Supposedly Mark 15: 6-15 is the part where Pilate gives Jesus over to the jews after they agree to take credit for killing him: "And let his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands."

I just looked this up online and am confused. Below are two translations. The first has the damning quote, the King James version, however, does not.

Can someone clear this up for me? Why isn't the quote in the KJV?

vw


version with the quote

6. Barabbas bar Jezia was among the men who were to die; but he was rich and he had bought of priests the boon to be scapegoat for the people at the coming feast, and he was anxiously in waiting for his hour to come.
7. Now, Pilate thought to turn this superstition to account to save the Lord, and so he went again before the Jews and said,
8. You men of Israel, according to my custom I will release to you to-day a prisoner who shall bear you sins away.
9. This man you drive into the wilds or into foreign lands, and you have asked me to release Barabbas, who has been proven guilty of the murder of a score of men.
10. Now, hear me men, Let Jesus be released and let Barabbas pay his debt upon the cross; then you can send this Jesus to the wilds and hear no more of him.
11. At what the ruler said the people were enraged, and they began to plot to tear the Roman palace down and drive in exile Pilate, and his household and his guards.
12. When Pilate was assured that civil war would follow if he heeded not the wishes of the mob, he took a bowl of water and in the presence of the multitude he washed hid hands and said,
13. This man whom you accuse is son of the most holy Gods, and I proclaim my innocence.
14. If you would shed his blood, his blood is on your hands and not on mine.
15. And then the Jews exclaimed, And let his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands.



King James Version (without quote)

6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Supposedly Mark 15: 6-15 is the part where Pilate gives Jesus over to the jews after they agree to take credit for killing him: "And let his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands." I just looked this up online and am confused. Below are two translations. The first has the damning quote, the King James version, however, does not. Can someone clear this up for me? Why isn't the quote in the KJV?


That is a very good question. Can you tell us the name of the translation with the quote, and it's publication date, and who published it?

I looked in an older version of the King James, (not tainted by modern updating) and it wasn't in there either.

HOWEVER! Look up the following verse in your King James Version:

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult
was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,
I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all
the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. --Matthew27:24,25

Upon reflection, the following is clear:

A) the damning quote IS in the King James Version, at Matthew 27:25

B) the other version you quoted from is one of those that take great liberties with the text of the Bible, "paraphrasing" and "reinterpreting" it so it bears no resemblance to the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.

For Bible quotes, best to stick with the King James.

The bible has been edited to many times to keep track of all of the changes.
It's a progressive bible which changes to meet the needs of the yids and the goyim who are being herded by the yids.

For a more detailed explanation with a map showing where all the dead bodies are buried. Check out the links website in my profile. All your questions about the bible can be answered there.
Supposedly Mark 15: 6-15 is the part where Pilate gives Jesus over to the jews after they agree to take credit for killing him: "And let his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands."

I just looked this up online and am confused. Below are two translations. The first has the damning quote, the King James version, however, does not.

Can someone clear this up for me? Why isn't the quote in the KJV?

vw


version with the quote

6. Barabbas bar Jezia was among the men who were to die; but he was rich and he had bought of priests the boon to be scapegoat for the people at the coming feast, and he was anxiously in waiting for his hour to come.
7. Now, Pilate thought to turn this superstition to account to save the Lord, and so he went again before the Jews and said,
8. You men of Israel, according to my custom I will release to you to-day a prisoner who shall bear you sins away.
9. This man you drive into the wilds or into foreign lands, and you have asked me to release Barabbas, who has been proven guilty of the murder of a score of men.
10. Now, hear me men, Let Jesus be released and let Barabbas pay his debt upon the cross; then you can send this Jesus to the wilds and hear no more of him.
11. At what the ruler said the people were enraged, and they began to plot to tear the Roman palace down and drive in exile Pilate, and his household and his guards.
12. When Pilate was assured that civil war would follow if he heeded not the wishes of the mob, he took a bowl of water and in the presence of the multitude he washed hid hands and said,
13. This man whom you accuse is son of the most holy Gods, and I proclaim my innocence.
14. If you would shed his blood, his blood is on your hands and not on mine.
15. And then the Jews exclaimed, And let his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands.


King James Version (without quote)

6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Upon reflection, the following is clear:

A) the damning quote IS in the King James Version, at Matthew 27:25

B) the other version you quoted from is one of those that take great liberties with the text of the Bible, "paraphrasing" and "reinterpreting" it so it bears no resemblance to the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.

