← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 16883 | Posts: 155 | Started: 2003-08-19
2003-08-19 03:07 | User Profile
This Is Christian Nationalism
by Gerald L. K. Smith
(The Cross & The Flag) December 1959
The Christian Nationalist Crusade is a nationwide political movement dedicated to the mobilization of citizens who respect American tradition and whose idealism is founded on Christian principle.
General Douglas MaeArthur in one of his great public pronouncements said: "The two greatest symbols in this civilization are the Cross and the Flag."
This statement overwhelmed me with inspiration in view of the fact that the official organ of the Christian Nationalist Crusade is the magazine "The Cross and the Flag." The motive behind the term Christian Nationalist is easy to define and simple to interpret. We believe that the destiny of America in relationship to its governing authority must be in the hands of our own people. We must never be governed by aliens. We must keep control of our own money and our own blood. In other words, we must be true to the Declaration of Independence. That is Nationalism. Like General MacArthur, we believe that the spiritual symbol of our statesmanship is the Cross, which is indeed the symbol of Christianity. We believe that the inspiring dynamic out of which America grew is Christianity. We believe that there would be no real America such as we love and for which we are willing to die if there had been no Christianity. Thus, when a Christian is a Nationalist he becomes necessarily a Christian Nationalist. This movement, which now reaches into every state and community of the Nation, launched its campaign some years ago in relationship to ten high principles to which we have committed ourselves.
The first principle is: Preserve America as a Christian Nation being conscious of the fact that there is a highly organized campaign to substitute Jewish tradition for Christian tradition.
The most powerful Jewish organization in America is the Anti-Defamation League, which has launched a campaign to remove from all public schools any song book which contains a Christmas carol, or any other hymn which mentions the name of Jesus. On March 30, 1956, Rabbi Nodel, one of the leading Rabbis of the Nation and who heads the leading synagogue of Oregon, in Portland, revealed without veneer or even a sugarcoat the basic attitude of organized Jewry toward our Christian traditions. The Portland Oregonian carried a report on Rabbi Nodel's address. The article appeared in Oregon's leading Sunday paper, April 1, 1956. The first paragraph of the article reads as follows:
"Rabbi Julius J. Nodel in the role of defense attorney for the Jews of the world Friday night branded the New Testament a work of malicious libel and the story of events leading to Jesus Christ's trial and crucifixion a dragon seed from which has come misery, bloodshed and suspicion."
There is no hate in our hearts, but I would be less than a lover of Christ if I did not resist all attempts being made to destroy our Christian tradition.
The second principle for which we stand reads as follows: Expose, fight and outlaw Communism. We have been the most consistent enemies of Communism on a nationwide basis to be found anywhere. When Stalin was alive the news agency Pravda of Moscow published the names in the spring of 1945 of the Kremlin's five worst enemies in America. My name was on that list. When W. Z. Foster, head of the American Communist Party testified before the Un- American Activities Committee, he confessed that the two chief projects for that particular time consisted, first, in putting an end to the work of the Un-American Activities Committee of Congress; and, second, in combating the influence of Gerald L. K. Smith and the movement he leads, against Communism.
The third principle on which Christian Nationalism has built its nation- wide movement reads as follows: Safeguard American liberty against the menace of bureaucratic Fascism.
Bureaucratic Fascism has appeared in the American form. It has been a cross between Kremlin Communism, English-German Socialism and Italian Fascism. Fascism, as we now have it, is confiscating independent wealth by way of the income tax and destroying the liberty of the States by way of the Supreme Court. At this very moment we face the risk of a nine-man Fascist dictatorship, posing as the Supreme Court of the United States, completely contrary to our Constitutional traditions.
The fourth principle to which this dynamic and much persecuted movement has been dedicated reads as follows: Maintain a government set up by the majority which abuses no minority and is abused by no minority. Fight mongrelization and all attempts being made to force the intermixture of the black and white races.
True enough, the Constitution guarantees that every citizen shall enjoy the privileges defined therein. No segment of our society must be denied these privileges by force or even majority rule; but we have a situation in America today which splits the majority and transfers to this potential nineman Fascist dictatorship a tyranny which has been created by the manipulation of minorities. Subversive forces, exploiting sentimental nitwits, are reading into the Constitution a code of conduct which threatens to mongrelize our race, destroy our racial self-respect and enslave the white man.
The fifth principle reads as follows: Protect and earmark national resources for our own citizens first.
America has given away her reserves. We have bankrupted our economy. Our national debt, our state and local government debts, plus our personal debts far exceed the assessed value of every visible piece of property in the United States. This epidemic of economic blood-letting began at a time when Jew internationalists, in control of propaganda , almost convinced a majority of our people that it was subversive to use the term America First. In fact, during and immediately following World War II some people who had taken an aggressive stand in defense of America first were incarcerated, indicted and held up to the ridicule which produced character assassination.
The sixth principle reads as follows: Maintain the George Washington Foreign Policy of friendship with all nations, trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Our failure to follow the George Washington policy has yielded the fruit of chaos which our foreign policy now portrays.
Seventh: Oppose a World Government and a Super-State.
The Christian Nationalist Crusade directs an auxiliary committee known as the Citizens Congressional Committee to Abolish the United Nations. We believe that the whole U. N. project is a subversive conspiracy to destroy our independence. Alger Hiss, the number one exposed traitor, was the executive secretary of the committee which prepared the original Charter at Dumbarton Oakes in Washington, D. C., and later brought about the adoption of the Charter at San Francisco. The original designer of this subversive Charter fought to give us a complete World Government in which America would be only a voting state. Thanks to the Christian Nationalist Crusade, and those associated with us, organically or sympathetically, certain extreme measures were stricken from the original Charter and those who are vigorously determined to destroy our independence and subordinate our beautiful Nation to the voting power of a billion aliens - these treasonable manipulators have never given up in their campaign to subdue us and enslave us by way of a World Government and a Super-State.
