Direct Link to Latest News


Old and New Testaments are Incompatible

June 13, 2017

incompatible.jpgDouglas Reed says there is no
 relationship between the universal,
loving God of the New Testament 
and the cursing psychopathic tribal
deity of Deuteronomy. The Old and New 
Testaments never should have been bound together. 

Part 1- Deuteronomy is Blueprint of New World Order 


The Controversy of Zion 1955

by Douglas Reed

(excerpt by 

The Judaist attitude towards other mankind, creation, and the universe in general, is better understood when [Deuteronomy] has been pondered, and especially the constant plaint that Jews are "persecuted" everywhere, which... runs through nearly all Jewish literature. 

To any who accept this book [Deuteronomy] as The Law, the mere existence of others is in fact persecution; Deuteronomy plainly implies that. The most nationalist Jew and the most enlightened Jew often agree in one thing: they cannot truly consider the world and its affairs from any but a Jewish angle, and from that angle "the stranger" seems insignificant. 

[ Douglas cites Jewish historian Joseph Kastein, History and Destiny of the Jews (1933): "Owing to the idea of the Chosen People, the Jewish world was Judeocentric; and the Jews could interpret everything that happened only from the standpoint of themselves at the center." He also cites H.S. Chamberlain": "From the moment when Jehovah makes the Covenant with Abraham, the fate of Israel forms the history of the world, indeed the history of the whole cosmos, the one thing which the Creator..troubles himself." p127]

Thinking makes it so, and this is the legacy of twenty-five centuries of Jewish thinking; even those Jews who see the heresy or fallacy cannot always divest themselves entirely of the incubus on their minds and spirits. 


In the Twentieth Century this standard of judgment has been projected into the lives of other peoples and applied to all major events in the ordeal of the West. Thus we live in the century of the Levitical fallacy. Having undertaken to put "all these curses" on innocent parties, if the Judahites would return to observance of "all these statutes and judgments", the resurrected Moses of Deuteronomy promised one more blessing ("The Lord thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them. . . ") and then was allowed to die in the land of Moab. 

In "the Mosaic Law" the destructive idea took shape, which was to threaten Christian civilization and the West, both then undreamed of. During the Christian era, a council of theologians made the decision that the Old Testament and the New should be bound in one book, without any differentiation, as if they were stem and blossom, instead of immovable object and irresistible force. 

The encyclopaedia before me as I write states ironically that the Christian churches accept the Old Testament as being of "equal divine authority" with the New. This unqualified acceptance covers the entire content of the Old Testament and may be the original source of much confusion in the Christian churches and much distraction among the masses that seek Christianity, for the dogma requires belief in opposite things at the same time. 

How can the same God, by commandment to Moses, have enjoined men to love their neighbours and "utterly to destroy" their neighbours? What relationship can there be between the universal, loving God of the Christian revelation and the cursing deity of Deuteronomy? 


But if in fact all the Old Testament, including these and other commands, is of "equal divine authority" with the New, then the latter day Westerner is entitled to invoke it in justification of those deeds by which Christendom most denied itself: the British settlers' importation of African slaves to America, the American and Canadian settlers' treatment of the North American Indian, and the Afrikaners' harsh rule over the South African Bantu. He may justly put the responsibility for all these things directly on his Christian priest or bishop, if that man teaches that the Old Testament, with its repeated injunction to slay, enslave, and despoil is of "equal divine authority". 

No Christian divine can hold himself blameless if he so teaches. The theological decision which set up this dogma cast over Christendom and the centuries to come the shadow of Deuteronomy, just as it fell on the Judahites themselves when it was read to them in 621 BC. 

Only one other piece of writing has had any comparable effect on the minds of men and on future generations; if any simplification is permissible, the most tempting one is to see the whole story of the West, and particularly of this decisive Twentieth Century, as a struggle between the Mosaic Law and the New Testament and between the two bodies of mankind which rank themselves behind one or other of those two messages of hatred and love respectively....


