The Truth about "Christianity Unmasqued"
James Scott Trimm
Chapter 12 "The Judeo-Christian Faith"
by Dan "Israel" and distributed by Dan Chaput
Chapter 12 of the book Christianity Unmasqued is filled with the most vile of anti-Semitic propaganda.
The chapter begins by implying that Jews are the Synagogue of Satan:
Who are the Jews? What is their faith?
Are the Jews the chosen people of Scripture?
Who are those "that are called Jews, but are
of the 'Synagogue of Satan,'" as identified
in Revelation 2:9; 3:9?
What is the "Synagogue of Satan" mentioned in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Both passage identify this group as "those who say they are Jews but lie".
The book Christianity Unmasqued interprets these texts to refer to the Jews who do not accept Yeshua as the
Messiah. But an honest look at the Scriptures will show that it is not possible to identify the "Synagogue of Satan" in this way.
To begin with it is important to recognize that the same "Yochanan" ("John") wrote both Revelation and the Gospel of Yochanan. Not only is this the traditional understanding, but there are a number of common elements that point to the common authorship of these two books. Both books identify the Messiah as the "lamb" (Jn. 1:29; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12; 14:1) and as the incarnate "word" (Jn. 1:1-3, 14; Rev. 19:13) and both refer to the "living waters" (Jn. 4:10; 7:38; Rev. 22:1)*.
Now we must look at how Yochanan uses the word "Jew" in his own writings. Yochanan himself frequently invokes the term "Jews" to refer to Jewish people who rejected Yeshua as the Messiah. For example:
"therefore did the Jews persecute Yeshua" (Jn. 5:16)
"the Jews sought more to kill him" (Jn. 5:18)
"the Jews then murmured at him" (Jn. 6:41)
"the Jews sought to kill him" (Jn. 7:1)
etc. etc. etc.
CLEARLY Yochanan has absolutely no objection whatsoever to using the term "Jews" to refer either to Jews who accepted Messiah or those that rejected him. Therefore the statement in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 cannot be criticizing this usage of the word "Jews". Otherwise Yochanan would here be criticizing his own inspired writing in the Gospel of John in which he does just that himself frequently!
So what does Yochanan refer to here? I believe he refers to the newly hatched apostate teaching of "replacement theology".
However the book Christianity Unmasqued does not beat around the bush about its rhetorical questuion as to who the Synagogue of Satan is. Dan answers his own rhetorical question:
Many people today calling themselves Jews
are not at all descendants of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. Most are not even Israelites.
...most modern "Jews" are in fact, NOT Israelites.
If they are not truly Israelites then who are they? Dan has an answer. After saying that those called "Jews" today have replaced the "true Israelites" like the story of the prince and the pauper (p. 226) he goes on to say:
The prince and the pauper, the battle between the seed
of the flesh and the seed of the Spirit continues to this
In Genesis, right at the very beginning of the Book,
after Satan beguiled Eve, we find Yahweh speaking
to the serpent, stating "I will put enmity between thee
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Two different seeds are identified here; two different
seeds that would be at enmity with each other and
would never bond, the seed of the Adversary and the
seed of the Woman, or the seed of the flesh and the
seed of the Promise, (the seed of the Spirit).
Clearly Dan identifies "Jews" as the seed of Satan. Dan makes no bones about meaning this very literally:
...Cain, who is generally considered to be a son
of Adam is nowhere to be found in Adam's genealogy;
hence possibly the suggestion of a totally different
seedline and lineage existing on this planet? For reference
to this issue see 1Chronicles Ch 1; Gen Ch 4 and 5;
and Gen. 10. Israelites are not Canaanites and the
distinction must be made between these people.
When the land of promise was given to the Israelites,
it was already occupied by Canaanites. The mandate
was for the Israelites to occupy the land and spoil
Yahweh's enemy, the Canaanites.
"In this the children of Yahweh are manifest,
and the children of the adversary: whosoever
does not righteousness is not of Yahweh,
neither he that loveth not his brother (understanding
of kinship). For this is the message that ye heard
from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one..." 1John 3:10-12
Of that wicked one?... Another study worthy of your
Dan leaves very little unsaid to require further "investigation." Dan clearly is teaching that the "Jews" of today are the offspring of Satan himself rather than being offspring of Adam. As such he identifies them as the "Synagogue of Satan" who are called Jews when they are not. He further identifies the two seeds as the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13). In
this parable God sows good seed in the world and the Devil sows bad seed. Thje good seed are wheat and the bad seed are tares. Dan takes this idea to an extreme arguing not only at the "Jews" are the tares but that being Satan's literal seed they cannot be saved:
The wheat will bear its fruit while the tares will not
and can not.