The eighth principle reads as follows: Prove that the Worker, the Farmer, the Businessman, the Veteran, the Unemployed, the Aged, and the Infirm can enjoy more abundance under the true American system than any alien system now being proposed by foreign propagandists.
Subversives, superficial nitwits and mind-washed propagandists are always attacking the traditional American economic system of free enterprise, but the nations which have embraced Marxist Communism and Marxist Socialism, all the way from Russia through Europe to England, never gave up their campaign to borrow and use and keep the capitalistic dollars, which have been produced under our American system. Not since the creation of the race have human beings prospered and been blessed the way Americans were privileged to exist in this first two centuries of our independence. Anyone who seeks to destroy this economic tradition of abundance should be viewed as a dangerous enemy of America. It is miraculous to observe that this dynamic of free enterprise has survived in spite of twenty years of socialistic sabotage.
The ninth principle reads as follows: Safeguard America's tradition in relationship to immigration.
The same conspirators who would destroy our Nation and its independence by treason from within, or by the establishment of a World Government - these same forces are ready to let down the bars and admit the Asiatic, African and European multitudes. This campaign to destroy our immigration tradition is supported by every Jewish and Communist organization in the world. They are ready to smear and assassinate the character of any statesman who stands in their way. Fortunately, we have been able to hold the line; but if the wall ever breaks we will be invaded and destroyed without the firing of a shot, merely by the act of indiscriminate admission of aliens to our shores.
The tenth principle reads as follows: Enforce the Constitution as it pertains to our monetary system. I claim to be no expert on the subject of monetary reform, but the Christian Nationalist Crusade takes its stand with those patriots who insist that we must free our Nation from the manipulating chicanery of the money-changer, and we must establish a monetary program in complete harmony with the Constitutional provisions.
Upon these principles we take our stand, and I defy any cynic or critic to deny that these ten principles do not define traditional Americanism.
This is not a negative Movement. We are not in the business of just being against something. It is our deep conviction that every Crusade must commit itself to a great positive and must be for that positive even at the risk of life itself. The positive in our Crusade is Christianity and the Constitution. Once we commit ourselves to this great spiritual patriotic implication, we naturally must be known as opposing every symptom, every gesture that appears in opposition to our Christian American tradition. These become the negatives. Negatives are valuable only when they appear in defense of a great positive. Men who are against things without being for great principles serve little constructive value in the affairs of this life.
I realize fully that in this brief statement there can be little thoroughness. What has been written has been so said that it might awaken the reader to a deeper concern and a sharper alertness.
Please be reminded that reading material in amplification of these principles may be obtained by addressing requests to the Christian Nationalist Crusade, P. 0. Box 27895, Los Angeles 27, California.
Again quoting General MacArthur:
"Listen not to these voices that are raised against our (American tradition), be they from the one political party or from the other; be they from the high and the mighty, or the lowly and the forgotten. Heed them not. Visit upon them a righteous scorn born of the past sacrifices of your fighting sons and daughters.
"Repudiate them in the market place, on the platform, from the pulpit. Those who are our friends will understand. Those who are not we can pass by. Be proud to be called patriots or nationalists or what you will, if it means that you love your country above all else, and will place your life if need be at the service of our Flag."
2003-08-19 03:34 | User Profile
Good post Tex! Christianity and nationalism are compatible. It's only the perverted post-1960's Judeo-Christian :dung: that isn't.
2003-08-19 05:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by perun1201@Aug 18 2003, 22:34 * *Good post Tex! Christianity and nationalism are compatible. **
Indeed it is, perun. It's message is organic to our folk, building on our traditions and history.
**Upon these principles we take our stand, and I defy any cynic or critic to deny that these ten principles do not define traditional Americanism.
This is not a negative Movement. We are not in the business of just being against something. It is our deep conviction that every Crusade must commit itself to a great positive and must be for that positive even at the risk of life itself. The positive in our Crusade is Christianity and the Constitution. Once we commit ourselves to this great spiritual patriotic implication, we naturally must be known as opposing every symptom, every gesture that appears in opposition to our Christian American tradition. These become the negatives. Negatives are valuable only when they appear in defense of a great positive. Men who are against things without being for great principles serve little constructive value in the affairs of this life.**
2003-08-19 15:53 | User Profile
Any churches connected to this creed?
2003-08-20 01:58 | User Profile
Gerald L.K.Smith was a victim of "dynamic silence",a form of total censorship.This was a post-WWII invention of the American Jewish Committee.They,along with the ADL,would pressure all media outlets to avoid giving any publicity to Smith.With this effective quarantine,Smith's public voice was silenced.
2003-08-27 03:38 | User Profile
Texas Dissident,
Great Post. I have an old Booklet of Gerald L. K. Smith's I will try to OCR or type and post on this Forum. Smith was ahead of his time, he spoke out about immigration in the early 1960's, attack the 1965 immigration act before it was passed, and warned of the damger of non-European immigration. He went SF in 1945 to attack the UN. He was Huey Long's right hand man.
You are right. As you said Smith was an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ. The SPLC are the ones putting out the story that Smith was an Christian "Identity" type. I have not seen any Quotes from Rev. Smith writtings that show Christian "Identity" doctrine. Also some say he was a Klansman in 1920's, but no one knows for sue.