Some twenty years after the reading of Deuteronomy in Jerusalem, Judah was conquered by the Babylonian king, in about 596 BC. At the time, this looked like the end of the affair, which was a petty one in itself, among the great events of that period.... 

download.jpg rivers in Babylon.jpg

Instead, the Babylonian victory was the start of the affair, or of its great consequences for the world. The Law, instead of dying, grew stronger in Babylon, where for the first time a foreign king gave it his protection. The permanent state-within-states, nation-within-nations was projected, a first time, into the life of peoples; initial experience in usurping power over them was gained. 

Much tribulation for other peoples was brewed then. As for the Judahites, or the Judaists and Jews who sprang from them, they seem to have acquired the unhappiest future of all. Anyway, it was not a happy man (though it was a Jewish writer of our day, 2,500 years later, Mr. Maurice Samuel) who wrote [in "You Gentiles"]: ". . . we Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyer forever. . . nothing that the Gentiles will do will meet our needs and demands". At first sight this seems mocking, venomous, shameless. 

The diligent student of the controversy of Zionism discovers that it is more in the nature of a cry of hopelessness, such as the "Mosaic Law" must wring from any man who feels he cannot escape its remorseless doctrine of destruction.


Makow Comment- The Jewish God is an egregore, i.e. an alter ego for the Jewish people. Worshipping this God is like worshipping Jews. This may be a factor in our current malaise. 

First Comment by Robert K:

The attempt to reconcile the Old Testament with the New instills cognitive dissonance, resulting in the most absurd speculative rationalizations (e.g. that the peoples--or, maybe, actual demons pretending to be human?--Jehovah ordered be destroyed, down to the last infant and goat, were so inherently wicked that obliterating them was a good deed).  Such rationalization regarding the superiority of one's own cult, class, society (secret or otherwise) or nation has been used to justify unkindnesses and atrocities throughout history.  The sense of superiority is a tendency devolving from the conviction that one's own way of thinking is best; after all, if it weren't, why ever would one think that way?  This is a natural bent of human ideation overcome only by experience and maturation, but it becomes a menace when it acquires power to control the lives of others who apparently think differently.  Assumed personal or group superiority is what lurks behind the endless pressure for centralization of power.

Christ demonstrated the fallacy of this approach by never compelling compliance with his will and always, while indicating the best course, leaving the final choice with the individual.  This radically decentralized model of human society, which could easily be facilitated by recognition of universal personal ownership rights in the "tickets to living" monetary system, is forever in conflict with the belief that money should be the means of domination of the many by the few.   

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Old and New Testaments are Incompatible "

GC said (June 15, 2017):

I agree that the old and new testaments are incompatible. This is because the god of the old testament is not the same loving god as the new testament. I firmly believe we are living in a computer-generated reality, created by the original god. This view is supported by genesis and the account of creation. The original god created this reality with a computer many, many years in advance of our own current ability (time being digital) . I am a Christian and believe that my views are completely compatible with this theory which has quite a bit of support, although still dismissed as too science fictiony for many of my Christian friends to believe. God made man in his own image so he could have died or just mentored a younger god who sent his son to visit us and help us understand why we are here and the path to eternal life. Two different gods, but the same reality and I am pleased that He still cares about us even after all the bad we have done. So there is hope.

SD said (June 14, 2017):

So even though the OT scripture cries out about the coming of the messiah
(God incarnate in flesh) it is not compatible with the NT ???

Incredible. Henry what on earth are you thinking of?
I assume this is your belief also having highlighted it in your posts.

Your hatred of the Jews has blinded you to the Truth.

I could write much more highlighting OT and NT scripture but I honestly feel it would be a waste of time.

The only way to understand the Bible (KJV) is to be born again, the Holy Spirit will guide a person to all truth after the new birth.

The natural man cannot understand the things of God.