For Bible quotes, best to stick with the King James.

You are correct. Thanks!

"And let his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands."


LOL!! The first line to go from "The Passion". Must have struck a nerve with the chosen.

I have never understood why sticklickers make such a fuss about this. Even if some Jews in that crowd really said "his blood be on us and our children," what significance would that have? Does it automatically make all Jews of all generations responsible for killing Jesus? Hardly. So where's the propaganda value? On the contrary, it is extremely damaging to the White cause to bring up religious arguments for opposing Jews, since it makes WNs look nutty (religion being, after all, nutty).

Well put Fredrik. These desert dogmas all are self-referential, psychotic crap. I suppose it might motivate those still in the grip of christianity to refer them to the lines about jews a christ killers, but its best just to point out to them the alien nature of the whole package. SO MUCH of our effort is spent on biblical lunacy, which is just why the kikes promote it, surreptitiously if not overtly. I spent an hour on the phone rapping with the least stupid of my two sisters this week while she raved about "Armageddon" and the evil muslims who were out to take over Amerikwa, as is evident from their ownership of a few local gas stations in Texas.

Some WNs find it hard to fathom the insanity of these bible-thumpers. I recommend a tour of the bible belt states of the Jew S.A. to get some idea of how far gone these people are. A good rule to estimate the jew agenda in Amerikwa is this: whenever the jews REALLY want to shit all over the planet, they will hire a bible thumper from Texas to do it for them. I haven't been the least surprised by any of Dubya's antics, knowing full well where he had his tiny mind formed, and by whom.

Ultimately, we will never be able to use these bible thumpers. Some might get a fair notion of Aryan Consciousness, but until they scrub the jew poison from their own skulls, they will only be of tactical use at best.

Jews are the eternal Enemies of all mankind. Deicide, that is a kind of ultra-crime deserving ultra punishment. Believe me, if that wasnt so exceedingly powerful then the Jews wouldnt have whined their asses off about it for the past 2000 years.

You guys think religion is psychotic? Useless? Explain to me how the hell the Jews have maintained their ethnic solidarity without it. Go ahead.

No. Religion is a symbolic language for emotions and social conciousness. It is an artifact of man, and an exceedingly powerful one. Casting it aside is rejecting a powerful tool both for yourself individually and for us together.

Jews are the eternal Enemies of all mankind. Deicide, that is a kind of ultra-crime deserving ultra punishment. Believe me, if that wasnt so exceedingly powerful then the Jews wouldnt have whined their asses off about it for the past 2000 years.

People have grown up since then. They say now, correctly, that a few people in a crowd can't magically make every individual in an entire race guilty. The mere thought is preposterous.

You guys think religion is psychotic? Useless? Explain to me how the hell the Jews have maintained their ethnic solidarity without it. Go ahead.

Where do you see us write that it is useless? It has its uses, controlling those who can't stand the thought of a world without Super-Daddy making sure everything is all right. We are just saying that while religion has its uses, Christianity does not. The Christians on this forum are trying to save their religion by saying that it has only been destructive in modern times, but writings by people back in history, such as Nietzsche, clearly show that it has always been the same. Isn't this the religion that had priests follow the conquistadors everywhere in South America to baptize every heathen? That's your first step to self-destruction right there: it's a universalist religion that lets anyone in, and once they are in they're your "brother."

How the Jews maintain their ethnic solidarity? Could it have something to do with ethnicity, perhaps?

I am reminded of that study where babies were shown people of other races. White babes were the least frightened, while Jewish babies were the most frightened of people from other races. That's where the Jewish war on the rest of the world starts, not in the Talmud. Religion has merely served to express their race-awareness, like a wall throws back an echo. But both the sound and the race-awareness have their sources somewhere else.

It is a Marxist lie that it is institutions that shape people, mold them like clay. Institutions can strengthen what is already there, or they can temporarily fight against nature -- like televitz today. When an institution is serving nature, it has no problem staying. When it is fighting nature, it will eventually fail. Judaism is serving the Jewish nature, so it has a lot of staying power.

And finally, it is worth mentioning that the Jews in Hollywood according to several sources are not exactly the most orthodox Jews in the world. Yet they go on doing what they do, out of race-awareness, not religious awareness.

