Boston College, the Jesuit order (Society of Jesus) was financed by Spanish and Dutch Jews as it was founded by “a deep and sincere spiritual Semite,” Ignatius of Loyola. Even the infamous Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada was a descendant of conversos, a likely suspect to at least sympathize with conversos. Cryptos guarding the Church against Cryptos – does this not smack of the fox guarding the henhouse?
It goes without saying that throughout the Enlightenment and Revolutionary eras, Jewish thinkers bore not only a tremendously disproportionate influence by their numbers, but the foremost adversarial role against the Christian worldview as well. This is so across the spectrum of intellectual and social endeavor, be it in philosophy, finance, politics, or sociology, especially from the eighteenth through twenty-first centuries.
But in the wake of the Second World War and its decimation of Christendom, we’ve seen the inner wall collapse as the churches are now permeated by the Galatianism known as “Judeo-Christianity.” This has become nothing less than the defining feature of lumpen evangelicalism. Though it would have seemed impossible less than thirty years ago, it has all but entirely subverted the Reformed churches as well now. The major demarcation in time being WWII, the conceptual fulcrum which transformed the Christian worldview into the ‘Judeo-Christian ethic’ was the purported Judeocide otherwise ubiquitously referred to as ‘the Holocaust’. I will return to that momentarily.
Though the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ itself appeared as early as the 1700s, at the time it only denoted Jewish converts to Christianity (crypto-Jews), whereas in the 1800s the ‘Judeo-Christian ethic’ was referenced by Jews and liberal Protestants (Unitarians, mostly) as forging a religious pluralism over against orthodox Christianity. But it remained a far-left and fringe concept until after the 1907 publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. Rev. Ted Pike outlines the ascent of C.I. Scofield from drifter, conman, and philanderer to the father of dispensational theology:
[Scofield] settled in at the Lotus Club, which he listed as his residence for the next twenty years. It was here that he presented his ideas for a new Christian Bible concordance, and was taken under the wing of Samuel Untermeyer, who later became chairman of the American Jewish Committee, president of the American League of Jewish Patriots, and chairman of the Non-sectarian Anti-Nazi League.Untermeyer introduced Scofield to numerous Zionist and socialist leaders, including Samuel Gompers, Fiorello LaGuardia, Abraham Straus, Bernard Baruchand Jacob Schiff. These were the people who financed Scofield’s research trips to Oxford and arranged the publication and distribution of his concordance.
It is impossible to overstate the influence of Cyrus Scofield on twentieth-century Christian beliefs. The Scofield Bible is the standard reference work in virtually all Christian ministries and divinity schools. It is singularly responsible for the Christian mistaken belief that the Hebrew Prophecies describe the kingdom of Jesus’ Second Coming, and not in fact the Zionist vision of a man-made New World Order.
And it is precisely because Christians persist in this belief that they remain blind to the reality of Zion. Scofield served as the agent by which the Zionists paralyzed Christianity, while they prepared America for our final conquest.
Though Scofield did not press the term himself, his new Judeocentric theological paradigm certainly provided the undergirding framework which would begin permeating the Protestant mainstream in the late 1930s. It was at the 1939-1940 New York World’s Fair’s “Temple of Religion” which posited the “Judeo-Christian tradition” as descriptive of the new American pluralism. At the time, however, Christianity persisted in a highly Reformed and postmillennial outlook, especially in America.
Then came the First World War, which, all parties agree, ended the hegemony of Reformed postmillennialism:
World War I, supposedly a war to make the world safe for democracy, and a war to end all wars, led instead to the bloodiest and most murderous of centuries. Each instance of interventionism since has left the world even worse off. The state is not an instrument of salvation.1
President Wilson, a Presbyterian, speaking in postmillennial overtones of “a war to end all wars,” led Americans into the first civilization-wide civil war which decimated and demoralized all the Christian nations. As Churchill said, “War, which used to be cruel and magnificent, has now become cruel and squalid.”2 The internecine war of Christendom violated every assumption of Just War Theory and Chivalry, featuring many theretofore unknown technological indignities such as trench warfare, landmines, and death by mustard gas; Christian against Christian, these travesties overwhelmed our societal conscience and left the West disillusioned with its own principles. The optimistic eschatology which previously defined Protestant Christianity fell precipitously. And the Reformed theology of which it was part receded with it.