LC said (June 14, 2017):

The only thing Doug Reed misses (or perhaps simply never states) is that the "god" in the Old Testament is Satan. That is the only way all of that "god's" commands are congruent within the body of that work; for those commands, exhortations and observances are in direct opposition to the loving, universal God of all creation in the New Testament.

The Old Testament should have never been a part of The Bible. The Old and New Testament are diametrically opposed and simply (as Reed posits) should have never been bound together. Binding them together explains the schizophrenia of our times.

Two great articles back to back. I hope people will completely re-evaluate "The Bible" and their relationship to the True God.

Matt C said (June 14, 2017):

It often makes more sense to replace "The Lord" in the Old Testament with lucifer or satan.

Larry C2 said (June 14, 2017):

Reed states: "the latter day Westerner is entitled to invoke it in justification of those deeds by which Christendom most denied itself."

Well, since the Old Covenant is over and the New Covenant is in force (Hebrews 8), there is no entitlement so it must be that humans (Pharisees?) have been corrupting the Word of God (Matthew 15:3).

He accidentally makes a true statement when he says: "No Christian divine can hold himself blameless if he so teaches." Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the Old Testament was included because without it there could be no complete understanding of the New (Acts 28:23).

Finally, Reed thinks he sums it up: "as a struggle between the Mosaic Law and the New Testament." It's a struggle between Pharisaic hatred for Christ and everything the New Testament represents (John 15:24,25).

Henry, I know you like to throw things on the wall to see if they stick, but for this Reed to claim there is no correlation between Mosaic Law which Jesus came to fulfill (Matthew 5:17) and the New Testament is beyond credibility.

Nick said (June 14, 2017):

I have been reading your articles for years now and have found them helpful because of your clear way of exposing feminism and the new world order.
Your article today entitled” Old and New Testaments are Incompatible” has prompted me to recommend a Bible teacher to you.
I have been reading Dr. Stephen Jones’ writings since the mid 80’s, his web site is .
Read his Daily Weblogs to get a feel for his work. He recently finished a study of the books of Daniel and Revelation.

I believe you would be astounded at the accuracy of his explanation of the Beast systems that Daniel described.
He clearly shows how Daniel/Revelation foretell the transfer of the mandate of authority from the last Beast system (Rome/Vatican/Little Horn) during the 2014/2017 time period to the Overcomers.

Sid Green said (June 14, 2017):

I agree with Sid. The key of knowledge that Jesus accuses the lawyers of is what connects all the scriptures together. Canon is not determined by man. The 66 books are not the only books that are scripture. If you don't have the other books, of course the OT is understood out of context. You can confirm that there were indeed giants if you look at old newspaper clippings online. Conquistadors talked about them in their journals.

Jesus and the apostles taught out of the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha includes 2 Esdras, which includes a prophecy about most of Scripture becoming lost until the end times, which is now. That's why all these other books started popping up, like book of Jasher, Enoch, Jubilees, Life of Adam and Eve, lots of gospels besides the big four.

There was the council of Jamnia back in the first century where the pharisees took books out to differentiate their text from the Christians', who were converting many people using the LXX. Please don't stay at your conclusion. There's so much more to this.

Sid Green said (June 13, 2017):

No offence, but even if there aren't any external forces at work here, demonic influence is at work. Jesus quoted the Old Testament. Do you think he was just shooting the shit? Very ominous

Larry C said (June 13, 2017):

Henry, it's too bad Douglas Reed passed away before he actually read the New Testament. Reed couldn't grasp/didn't like the concept of divine justice so let's defer to Jesus:

43 The days will come upon you (Jerusalem) when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Luke 19 NIV

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Matthew 24:22 KJV

I guess if Reed had children, he let them run hog wild because he couldn't equate discipline with love. Has there every been a tribe/country that incurred Yahweh's wrath that didn't have years--hundreds of years--to clean up their act? Let's hear from Yahweh out of Deuteronomy 10:

19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

As for Jews attacking "Christian civilization", well, duh, what would you expect?