This is the most obscene type of anti-Semitism. This type of reasoning can even be used to excuse the wholesale murder of Jews... after all they are not real people, they are literal children of the Devil himself!
Dan falls back on the traditional accusation that Jews are "Christ-Killers"
Would Yahshua be supportive of the very element
that desired to see him eliminated? Would the
Scriptures instruct us to give to, or support those
who want to destroy our Saviour and our intended
way of life?
...the intended purpose of Judaism was to kill
the Saviour, denying you access to the truth
Dan falls back on the traditional accusation that Jews control the world. According to Dan's book Jews:
...exert great control and influence in the media,
television programing and Hollywood, with all
its perversions based on the teachings of Talmud.
They also control an unscriptural economic system...
Chapter 12 of this book is his anti-semitic slam on the "Jewishness of Yashua" movement. The book indicates that this movement is a "manipulation and deception" and that todays Jews are the synagogue of Satan claiming to be Jews when we are not. the chapter is filled with the most vile of anti-semitic propaganda rehashed including a Talmud passage taken out of context so as to imply that Jews advocate sodomizing young children under the age of nine.
Below is the Talmud passage which Dan Chaput/"Israel" takes out of context in Chapter 12 of his book.
Talmud is a very complex document to study. It can take years just to learn how to read it. Here we have a discusion which revolves around two Torah commands: One against Sodomites in general and another against a man lying with a man as he would with a woman. The Rabbis break this down into two basic kinds of Sodomy: asctive sodomy and passive sodomy. Active sodomy is to sodomize someone else, while passive sodomy is to subject oneself to
being sodomized. The argument goes into great detail to point out that while he who sodomizes a child below the age of nine is obviously guilty of active sodomy he cannot be guilty of passive sodomy because the child is not capable of actively sodomizing him. The issue is a technical issue of whether he is guilty of one sin or two. The passage simply means that the man who sodomizes a child under the age of nine is only guilty of active sodomy but not guilty of passive sodomy (allowing the child to sodomize him) which is actually a no-brainer which we would all agree with. If the
Sodmite had committed the act with a consenting adult he would be guilty both of active sodomy in that he had sodomized another man and passive sodomy in allowing himself to be sodomized.
This is just one example of how anti-semites take Talmud passages out of context. This passage is often quoted out of context by anti-semites to falsely make people think that Jews advocate sodomizing children below the age of nine. The goal is to cause people to hate Jews. The Nazis of Germany quoted the same passage out of context with the same goal, to cause people to hate Jews and in this case to think that Jews sodmize young children.
This is just sick and propagated by sick hateful anti semites like Dan Chaput/"Israel"
There is no place for such sick propaganda.
The Talmud section in its entirety:
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 54b
This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? -
>From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an
abomination.1 From this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies
[with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who
permits himself thus to be abused? - Scripture saith: There shall be no
sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, And there were also
sodomites in the land: and they did according to the abominations of the
nations which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel:3 this is
R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: This is unnecessary, the Writ saith, thou
shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: read, 'thou shalt not be lain
with.'4 Whence do we learn a formal prohibition against bestiality? - Our
Rabbis taught : [and if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to
death: and ye shall slay the beast].5 A man excludes a minor; [that] lieth
with a beast - whether it be young or old; he shall surely be put to death -
by stoning. You, by stoning; but perhaps one of the other deaths decreed in
the Torah is meant? - It is here said, [and] ye shall kill [the beast]; and
it is stated elsewhere, But thou shalt surely kill him. [. . . And thou
shalt stone in him with stones]:6 just as there, stoning is meant, so here
We have learnt from this the punishment for him who commits bestiality;
whence do we derive punishment for him who allows himself to be thus
abused? - The Writ saith: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put
to death.7 Since this is redundant in respect of the person committing
bestiality,8 you must regard it as applying to the person permitting himself
to be thus abused.9 From the Writ we know that there is punishment both for
him who commits bestiality and for him who permits himself to be thus
abused; whence do we know the formal prohibition? - Scripture saith, neither
shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.10 From this verse
we learn the formal prohibition for him who commits bestiality, whence do we
derive the formal prohibition for him who allows himself to be thus abused?
Scripture saith: There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel; and it is
elsewhere said, And there were also sodomites in the land, etc.11 R. Akiba
said: This is unnecessary. The Writ saith, Thou shalt not lie [with any
beast], which means, thou shalt not permit thy lying [with any beast,
whether actively or passively].
Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits
himself to be thus abused - R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is
liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt
not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There
shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he
incurs only one penalty, since thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not be lain
with is but one statement.12
He who commits bestiality, and also causes himself to be thus abused -
R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, one for the
injunction, thou shalt not lie with any beast, and one for the prohibition,
there shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he
incurs but one penalty, since thy lying [actively] and thy lying [passively]
is but one injunction. Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael's view he incurs one
penalty only, for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with
mankind.13 If so, whence does R. Ishmael derive a formal prohibition against
permitting oneself to be bestially abused? - From the verse, Whosoever lieth
with a beast shall surely be put to death.14 Now, this being redundant in
respect of him who [actively] lies with a beast,15 apply it to him who
[passively] permits himself to be abused this; and the Divine Law designates
the passive offender as the active offender:16 this teaches that the
punishment for, and the formal prohibition against, active bestiality17
apply to passive submission too.18
He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality - R. Abbahu said: On
R. Akiba's view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with
mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R.
Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived
from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 Abaye said: Even on R.
Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, because it is written, Whosoever
lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.20 This being redundant in
respect of active bestiality, it must be applied to passive submission, and
the Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an active offence: just
as for the active offence there is punishment and prohibitions so for the
passive offence too.21 But he who commits pederasty and causes himself to be
abused thus; and also commits bestiality and causes himself to be abused
too - both R. Abbahu and Abaye maintain that on R. Ishmael's view he is
trebly guilty, and on R. Akiba's view he is doubly guilty.22
Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not
regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old
one.23 What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine
years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel
said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a
child above that.24 What is the basis of their dispute? - Rab maintains that
only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive
subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who
is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of
pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And
thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine
years and a day;
(1) Ibid. XVIII, 22.
(2) Deut. XXIII, 18.
(3) I Kings XIV, 24. Just as abomination applies to sodomy in the latter
verse, so it applies to it in the former too: thus it is as though the
former verse read, There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel: it is
an abomination. And just as the abomination implicit here applies to both
parties, so the abomination explicitly stated in Lev. XIII, 22 refers to
(4) I. e., the niph'al, the letters being the same, cfa, and cfa,.
(5) Ibid. XX, 15.
(6) Deut. XIII, 10, referring to a mesith, one who incites to idolatry.
(7) Ex. XXII, 18.
(8) As it is taught elsewhere, viz., in Lev. XX, 15.
(9) One of the methods of Talmudic hermenueutics is to apply a Biblical
statement, superfluous in respect of its own law, to some other subject.
(10) Lev. XVIII, 23.
(11) Ibid. v. p. 368. n. 1: the same reasoning applying to bestiality as to
(12) I.e., though differently vocalized in order to deduce two injunctions,
it is nevertheless one statement only, so that a person transgressing these
two injunctions violates one Biblical prohibition only.
(13) Not to bestiality at all, in spite of the fact that this was cited
above in this connection.
(14) Ex. XXII, 18.
(15) Since it is stated in Lev. XVIII.
(16) I.e., though as shewn, this verse applies to a passive offender, yet
its grammatical construction speaks of active bestiality.
(17) The reference having been given above.
(18) So that all is deduced from one verse, involving only one penalty.
(19) Since R. Akiba maintains that the prohibition of passive sodomy is
included in active sodomy, it follows that passive pederasty and bestiality
are two distinct offences, for there are two distinct injunctions. But as R.
Ishmael maintains that the injunction against active sodomy does not include
passive submission, and that the latter, whether in pederasty or bestiality,
is derived from the single injunction, There shall be no sodomite, the
double offence incurs one penalty only.
(20) Ex. XXII, 18.
(21) Thus, this applies to passive bestiality, whilst there shall be no
sodomite applies to passive pederasty. Hence, there being two separate
injunctions for the two offences, a double punishment is incurred.
(22) Thus: R. Abbahu maintains that on R. Ishmael's view: (i) active
pederasty is forbidden by Thou shalt not lie with mankind; (ii) active
bestiality by Thou shalt not lie with any beast; (iii) passive pederasty and
bestiality by There shall be no sodomite. Whilst Abaye maintains that on R.
Ishmael's view, (i) active pederasty is derived from Thou shalt not lie with
mankind; (ii) submission thereto from There shall be no sodomite; and (iii)
active and passive bestiality from Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to
defile thyself therewith. (Lev. XVIII, 23) Hence, according to R. Abbabu and
Abaye there are three injunctions for the four offences. Further, R. Abbahu
and Abaye both teach R. Akiba's view to be that (i) active and passive
bestiality are derived from Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with
womankind; and (ii) active and passive bestiality from Neither shalt thou
lie with any beast. Hence there are two injunctions for the four offences.
(23) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra 54a,
guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor,
i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within
this age a distinction is drawn.
(24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy
with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the
(25) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(26) Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness
of woman, which is reached at the age of three