The Second World War which followed – really, the second phase of the European and Christian civil war – only introduced a stronger mix of the same tincture by way of the Judeocide. For here was a mighty rhetorical supplement indeed, a capstone really, to the case against the Christian millennium and worldview. Thus runs the argument:
Who informed on their Jewish neighbors? Who charged into Jewish homes…knocked on false walls…dragged out terrified families? Who pulled the beards of old men…violated young Jewish women…demeaned poor bewildered souls in every conceivable way and herded them into cattle cars? Who stripped innocent crowds of their clothes and their dignity forced them naked into mass shower rooms and turned on the gas as pandemonium filled the rooms? Who ordered bodies to be stacked in huge pyres like cords of wood? Who fired the furnaces? Who were these predators of human life? For the most part they were professed Christians who celebrated Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. On Sunday they worshipped in cathedrals and churches. But during the week, they engaged in one of the most heinous crimes ever perpetrated against humanity. Christians must not forget the Holocaust—because Christians were there too. The Holocaust is an indictment of so-called Christian Europe. . . .
Unfortunately, religious bigotry is the worst bigotry of all. Until the Christian churches modify their theology that makes the Jew an object of disdain and until they recognize that the Jewish people have a glorious Divine destiny separate and distinct from the Christian Church, anti-Semitism will continue to plague this nation.
And modify their theology the churches did. Yockey speaks poignantly to the spiritual revolution which the Second World War affected upon the American soul:
The result of all this is a powerful spiritual influence on the American people. This people reads the books which aliens write or edit for it. It sees the plays and cinemas it is allowed to. It thinks the thoughts that are put into its head. It is thrown into wars against American interests, which it can only lose. The issue of war and peace, life and death, is decided for America by the Cultural alien. America has been given a semitic countenance. Americans who hold power hold it in deference to the alien. To oppose him dare no public men.3
If Scofield’s work found a synergistic interplay with the demoralization of Christendom in WWI to affect the Judaization of Evangelicalism, WWII found a like expression of economy within the Reformed churches through Norman Vincent Peale’s 1956 book The Power of Positive Thinking.4 Aside from his being a Reformed minister, he was also a 33rd degree Freemason, with membership in the Scottish Rite and the Shriners.5 He is believed to be the first to speak of the ‘Judeo-Christian Ethic’ and ‘Judeo-Christianity’ in the sense that it is intoned today – as the patent American view and somehow authoritatively expressive of historic Christianity. The completion of that transformation from a term denoting crypto-Jews to one denoting vanilla Christianity happens to have also coincided precisely with the Neoconservative takeover of the American Right. A remarkable confluence of religious and political revolutions denoting a common ideological basis, if not the self-same architects.
In the post-WWII era, this most unlikely term – ‘Judeo-Christian’, a true oxymoron – has become the virtue-signaling shibboleth invoked by those who claim Christ, but only a Christ who is subservient to the Jews and their interests – which is to say, the ersatz morality of political correctness, taking into its scope the entire spectrum of the Civil Rights movement and race-egalitarianism. Because the alternative – a Christianity not beholden to the Jews and which doesn’t profess race-equality – is said to be consonant with Nazism. Even if not anathematized officially by any orthodox church, National Socialism (really, not the Socialism, only the Nationalism) was anathematized by all the Western governments in the mid-twentieth century, and that statist excommunication was at length assumed by the churches. Of course, this would seem to stand Christian ecclesiology on its head. But as is well known, a signal feature of guilt, even when wrongly assigned, is its weakening of moral resolve; or otherwise stated, guilt undermines faith and yields inability to live out Christian principle.
All of which goes to say that the ‘Judeo-Christian’ concept, as it is known today, is a nigh-perfect inversion of its original content: once meaning a Jew compelled to bow to Christ, it now denotes a Christian compelled to bow to the Jews. As such, it presupposes an inversion of Christian ethics. And that, “for fear of the Jews.”