Disciples of Christ used to be a low Church Fundamental type of Church, but I think they very Left wing as are most of the old "mainline" Churches. I do not think it is much like it was in 1900
"The Cross & The Flag" went out to as 50,000 people and Smith worked hard to do what he could to fight for America. I think his son was killed in WWII, but I am not sue. He was very badly treated when he went into the Army.
2003-08-27 23:56 | User Profile
**Gerald L. K. Smith Searched the web for Gerald L. K. Smith. [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=Gerald+L.+K.+Smith&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N]http://www.google.com/search?q=Gerald+L.+K...8&start=10&sa=N[/url]
**
**Is Alertness Bigotry? ... Gerald L. K. Smith Gerald L.K. Smith (The Cross & The Flag) January 1959
Is Alertness Bigotry? Is Patriotism Prejudice? Is A Lover Of Christ A Hatemonger?
The mind-washing machine of the enemies of America has been turned into high gear. The enemies of Christ and the saboteurs of this Constitutional Republic are in a ruthless campaign to make traitors seem like patriots and to make criminals appear like saints. These mind-washers and arm twisters and witch burners are determined that those of us who have stood in the front line of this battle to preserve Christian civilization shall be made to appear as bigots, hatemongers and lunatics.
The press, radio and television have been nailed to the cross of manipulation and Jewish pressure. The twins of the anti-Christ, Zionism and Communism, are seeking to destroy not only the foreground of our tradition, but the background of our tradition.
This pincer movement operates on a fulcrum which threatens us with invasion from without and degeneration from within.
Truth is the answer. Buried truth must be resurrected. Hidden truth must be exposed, and those of us who stand in the front line of this struggle must continue in the future as we have in the past to publish, speak and distribute this truth regardless of the risks involving smear and physical danger.
Let's face it. Am I a bigot, overwhelmed with prejudice, who has become the fanatical leader of thousands of hatemongers? Or am I a Christian statesman devoted to patriotic tradition, Constitutional government and national sovereignty?
How did I, Gerald L. K. Smith, get this way? Am I alone? Am I just an opinionated fanatic operating from a heart of bitterness and contempt? Or am I a warm-hearted Christian overwhelmed with love for my country and determined to pay any price in the battle to preserve this Christian civilization, this magnificent America, this Constitutional tradition?
Because of the mind-washed press and the doctored comment reaching the people through radio and television, millions of Americans do not realize that the principles on which this Christian Nationalist Crusade is founded are exactly the same principles that produced our Nation, and further back produced this civilization.
Be assured that when I write these things I am not alone. I claim no originality in my viewpoints. I am surrounded by a great company of favorable witnesses, both living and dead. So when you discuss this enterprise, this crusade and this dynamic movement with a friend or a relative, do not permit them to dismiss the subject by saying, "Oh, he is a bigot and a hatemonger," because such is not the case.
The human being doesn't live on this earth whom I hate and the last thing that I want in this world is to do injury to any human being regardless of his race, creed or color. But because of my great love for America and its tradition, I want that we shall maintain a Christian destiny for our Nation and a doctrine of racial self-respect in harmony with the teachings of Washington, Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
Some people who read this article will be surprised to discover that the greatest Christian leaders of history, and the greatest students of subversion are on my side in this battle. Here is some shocking and convincing testimony.
Protestant clergyman with honor refer to me as a bigot, a hatemonger and a leader of the lunatic fringe? Are these Protestant clergymen ready to refer to Martin Luther as a bigot and a hatemonger? Once they do so, they crumble and undermine the whole Protestant movement.
I have directed the research which has resulted in a chart giving the names of the 26 Popes, the names and dates of their edicts, the dates of publication and a summary of the purpose of each edict. These edicts were much stronger, as the chart reaveals, than anything ever spoken by me or ever published in The Cross and the Flag. So if a Priest or a Catholic of any status should brand Gerald L. K. Smith as a bigot or a hatemonger, what is he going to say about 26 Popes and their 61 edicts?
So you see the issue is neither a Catholic issue nor a Protestant issue, but is a life-and-death issue involving the preservation of Christianity. Therefore, my challenge to Jewish tyranny and its 'hidden hand' attempts to control what we speak and what we write is not that of a lone wolf breathing the bitter fires of bigotry and hate. It is the deep convictions of a Christian patriot who finds agreement in the official statements of the great leaders among Protestants and of the 26 Popes among Catholics.
Imagine Mr. Ford's shock when he discovered that a handful of scheming New York Jews were in an underhanded campaign to get control of his factory. He thereupon called in the greatest research minds available and instructed them to make a survey. Said he: "I want to know all about the international Jews." At a cost of literally millions of dollars the survey was made under the direction of W. J. Cameron and was published under the direction of Mr. Ernest Liebold. The result was a volume entitled "The International Jew." Its exposures were so shocking that immediately Mr. Ford and his family began to receive all sorts of threats of violence. Such pressures were brought on the company that the book was taken out of print. Jews and their agents went into libraries and public reading rooms and stole the volumes out and destroyed same. At one time certain editions of this book, which originally sold for 50c, brought hundreds of dollars because it became so scarce that it was a collector's item. Nothing I have ever written or said on the Jewish question has been stronger than that which appeared in Mr. Ford's book. Suddenly the press published a story to the effect that Mr. Ford had apologized for publishing the book; but after Mr. Ford's death a former employee confessed that he had copied Mr. Ford's signature and placed it under the apology in what must have been one of the most ruthless pieces of skulduggery in the history of American literature.
Last year in the face of risks, threats and dire implications, I ordered the book republished, and it is now available. Thus, as I read this volume of clearly written information, prepared at a cost to Mr. Ford of millions of dollars, I remind myself again - I am not alone. The man who was at one time considered by many as America's Number One citizen was on my side.