People have grown up since then. They say now, correctly, that a few people in a crowd can't magically make every individual in an entire race guilty. The mere thought is preposterous.

>>Ok, I'll grant you that Fred, but I'm not worrying about fairness where Jews are concerned.

Where do you see us write that it is useless?

>>I havent seen Fred H. say it's useless but plenty of people share that view.

It has its uses, controlling those who can't stand the thought of a world without Super-Daddy making sure everything is all right.

>> hmm. what do you make of non-theistic religions like Buddhism? Gotta get that book about Evola I was talking to you about, it will show you some very important aspects of religion that just dont occur to people.

We are just saying that while religion has its uses, Christianity does not. The Christians on this forum are trying to save their religion by saying that it has only been destructive in modern times.

>> Give them some credit; maybe they think religion will help save the thing that everybody cares about- the race.

... but writings by people back in history, such as Nietzsche, clearly show that it has always been the same.

>> though Nietzche was enthusiastic about the classic world, certainly he was very much a modern. Also, if youre referring to his discussion of Christianity and Jews in "Genealogy of Morals," I would take that as an example less of Nietzche being anti-jew than pro-Jew. I got the distinct impression Nietzche considered the way Jews had historically "transvalued" slave morality into a noble morality to be a feat of "will to power" that he admired.

.. Isn't this the religion that had priests follow the conquistadors everywhere in South America to baptize every heathen? That's your first step to self-destruction right there: it's a universalist religion that lets anyone in, and once they are in they're your "brother."

>> I'm laughing because that is indeed an obnoxious notion. I have never been able to appreciate evangelism of non-Whites. But let me think about that one for a while and get back to you with some sophistry! LOL

...How the Jews maintain their ethnic solidarity? Could it have something to do with ethnicity, perhaps?

>> Judaism is an invention of the Jew imagination that reflects their odd nature. Jew ethnicity and religion are almost inseparable even for atheist or secular Jews. There is much babbling about this topic by Jews including "The Vanishing Jew" by Alan Dershovitz if you have the stomach for that sort of thing.

...I am reminded of that study where babies were shown people of other races. White babes were the least frightened, while Jewish babies were the most frightened of people from other races. That's where the Jewish war on the rest of the world starts, not in the Talmud. Religion has merely served to express their race-awareness, like a wall throws back an echo. But both the sound and the race-awareness have their sources somewhere else.

>> except that their echo amplifies their distinctness. Take a look at Professor MacDonald's other books, "A people that shall dwell alone" and "separation and its discontents."

It is a Marxist lie that it is institutions that shape people, mold them like clay. Institutions can strengthen what is already there, or they can temporarily fight against nature -- like televitz today. When an institution is serving nature, it has no problem staying. When it is fighting nature, it will eventually fail. Judaism is serving the Jewish nature, so it has a lot of staying power.

>> Ah, you know institutions are hugely important. No doubt the primary factor is genetics, but social institutions are highly evolved memes that have an existence that is compelling for all that they touch. Also, I dont consider televitz an institution but just a technology or an instrumentality. Like guns or whatever. The programming is the ammunition and the programming is very much influenced by social institutions like corporations or governments.

...And finally, it is worth mentioning that the Jews in Hollywood according to several sources are not exactly the most orthodox Jews in the world. Yet they go on doing what they do, out of race-awareness, not religious awareness.

>> again, this is a big question. lets talk more. gotta go. always a pleasure, you're a very thoughtful and fair guy. also, sorry the quote format is messed up. I havent got the hang of it yet. bye

So many talk about being a jesus freak, but none know jesus at all. Tell me when you last fasted fro 40 days? Jesus says you anit going to heaven unless you do it. There are reason behind it too, but they are not jesus ideas, they are Hindu. What do you know of material items, and how do you plan on getting you soul ready for heaven? Tell me why jesus killed the fig tree, and said you shall never bare fruit again? What is the meaning of the name jesus and why would a jew name his son with a Roman name, after all, all the jews hated the evil Romans?

Just becasue you listen to the peacher man, dosen't make you a follower in jesus, just saying it does not do it either. Jesus real teaching would make him a Hindu, at least that is what I get out of the camel and the eye of a needle story, tell me what do you get out of it? but, his little magic tricks makes him a low level Holy man. There are others far greater then jesus could ever be.