This brings us to the underlying matter of the Judeocide: if Paul warned the churches regarding the Judaizers to ‘give no heed to Jewish fables’ because the Judaized Christianity which their narratives produced led whole households astray and represented ‘other gospels’, then we have in the ‘Holocaust’ just such a narrative. The indoctrination of this fable has indeed resulted in a hybridization of the Christian faith.
Irrespective of what did or did not happen to the Jews during WWII, if we are in fact Christians “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), it is imperative for us to disavow use of the term “Holocaust” when speaking on the subject. Because this term, ‘holocaust,’ incontrovertibly means “a burnt offering of propitiation.” Yes, the Jews invoke the term as doctrine. It is their soteriology. You see, because they reject the Messiah, Christ Jesus, they see themselves as the ‘Holy Seed’ – a messianic race. Thus they comprehend the crucible of WWII as their Mt. Calvary wherein they atoned for their own sins as a people, securing their own salvation and what they believe to be their rightful rule over the earth. The ‘Holocaust’ is not a matter of history, but a doctrinal lens through which history is interpreted. It is, by definition, ‘another gospel’ such as Paul warned us against. To the Jewish mind, it sets a narrative of self-atonement in direct repudiation of Christ’s atonement. An anti-gospel.
Confronted with this reality, the reaction of the average ‘Judeo-Christian’ is generally determined by whether he is an Evangelical (Dispensationalist) or Reformed: the Evangelical proclaims the Jews to be a superior race in the eyes of God, and their political interests all primary to God’s Kingdom. Therefore, their narrative is, from that jaundiced perspective, inextricable from the gospel. They forthrightly denounce any who will not serve the Jews as outside the Christian faith. But this is overt heresy.
Meanwhile, the man who identifies himself as Reformed and ‘Judeo-Christian’ also reacts with a programmed stint of outrage, but will, perhaps after revisiting his Catechism, the Three Forms of Unity, and the pages of Scripture, deny the Jewish narrative and Zionist political interests as having any essential crossover with the Christian gospel. Albeit, while this is better than the Evangelical conclusion, even the Reformed fellow is strongly prone to fall back to the ostensible position of his Evangelical cousin when anyone rebukes Neoconservatism, Zionist foreign policy, the predation of Jews on Christian society, or the Jewish narrative of WWII. Then, something short-circuits. Suddenly, the Reformed fellow falls into lockstep with the Dispensationalist, united somehow in visceral convictions apart from, and all too often over, his stated theology – that neuro-habituated programming, ‘Judeo-Christianity.’
Really, what else could make sense of the fact that Christians of all denominations are adopting ‘Holocaust Remembrance Day‘ as a worldwide Christian holiday alongside Christmas and Easter? ‘Judeo-Christianity’ is ostensibly drafting a new liturgical calendarbased on cultural Marxism.
Underscoring the point further, even the Neo-Theonomists, the professed mantle-bearers of orthodox nomology, are not so offended by open blasphemies against Christ to demur from religious pluralism. Rather, they’ve actually come to cheer for religious pluralism and tolerance, but they seem of one mind on the dreaded subject of “Holocaust Denial”: according to them, denial of the Jewish doctrinal narrative of WWII amounts to collusion in the supposed murder of ‘The Sacred Six Million’ … which they entirely take for granted. As they see it, this offense is grievous enough to demand excommunication and even warrants state execution. Jews and other Satanists are oddly welcome in their utopia, but traditional Christians who reject the Jewish doctrine of ‘The Good War’ and the hybrid ethics of ‘Judeo-Christianity’ are granted no sanctuary in church or state. Not coincidentally, as in the Jewish-run Soviet Union, anti-Semitism (disagreeing with Jews) would seem to carry a death sentence in the Neo-Theonomic state.