St. Paul once said: "We are all surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses." With all due respect for his sacred and anointed purposes, I can truthfully say that in this battle to protect our Nation and our civilization from the forces of the anti-Christ, we are indeed surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.
Those of us who are alert to this threat may be branded by the enemy as bigoted and prejudiced hatemongers, but nothing could be more false. We constitute a band of uncompromising lovers of Christ - the same Christ who said: "If any man would be my disciple let him take up his cross and follow me."
2003-08-28 00:10 | User Profile
** Smith wrote:
This epidemic of economic blood-letting began at a time when Jew internationalists, in control of propaganda , almost convinced a majority of our people that it was subversive to use the term America First. **
Tex -- just ONCE I would like to hear* any * major American politician say something similar to that! Just once! My heart would stop. :mellow:
2004-03-04 01:39 | User Profile
What church does a Protestant Christian nationalist attend? Church of Christ? Are there any Protestant denominations nowadays that do not kowtow to zionism? What church do you attend Tex if you don't mind my asking?
Am I right in supposing that a Catholic nationalist would attend a pre-Vatican 2 congregation?
2004-03-04 07:04 | User Profile
seriously, what does nationalism have to do with Christianity? in the Gospels, I find a lot of preaching about absolute universalist morality but nothing that would support the reactionary nativism this board seems to favor. quite the opposite, really. comments? flames?
2004-03-04 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]What church does a Protestant Christian nationalist attend? Church of Christ? Are there any Protestant denominations nowadays that do not kowtow to zionism? What church do you attend Tex if you don't mind my asking?
Am I right in supposing that a Catholic nationalist would attend a pre-Vatican 2 congregation?[/QUOTE] You must have been awol from this board or at least asleep at the wheel if haven't heard about Tex's move to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
As to kowtowing to Zionism, you realize the dispensationalists aren't really a majority even evangelicalism, much less Protestantism as a whole.
I don't mind really where people are critical of Christianity where it deserves it, but really a lot of criticism of it really just is uninformed and based on popular media (hint hint) stereotypes and misconceptions. This "all Christians are Farwellite lockstopping Noadites" is one one of those. If people have questions, by all means ask them, but let's try to answer them and move on.
2004-03-04 09:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]What church does a Protestant Christian nationalist attend? Church of Christ? Are there any Protestant denominations nowadays that do not kowtow to zionism? What church do you attend Tex if you don't mind my asking?
Am I right in supposing that a Catholic nationalist would attend a pre-Vatican 2 congregation?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the question Bardamu. I dare say there's not a Christian here on this board that doesn't relish the opportunity to highlight the differing denominations within Christendom. This is an excellent first step in preventing the types of broad-brush attacks we loathe so much.
First, as Okie has stated, my family and I have recently have become members in a church within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, taking leave of a lifetime within churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Several factors led to this decision and I'll not bother you with a personal testimony. Like most every denomination, the LCMS is going through some internal struggles, but the church we have joined is strongly entrenched on the conservative side. If it was not, then we wouldn't have joined in the first place.
I also have the highest regard for our staunch Calvinist brothers and sisters in the Reformed Churches, Presbyterian and Baptist that hold true to the Westminster Confession. That's the lifeblood of true, unreconstructed Southrons that still remain faithful to the Cause. Not real sure what's going on within Wesley's Methodist camp, I'm afraid.
On the other side of the sola scriptura divide, I respect traditional Catholics and Orthodox Christians who fiercely adhere to their respective traditional orthodoxy, just like the rest of us in the good fight.
2004-03-04 14:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Europe Endless]seriously, what does nationalism have to do with Christianity? in the Gospels, I find a lot of preaching about absolute universalist morality but nothing that would support the reactionary nativism this board seems to favor. quite the opposite, really. comments? flames?[/QUOTE]
Please see my letter to [URL=http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_123001.htm]VDARE.[/URL] .
The short answer is that nationalism is a fundamental part of God's plan of salvation, and that we violate God's division of mankind into nations at the peril of our own souls.
Walter
2004-03-04 18:08 | User Profile
[quote=Europe Endless]seriously, what does nationalism have to do with Christianity? in the Gospels, I find a lot of preaching about absolute universalist morality but nothing that would support the reactionary nativism this board seems to favor. quite the opposite, really. comments? flames?[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Please see my letter to [URL=http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_123001.htm]VDARE.[/URL] .
The short answer is that nationalism is a fundamental part of God's plan of salvation, and that we violate God's division of mankind into nations at the peril of our own souls.
Walter[/QUOTE] Seriously this is not a simple question within Christianity, and its answer relies on an honest and careful exegesis of scripture. Oversimplistic exegesis prejudiced toward one side or the other have been the rule, such as the segregationists answer that the bible absolutely commanded white segregation and dominance to the Christian Left's and Nietzschien assertion that Christ was a communist. Neither side holds water really.
Walter prefers to defend a Catholic apologetic. I am more inclined to one along the lines of an excellent chapter "Christianity and the Nationalities Question" given in "From Under the Rubble" the volume by Russian Dissidents out out in the late 70's.
2004-03-05 02:08 | User Profile
Thank you TD for the information. I am now looking into LCMS congregations here in San Francisco. It is difficult to tell from their websites alone where they stand politically. I will do some undercover sleuthing.
2004-03-05 02:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Europe Endless]seriously, what does nationalism have to do with Christianity? in the Gospels, I find a lot of preaching about absolute universalist morality but nothing that would support the reactionary nativism this board seems to favor. quite the opposite, really. comments? flames?[/QUOTE]
Nations and races were created by God weren't they? When Christ returns He will judge the nations. Obviously, these entities are right to exist.