Winston Churchill would have loved Reed:

"The defense of "Christian Civilization" as so often stated by Winston Churchill is in fact the advancement of the British Empire under the name of kingdom of God. Churchill knew whereof he spoke when he said that he did not become Prime Minister to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. We have to but recognize its new name...Thus the new concept of Christian Civilization (through British Israel propaganda) has the hidden meaning of a collective world state...therefore when the term Christian Civilization is used (even with the intent based upon individual salvation through Christ) it betrays its user to British Israel and the effect of his efforts is subversion." Helen Peters, The Union Jack, p.133,136

Ryan T said (June 13, 2017):

"...What at did Jesus teach about the Old Testament?
by Ryan Turner

Many people today do not believe in the authority of the Old Testament as Scripture. However, Jesus had some quite different things to say regarding the Old Testament. Here is a brief list of some of what Jesus taught about the Old Testament:

Source of Authority
When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18).
"The Scripture cannot be broken," (NASB, Jn. 10:35).
Source of Doctrinal Authority
Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).
"Your word is truth," (NASB, Jn. 17:17).
Historical Reliability
Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah (Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6).
Scientific Reliability
Jesus affirmed that God created the world (Mk. 13:19; cf. Matt. 19:4).
Old Testament Canonicity1
Jesus made reference to the Law and Prophets as a unit, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus explained the Scriptures, "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures," (NASB, Luke 24:27).
Jesus referred to the entire Canon by mentioning all the prophets from Abel (from Genesis, the first book and first martyr) to Zechariah (Chronicles, the last book, and the last martyr) (Matt. 23:35).2

Lee Anne said (June 13, 2017):

To creatively navigate the Old Testament and in order to accept it as
Volume 1 of 2 volumes, the second being the New Testament. one needs
the Holy Spirit to read along to shine the light so to speak.
The God of the Old Testament told Moses that his name was
I AM THAT I AM and it's His name forever as He said. So tell the
children of Israel (He didn't say tell the Jews) that I AM has sent me to you.
The God of Israel -- who He is-- is in the eye of the beholder.
If we are seeing through the eyes of the Holy Spirit. we shall have a relationship
with Him because we will know Him like Jesus/Yeshua knows him.
That;s the enormous beauty of the Christian Trinity

KK said (June 13, 2017):

On seeing this article title I immediately thought of this Reed book which I regard as the best non-fiction I'd ever read. (I'd read it as a pdf and then bought it in paperback.) Then I looked for your article comments section to post a thank you for getting this author and book title online, but the comments section was empty.

Reed was apparently the premier British wartime correspondent and then something he wrote upset the controllers of the publishing houses (maybe, the manuscript of the Controversy). From that point on he became a non-person to them. Fortunately, (at least last time I looked) this and ten other of his books were online pdfs.

Dene said (June 13, 2017):

From my 3 previous responses to your articles you may gather that my reaction to the above article is that Douglas Reed has no idea what the Bible, the OT in particular, is talking about.

The whole OT is full of God's compassion, which is what the lamb symbolises. God taking the punishment, including death, for the breaking of His own law! Is that what you get from the Talmud? The Talmud and the OT are mutually incompatible. Look at Acts 13:47, Israel was meant to be a light unto the Gentiles. You won't find that in the Talmud.

What many don't like about the OT is that it leaves no doubt that Satan and all evildoers, those who continually reject God's efforts to save them, will meet self-inflicted justice and be permanently obliterated because of their own choice. The New Testament says the same thing.

No one would dare give their university professors assignments treated the way people treat the Bible. Such poor research and reading comprehension and lack of checking out for one's own misconceptions. Assuming that they are not willingly misrepresenting the Bible like the Jesuits do.

The Jesuits must be laughing. How much effort would it take to see that Israel is a Papal state? Very few alternate news sources have the courage or the knowledge to do this. Jewish bankers are Knights Templar bankers. Even the USA is a Jesuit creation, which took them about 80 years to get ready to replace Spain as their enforcer. Look at what happened in the Philippines in the 1890s in the hands of the USA!

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at