Hell Karna's Shadow was far greater.

er, I'm having a hard time telling whether you're coming or going on that one magog. by the way, how is gog?

Jews call Jesus "Ben Pantera" in the Talmud. Meaning, son of a Roman Legionary, known as Panthers.

I think Jews hated Romans and they hated Jesus. I think Jesus represents for them Hellenized Jewry at that time, which was rejecting the Jew religion, and he also represents what Christian-Aryans believed after Pentecost, which is that God had rejected Jews and adopted a new people to be his favored children, which new chosen were Christians/Europeans. That was a standard interpretation of Pentecost and belief among our Christian ancestors and it has nothing to do with "identity" by the way.

People have grown up since then. They say now, correctly, that a few people in a crowd can't magically make every individual in an entire race guilty. The mere thought is preposterous.

How is that any different that WN's saying that every Jew is guilty for the actions of a relatively powerful few of Jews and need to be killed, deported, nuked, gassed, etc?

How is that any different that WN's saying that every Jew is guilty for the actions of a relatively powerful few of Jews and need to be killed, deported, nuked, gassed, etc?

Silly boy. We don't say all Jews are guilty because of acts committed by other Jews. I dare you to show proof that it would be so, but I know you can't. We say Jews are dangerous, and every generation behaves the same. Some good, many bad, many extraordinarily destructive. We need to stop those generations from infesting our living space, because we know it will be the same all over again every new year.

well if these certain few jews didn't commit their wrongs against our race, we would have no need to seperate them from us. Therefore, some Jews have actually committed crimes against Whites, while all jews have the capability. Some Jews called for Christs death, and all have the capability.

well if these certain few jews didn't commit their wrongs against our race, we would have no need to seperate them from us. Therefore, some Jews have actually committed crimes against Whites, while all jews have the capability. Some Jews called for Christs death, and all have the capability.

Um, no, not the same thing. We who base our hostility toward the Jews on actual events that have happened this century do it because we know the few individuals -- oh, say half the Jewish race -- who hurt us will be copied in every new generation. But if you are trying to say that would be the same reason embraced by those who talk about "Christ-killers" you are wrong. They are talking about Jews having collective guilt for killing Christ.

Wait, isn't that painstakingly obvious? Isn't that what the anti-Jewish sticklickers have been saying again and again? Yes, it is. So why do you need to have it repeated for you, J? I suspect you don't; I suspect you were just trying to muddy the waters. But what else to expect from sticklickers defending their hallucinations?

So we're supposed to base our hostility toward Jews only on their actions in the last century because chances are these same Jews will be replicated (to an extent) in a future generation? So why can't we add to our hostility with events that have occured in the past 2000 years? It's almost illogical to suggest that we WN's should be beholden to only the past 100 years of Jewish atrocities. Why are you only concerned with who is hurting "us"? The crimes the Jews have committed against our long deceased ancestors need to be recognized also since their genes have been passed on throughout time also and chances are that the characteristics that led to deicide remain in many Jews today.

Pass over! happens when the sun crosses over the equater, hence it passes over. Behold! We celerbrate Easter on the first Sunday after the Full Moon after every pass over! Now you know why jesus dies on a new day every year. the jews made a solar phallic god our savior and gave it a Roman name and called it jesus.

It is a evil jew invention to make Aryans weak and sick. Hell the idiots could not even get the day of his death down right. Some Sun of god huh?

There is nothing speacil about jesus or the jesus freaks religion. It is puny and sickly next to our true path of the Holy Vedas.

So we're supposed to base our hostility toward Jews only on their actions in the last century because chances are these same Jews will be replicated (to an extent) in a future generation? So why can't we add to our hostility with events that have occured in the past 2000 years?

We are hostile mainly because of what has happened in the last century, since those atrocities far outclass everything else. The Jews have been destructive for a long time, yes, but it is this last century that make people today wake up, not reading about the Jewish trade in alcohol in 19th century Russia.

But you are still missing the point when you ask "why can't we add to our hostility with events that have occured in the past 2000 years" You were advocating holding the Jews collectively responsible for the execution of Jesus. We non-sticklicking anti-Semites don't hold them collectively responsible for anything. We look at their past actions as an indicator of what they are capable of, and that's how we decide they're a sorry bunch; not through some collective guilt.

Why are you only concerned with who is hurting "us"?

I am sorry. In the future I will make sure to have a lawyer look through my posts before clicking the Submit button.