Because a negro in Africa can become a Christian like a white man in America, doesn't mean that we are to homogenize the world or abolish nations, ethnicities, or races.
-
2004-03-06 00:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Europe Endless]seriously, what does nationalism have to do with Christianity? in the Gospels, I find a lot of preaching about absolute universalist morality but nothing that would support the reactionary nativism this board seems to favor. quite the opposite, really. comments? flames?[/QUOTE]
Isn't pre-1917 Russia an example of a Christian [white] Nationalist nation?
2004-03-06 00:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Europe Endless]seriously, what does nationalism have to do with Christianity? in the Gospels, I find a lot of preaching about absolute universalist morality but nothing that would support the reactionary nativism this board seems to favor. quite the opposite, really. comments? flames?[/QUOTE]
Just to make the point a little clearer, let's suppose that you're right and that Christianity and Nationalism are somehow incompatible despite 1500 years of evidence to the contrary.
In light of the fact that millions of White people are Christians, which of the following do you think will bring the most benefit to the White race?
A) Trying to bring as many White Christians into the movement as possible by working to persuade them that Christianity and Racial Nationalism are compatible.
B) Writing off all White Christians as hopelessly ignorant, propagandized, etc.
You claim to be pro-White, so I'd appreciate a straight up answer.
2004-03-24 00:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]2. Twenty-six Popes. The superficial reader might assume that in referring to Dr. Luther's book "The Jews and Their Lies" I was limiting the field of understanding on this subject to Protestants only, but may I remind you that the Jewish problem, even in the days of the Protestant Reformation, and before and after, was not a sectarian problem. It was a universal problem involving a world-wide conspiracy on the part of certain Jews to infiltrate the churches and destroy Christianity. Most Americans, which means most Catholics and most Protestants, do not realize that down through the centuries 26 Popes issued 61 edicts exposing the Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Faust, where could I find Gerald L. K. Smith's translation of the writings/decrees of these 26 Popes that spoke of Jews and their actions?
2004-06-12 07:20 | User Profile
A Fat Republican,
[Quote]Faust, where could I find Gerald L. K. Smith's translation of the writings/decrees of these 26 Popes that spoke of Jews and their actions?[/Quote]
I am not very sue how you would find such, it might be pretty hard. You might try see if any near by Libaries have "The Cross & The Flag" on Mirofilm.
Gerald L. K. Smith Searched the web for Gerald L. K. Smith. [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=Gerald+L.+K.+Smith&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N[/url]
Searched the web for Gerald L. K. Smith 26 Popes Jews [url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Gerald+L.+K.+Smith+26+Popes++Jews+[/url]
2004-06-12 08:45 | User Profile
[url=http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ci/glksmith.html]Gerald L.K. Smith: A Collection of Sermons and Essays[/url]
2004-06-12 23:21 | User Profile
Texas Dissident,
Thanks for the link to Gerald L.K. Smith articles. It seens to on a Christian Identity site, I do care about who puts it up. As you and I said Gerald L.K. Smith was NOT an Christian "Identity" type
As I said before: [QUOTE]The SPLC are the ones putting out the story that Smith was an Christian "Identity" type. I have not seen any Quotes from Rev. Smith writtings that show Christian "Identity" doctrine. Smith was an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ. Disciples of Christ used to be a low Church Fundamental type of Church, but I think they are very Left wing now as are most of the old "mainline" Churches. [/QUOTE]
But I think they have given us proof Gerald L.K. Smith was NOT a Christian "Identity" type. Take a look these two great artiles! They are great articles too!
WHO ARE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE? [url]http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ci/smith16.html[/url]
SEED OF ABRAHAM? [url]http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ci/smith11.html[/url]
2004-06-14 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Texas Dissident,
Thanks for the link to Gerald L.K. Smith articles. It seens to on a Christian Identity site, I do care about who puts it up. As you and I said Gerald L.K. Smith was NOT an Christian "Identity" type[/QUOTE]
That is correct, Faust. I know the Identity folks would love to claim Smith as one of their own, but nowhere that I've read does he move outside of or beyond traditional, orthodox Christianity. His views are essentially those of my Louisiana and Alabama kin and what I grew up with. Definitely not Identity.
2004-06-14 21:09 | User Profile
I am not really sure what counts as 'Christian Identity,' but I think Smith is somewhat heterodox. In [url]http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ci/smith16.html[/url] , he writes that:
'When Jesus was born of Mary and identified by an angel from Heaven and witnessed by the Wise Men from the East, the area around Bethlehem and Jerusalem and the whole central area of what we now know as Palestine, was filled with evil corrupters who called themselves Jews, but were later referred to in the New Testament as the "synagogue of Satan." ... The people who called themselves Israelites and were not, who posed as the seed of Abraham and were not, could not be satisfied with anything less than death for Jesus of Nazareth. When confronted by a mob of these hecklers, Jesus identified them by saying, "Ye are of your father, the devil, a liar from the foundation of the earth."'
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That is correct, Faust. I know the Identity folks would love to claim Smith as one of their own, but nowhere that I've read does he move outside of or beyond traditional, orthodox Christianity. His views are essentially those of my Louisiana and Alabama kin and what I grew up with. Definitely not Identity.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 21:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That is correct, Faust. I know the Identity folks would love to claim Smith as one of their own, but nowhere that I've read does he move outside of or beyond traditional, orthodox Christianity. His views are essentially those of my Louisiana and Alabama kin and what I grew up with. Definitely not Identity.[/QUOTE]
If it waddles like a duck ...
If it quacks like a duck ...