Of course, this means that the present leadership in the churches regard blasphemy spoken against Jesus as far less an offense than a word spoken against the Jews. While they vigorously repudiate the concept of Christian anti-blasphemy laws, they utter nary a word against the extradition of people from American soil to stand trial in foreign courts for expressing doubts about the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ doctrine. Progressively more and more countries have passed laws criminalizing any deviation from the Israel-approved narrative. And our Galatianized churchmen seem perfectly content with this state of affairs. Where Paul condemned the Jews for their murder of Christ and their being “against all men” (1 Thess. 2:15), ‘Judeo-Christians’ today say all men must be for the Jews. The implications of which are that they hold Auschwitz a more hallowed ground than Calvary. It would then seem that the Jews occupy in the consciences of such men a superior position than Christ, God Almighty. All of which speaks conclusively to the heresy of such a position as it remorselessly flouts the first three of the Ten Commandments directly and sets Caiaphas over Christ.
Granted, on account of the visceral guilt-based nature of this programming, its theology is frequently asserted at an unconscious level, often even contrary to the professed doctrine of an individual caught in its spell. All the more reason, however, for following Paul’s admonition – “rebuke them sharply, that they might be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Any redress of the errors of ‘Judeo-Christian’ Holocaustianity needs be especially direct, lucid, and most importantly orthodox; else there is little likelihood of penetrating this delusion which Paul referred to as a pernicious “bewitchment” (Gal. 3:1). What better word can describe the psycho-sorcery of guilt-manipulation?
Moreover, the metaphysical heft of that guilt well transcends the individual. Operative on a societal scale, it is a defining “wind of doctrine” contiguous with the secular zeitgeist. Frankly, the fact that ‘Judeo-Christians’ find no disagreement with the Jewish/Humanist interpretation of that high, holy sacrifice, granting Christ’s enemies the ostensible rule of all nations is itself an uncanny proof of the ‘Judeo-Christian’ worldview being something apart from Christianity. This meta-ethical blindness is so severe in the post-WWII churches that they either do not perceive or do not care that the ‘Holocaust’ represents an historic paradigm shift against the Christian faith.
For no matter how we may wish to suppress its implications, if we grant the ‘Holocaust’ in principle, we have conceded to flipping the historical script, with the Messiah (in His people) recast as the ultimate villain of history, and the villains (His murderers, the Jews) recast as a separate and greater messiah. In popular perception it takes the blood guilt off the Jews, laying it upon Christendom and, thereby, Christ Himself. This inversion of perspective, with the full synergistic effort of Hollywood and Academia, accounts for the radical polarization away from Christian law and ethics in the church. It explains why claimants of Christ now generally regard all things wholesome, beautiful, high, and familiar as tokens of abject evil, while simultaneously imputing to all things tainted, ugly, low, and foreign some higher metaphysical virtue. It posits the only good Christian as one who serves the Jews.
But the Jews have long had a term for Bloodguilt denied – “Blood Libel.” Under their late hegemony, this term has supplanted all previous Christian terminology – ‘Bloodguilt,’ ‘Blood Curse,’ or ‘Deicide’ as descriptive of Matt. 27:25; Acts 5:28, 1 Thess. 2:15, etc. – for the matter in the common vernacular of the churches. This new term implicitly posits an organized Christian conspiracy international in scope, and spanning more than a millennium, with a coordinated effort by thousands of Christians of various ways of life, to frame the Jews in the brutal ritual murders of their own children. Without any analysis of the facts pertaining to these accusations one way or the other, ‘Judeo-Christians’ today grant the dubious Jewish perspective without question. Worse, they don’t even balk at the fact that Jews regard the Crucifixion of Christ to be the greatest and central Blood Libel. In fact, lumpen Evangelicals concede to the Jews even on that, by dissembling on the matter of who killed Christ: while the apostles emphasized the Jewish role in Christ’s execution, ‘Judeo-Christians’ object, saying rather that “all mankind” killed Jesus together, with an equal hand in the crime. But even this attempt at mitigating the Jewish role in the crucifixion does not placate the Jews. Rather, they either deny the Jews had any part in the murder of Christ, or they embrace it heartily, asserting that they executed Him for idolatry and blasphemy. The common denominator between these alternatives is that they deny any wrongdoing and insist that any insinuation to the contrary on the part of Christians is itself ‘Blood Libel’.