2004-06-14 22:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I am not really sure what counts as 'Christian Identity,'[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/DI100.htm]Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists[/url]
[url=http://www.carm.org/list/christian_identity.htm]The 'Christian' Identity Movement[/url]
[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c106.html]Christian Identity[/url]
Definitely not the doctrine of Gerald L. K. Smith.
2004-06-15 01:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]If it waddles like a duck ...
If it quacks like a duck ...[/QUOTE]
Veronica
Is it all in that pretty little head of yours? What goes on in that place in the dark? Well I used to know a girl and I could have sworn that her name was Veronica Well she used to have a carefree mind of her own and a delicate look in her eye These days I'm afraid she's not even sure if her
name is Veronica
Do you suppose, that waiting hands on eyes, Veronica has gone to hide? and all the time she laughs at those who shout
her name and steal her clothes. Veronica, Veronica, Veronica...
Veronica sits in her favorite chair she sits very quiet and still and they call her a name that they never get right and if they don't then nobody else will well she used to have a carefree mind of her own with a devilish look in her eye saying you can call me anything you like but my name is Veronica
Do you suppose, that waiting hands on eyes, Veronica has gone to hide? and all the time she laughs at those who shout
her name and steal her clothes. Veronica, Veronica, Veronica
2004-06-15 02:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Veronica
Is it all in that pretty little head of yours? What goes on in that place in the dark? Well I used to know a girl and I could have sworn that her name was Veronica Well she used to have a carefree mind of her own and a delicate look in her eye These days I'm afraid she's not even sure if her
name is Veronica
Do you suppose, that waiting hands on eyes, Veronica has gone to hide? and all the time she laughs at those who shout
her name and steal her clothes. Veronica, Veronica, Veronica...
Veronica sits in her favorite chair she sits very quiet and still and they call her a name that they never get right and if they don't then nobody else will well she used to have a carefree mind of her own with a devilish look in her eye saying you can call me anything you like but my name is Veronica
Do you suppose, that waiting hands on eyes, Veronica has gone to hide? and all the time she laughs at those who shout
her name and steal her clothes. Veronica, Veronica, Veronica[/QUOTE]
Weisbrat, what is your problem? Must you continue to recite this dribble whitersoever I go? Take your nonsense elsewhere, I pray you...
2004-06-17 13:38 | User Profile
Tex, did you consider this post and look up those verses for yourself, to see if what I was saying was true or not? [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=85539#post85539[/url] Post #11
Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists
The 'Christian' Identity Movement
Christian Identity
Definitely not the doctrine of Gerald L. K. Smith.
Letââ¬â¢s be fair, Tex, the sites that you posted are not CI friendly in the first place. A few examples:
ââ¬ÅIdentity: A "Christian" Religion For White Racists by Viola Larsonââ¬Â
ââ¬ÅNevertheless, its dangerous tenets and increasing popularity suggest that the public should be given at least a general overview of Identity doctrines and structure. Moreover, many Christian Identity leaders and followers are closely affiliated with patriot movement groups and various militia spokespersons.ââ¬Â
ââ¬ÅThe beginnings of the patriot / militia movement are inseparably interwoven with the violent Christian Identity movement (CIM). This network of churches and independent leaders began forming in the 1940s as racists defected from mainstream Christian denominations to organize their own churches. Although they retained a few Christian doctrines, especially those concerning the end times, they adopted additional beliefs built around prejudice and hate. Identity believers, for example, hold that today's Caucasians are the true descendants of Abralum, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus they are God's chosen people.ââ¬Â
ââ¬Â¦militia movement are inseparably interwoven with the violent Christian Identity movementââ¬Â¦
ââ¬ÅThis holds especially true for believers in Christian Identity (also simply referred to as Identity), a twentieth-century amalgation of racism and pseudo-Christian ideas. It is a complex doctrinal system that emerged in the 1940s and reached theological maturity by the 1970s throughout the rural areas ''of the West and South - such as the Ozarks, and mountain areas of the Pacific Northwest.'' According to J. Gordon Melton, a nationally recognized chronicler of religions in America, ''Identity is a religion by sociopaths, for sociopaths. It turns their sickness into virtue.''
** bullââ¬Â¦.**
ââ¬ÅThis movement has its origins in the 1800's America where it grew in the shadow of this countryââ¬â¢s developing and successful conquering of the American continent combined with racial prejudices.ââ¬Â
Just up there, it says 1940ââ¬â¢sââ¬Â¦this one, though, claims 1800ââ¬â¢sââ¬Â¦reliable, trustworthy and consistentââ¬Â¦
Also, I wonder what these authors would think about your site and beliefs? I dare say theyââ¬â¢d have a nice bunch of comments ââ¬â especially about your southern beliefsââ¬Â¦
ââ¬ÅTrue Christianity is Christ centered and focuses on love, forgiveness, and patience and is opposed to racism. However, there is none of that in the Christian Identity Movement which advocates racism and anti-Semitism. It is a dangerous group.ââ¬Â
True Christianity identifies its roots, accepts who we are and accepts who our enemies are; it focuses on love, true: Love our saviour, who lay down his life for us, love for one another, His true Israelite (white) children; on forgiveness: His forgiveness to us, and our forgiveness of one another; and patience: with each others. But also it has to do with ââ¬Ëracism,ââ¬â¢ if you call identifying yourself racism; and, by the same token, if knowing the truth is anti-semitism, than that also.
ââ¬ÅFinally, it is the moral duty of Christians to stand against the evil intent of this form of white supremacist teaching. ââ¬Ë
Is that how you really feel, Tex?