So the ‘Holocaust’ – their soteriological equivalent of Golgotha Hill – imputed in the popular mind the Bloodguilt previously recognized as theirs, back upon Christendom. Thus the Neoconservative favorite of ‘Judeo-Christians’, Ben Shapiro, rules in accord with the ADL that the New Testament doctrine of “Bloodguilt leads to Blood Libels.”
Once granted by world governments, this ‘Holocaust’ theology has in the churches unofficially, albeit conclusively, anathematized any continued acknowledgment of Bloodguilt against the Jews and, conversely, institutionalized Blood Libel against Christendom, reducing the religion of our pulpits from the command of repentance for all men and the forgiveness of sins to the enslavement of Christendom to an eternal social and metaphysical guilt, and the newly discovered higher law which demands veneration of the single most anti-Christian demographic on earth. So it is that the church has acquiesced to every foreign god and sect – because our churchmen believe Christendom to have no moral authority apart from ecumenical solidarity with the other. This is the zeitgeist. ‘Judeo-Christianity’ does not oppose it, but only begs its acceptance, to find, perchance, the favor of the Jews; and therein do they place their new hope of salvation.
There is no neutral ground. To whatever extent the Judeo narrative of history is accepted, so is their false gospel. No matter how ‘Judeo-Christians’ might wish to hedge their hybridized faith to somehow retain both the Christian faith and the Talmudic narrative, it cannot but subordinate Christianity to the Jews, and a Christ subordinate to His enemies is not the Christ of Scripture. Such a Christ is but a golem dispatched to rend from within what little life remains from the breast of Christendom.
But in all this is a great consolation too. For the blasphemy of Galatianism and the heresy of modern ‘Holocaust’ theology ensure an inevitable collapse of ‘Judeo-Christendom’. Because this spurious alloy of incompatible elements proves brittle no matter what implement is forged from it. The express values of ‘Judeo-Christianity’ cannot be lived out coherently. We bear witness of this recompense even now as their greatest commandment – defending Israel at all costs – results in unending sacrifice of their sons’ strength in far-flung lands on behalf of Christ’s most tenacious enemies. And all this, while the multi-ethnic religious pluralism presupposed in their amalgamated religion likewise demands the gates be flung wide at home to radicalized refugees from all the tribes on which they made war. They do not reproduce themselves physically, but diminish year by year. And the heirs they do produce generally do not perpetuate the Christian religion in any recognizable form. All their denominations falter, their congregations disintegrate, their seminaries hang by a thread, and every political and economic paradigm which they have professed founders.
But to heed the apostle’s command to ‘rebuke them sharply,’ we must reckon also with the fact that all of us today have been reared in the shadow of that Judaized Christendom, and none have been so cloistered as to wholly avoid its conceptual influences. Therefore, inasmuch as we hope to cast down the bewitching Galatian theology ravaging the churches, we must endeavor first to take every thought captive (2 Cor. 10:5) in our own hearts. For you cannot “revenge all disobedience [until] your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor. 10:6). As with the terms ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ ‘Islamophobia,’ etc., in order to purge its Judaized presuppositions from our own minds, we must purge the Judaic usages of the term ‘Holocaust’ from our own lexicons. It simply does not mean what they use it to signify. Only by reasserting genuine meanings against the fantasies of ‘Judeo-Christianity’ may we reclaim the language of Christendom and reprise Truth. If we fail to do so, proving ourselves ensnared, if to a lesser degree, in the same Talmudic dogmas, will we be exempt from the rebuke of heaven?
Editor’s Note: F&H takes no official position on the extent of Jewish genocide in WWII, and all authors speak for themselves on this issue. We believe that open debate should be allowed and explicitly disavow the religious doctrines of the Nazi Party, a subject we have covered before. The most important point of this column is the practical doctrinal significance of Jewish persecution in our society’s secular religion and the elevation of these events above Calvary as the center of history.