ââ¬ÅMost conspiracy theories have developed from a particular fear ââ¬â and the need to master that fear, by identifying a cause and then supposedly gaining control of the situation. For instance, the cause of the Black Plague in the Middle Ages was attributed to the Jew. The solution espoused was to kill or remove the Jews. Then the plague would supposedly end. The disastrous condition of Germany after the First World War was attributed to the Jew by some fearful Germans. Eventually their evil solution brought about the Holocaust. And while the John Birch Society changed most of the leading players in their conspiracy theory to what they call the "insiders" rather than Jews, many others still see the Jew as the monster controlling world events. For these anti-Semites the Jew is often referred to as the "International Banker."
You mean way back in the Middle Ages there were CIââ¬â¢s?
Tell me Tex, did you even look at those Bibles verses and read them for yourself? Thereââ¬â¢s no sense having a discussion if youââ¬â¢re only going to consider one side!
2004-06-17 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Let?s be fair, Tex, the sites that you posted are not CI friendly in the first place....Is that how you really feel, Tex?
I'm not the one on trial here, Gabrielle. My only concern with the articles I linked to are their presentation of specific gross doctrinal errors made by the Identity practitioners.
Tell me Tex, did you even look at those Bibles verses and read them for yourself? There?s no sense having a discussion if you?re only going to consider one side![/QUOTE]
Yes, obviously I have looked into the doctrines of 'Christian' Identity and the one side I always consider is that of the Holy Scriptures. Identity does not jibe with them and in fact, is a heretical cult. I really have no interest in having OD be a instrument for the presentation of cult doctrine, Gabrielle, and until you or someone else can present one statement of Gerald L.K. Smith that supports the fundamental tenets of Identity then please refrain from trying to promote it here.
2004-06-18 03:19 | User Profile
I'm not the one on trial here, Gabrielle. My only concern with the articles I linked to are their presentation of specific gross doctrinal errors made by the Identity practitioners.
The links you posted did nothing to prove doctrinal errors; all they did was warp the truth and attack CI ââ¬â contradicting each others in the doing, as I pointed out! Only Godââ¬â¢s Word can be the judge of the truth, and I took a lot of time to find Biblical truth for you, and you still havenââ¬â¢t confirmed whether or not you looked at them (stating that you consider the Scriptures doesnââ¬â¢t answer my questionââ¬Â¦I asked whether you considered those Scriptures that I quoted ââ¬â not, perhaps, some time ago, but in the context of this conversation, and how they were meant to be read. I didnââ¬â¢t put you on trial ââ¬â you posted the articles that stated something absurd, and was inquiring if you agreed with it; it wasnââ¬â¢t a trial, but an inquiry.
Yes, obviously I have looked into the doctrines of 'Christian' Identity and the one side I always consider is that of the Holy Scriptures. Identity does not jibe with them and in fact, is a heretical cult. I really have no interest in having OD be a instrument for the presentation of cult doctrine, Gabrielle, and until you or someone else can present one statement of Gerald L.K. Smith that supports the fundamental tenets of Identity then please refrain from trying to promote it here.
Tex, I have never tried to use OD as an instrument for the presentation of CI; I was simply joining in with the thread, offering my opinion. I have never posted any CI links on this thread or any other. If I was truly trying to push CI on your site, wouldnââ¬â¢t I have started threads about it, along with posting lots of indoctrinating CI links? You allow people to say anti Christ things on your forum, yet you are all over me when I joined in on a thread and give my honest opinion!
You go around calling good people ââ¬Ëcultistsââ¬â¢ (as they belong to the ââ¬ËCI cultââ¬â¢)ââ¬Â¦the jewish media would do the same about everyone here! As far as theyââ¬â¢re concerned we are all dangerous cultists ââ¬â racist, bigoted, lunatics!
Taking your interpretation of Godââ¬â¢s Holy Word, the Infallible God has failed, and is not so infallible after all. Why? Because he failed His mission ââ¬â to call His sheep to His name! The Bible is written for His people ââ¬â New and Old Testament. He came for those called by His name, for only Israel has He loved. He said this Himself! If His people are really the so-called jews of today, or if they were until He rejected them, then He failed: he could not convince them, He could not call them to His voice; they all betrayed Him, and He failed completelyââ¬Â¦He lost the apple of His eye, His only love, Israel. A lot of people might call that an occultist attitude (not to mention utter blasphemyââ¬Â¦) The God of our Fathers is not a loser, nor a failureââ¬Â¦Iââ¬â¢m disappointed that Christians could think that He was.
2004-06-20 01:03 | User Profile
I will say all of these articles all seen contaminated by marxist/frankfurt schools doctrines. "The Christian Identity Movement" is the best of them, but not without problems. "Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists" is the worst, it even attacks Gerald L. K. Smith. And "Christian Identity" has links to the Anti-Defamation League in it.
What I think of when I here "Christian Identity Movement" is someone who claims the lost tribes of Isreal were the Anglo-Saxons.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.equip.org/free/DI100.htm]Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists[/url]
[url=http://www.carm.org/list/christian_identity.htm]The 'Christian' Identity Movement[/url]
[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c106.html]Christian Identity[/url]
Definitely not the doctrine of Gerald L. K. Smith.[/QUOTE]
This article has a lot of marxist nonsense in it.
[QUOTE]A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists
. . .
Racism as Science and History. Many of Identity's racist ideas can be traced to the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Esoteric sounding theories, propagated by intellectuals and college professors of the day, were used to prove the inferiority of some races. These theories have been disproved by modern scholarship but are kept alive by the racist of today. One of the terms common to such theories was physiognomy, an ancient method for determining human character by the study of facial features. This included comparing those features to animal ones.10 Also, many historians of the time were highly nationalistic and, therefore, prone to write with a high regard for the white race.
Religious Racism. Another form of racism developed along religious and nationalistic lines. The growing concern of the peoples in the West (including the United States) with their own national interest led to some strange ideas about national identity. In the United States a theory called "Manifest Destiny" evolved. That view included the understanding that it was the nation's God-given destiny to expand from the east coast to the west coast, and perhaps even to the southern end of Mexico. In England another movement began that would later blend well with the Manifest Destiny ideas held by some in the United States. This religious movement was nationalistic, assigning religious worth more to race than to righteousness.
. . .
Wesley Swift was a prolific speaker and his tapes and written messages are frequently used by Identity speakers. His connections to the Nazism of Hitler's Germany are unquestionable. Swift was at one time both a friend and advance man for Gerald L. K. Smith, a racist whose radical career began when he joined the "Silver Shirts," an American Nazi group formed by Willam Pelley. James Ridgeway, author of Blood in the Face (a "who's-who of hate"), notes that "with Pelley as their 'Chief,' the Silver Shirts openly supported Hitler, cooperated with the pro-Nazi German-American Bund, and embarked on a program of vicious anti-Semitism."16
Swift was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan when he founded the Identity Church of Jesus Christ Christian in 1946. . .
[url]http://www.equip.org/free/DI100.htm[/url]
[/QUOTE]
2004-09-19 21:57 | User Profile
Identity, or whatever else lables one wishes to throw on someone that has read history and knows that those calling themselves "Jews" today are not the Israelites of the Bible, appears to be simply a word used to throw on anyone that some disagree with. Much like those that lable anything that they don't agree with as far as Biblical teachings go, as "Jewish".
Often times in these discussions the cart is placed in front of the horse. That is, before worrying over who is and who is not Israel, we ought to discuss this point - Does God today still have a plan for Physical Israel, for the lineage or descandants of Jacob/Israel?
why or why not?
Then discuss the who's are who are not's of it all.
Heb. 8:8 I feel provides some light on this - "Behold days are coming, says the Lord when I will effect a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. ."
Try to spiritualise this if you like, but I don't think the context of it will allow such to be done.
Next verse -
"Not like the [Mosaic] covenant which I made with their [the house of Israel's and the house of Judah's] fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt..." (Hebrews 8:9)
Again, physical.
Regards-
FNF! In His Service! [left] [/left] [left][url="http://www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard"]www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard[/url][/left] [left]Creating a True North American Alternative![/left]
| "For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from [the] Christ for the sake of my brethren, **my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belong ... the covenants...."** *(Romans 9:3-4)* |
2004-09-19 23:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=folkandfaith]Try to spiritualise this if you like, but I don't think the context of it will allow such to be done.
Next verse -
"Not like the [Mosaic] covenant which I made with their [the house of Israel's and the house of Judah's] fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt..." (Hebrews 8:9)
Again, physical.
[/QUOTE]What's so hard about spiritualizing this? Look at the next verse after that
This is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after that time, declares the Lord.
I don't see how much more spiritual you can get than that.
Does God have a plan for physical Israel? Sure. But to have any part of it they must do one thing - acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Unless they have done so, their physica/national/ethnic status has no significance to God. Read Romans again.
2004-09-19 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What's so hard about spiritualizing this? Look at the next verse after that
This is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after that time, declares the Lord.
I don't see how much more spiritual you can get than that.
Does God have a plan for physical Israel? Sure. But to have any part of it they must do one thing - acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Unless they have done so, their physica/national/ethnic status has no significance to God. Read Romans again.[/QUOTE]
THEIR MINDS and THEIR HEARTS, the only thing that is able to be "spiritualised" is the placement of the Gospel into their minds and hearts, that is it is more of a metaphysical act. But, the people whom it is speaking of is still the same, Physical descendants of Jacob-Israel. This is a physical thing that not even the most Judaized of preachers should be able to deny!
I pretty much agree with your assertation as far as lineages go, that is to say; one must first be of Israel, and then they must be of Christ. Being of Israel does one no good if they are not of Christ. Ones lineage will not buy one a ticket to anywhere, if they push off the message of Christ or reject it. This does not however spiritualise Israel or take them off the stage or make them no longer of any importance nor replace them with "spiritual Israelites" as some would put forth the claim.
Again, I would also like to invite such Folkish minded Christians over to the F&F Forums to bring forth more discussions on the Truth of Christianity and its relation to our people and their problems.
[url="http://www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard"]www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard[/url]
For Folk And Faith
Creating a True North American Alternative!
[url="http://www.missiontoisrael.org/Spirit13.html"]http://www.missiontoisrael.org/Spirit13.html[/url] Spiritualising Israel
2004-09-19 23:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]I will say all of these articles all seen contaminated by marxist/frankfurt schools doctrines. "The Christian Identity Movement" is the best of them, but not without problems. "Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists" is the worst, it even attacks Gerald L. K. Smith. And "Christian Identity" has links to the Anti-Defamation League in it.
What I think of when I here "Christian Identity Movement" is someone who claims the lost tribes of Isreal were the Anglo-Saxons.
This article has a lot of marxist nonsense in it.[/QUOTE] The article is so full of half-truths, outright lies, distortions, and "well-sort-of's" that it should not be taken serious by anyone proclaiming themselves to be Christian, whether they know what the real identity of "todays 'jews'" are or whether they know who they as children of Europe are or not. The article is chaulk full of lies is my point.
First, they make Identity out to be a religion when it is not. It is an understanding of history and a conviction gained through studies in such and most importantly of Biblical passages.
The "Armegedon" being a race-war may indeed be taught by people like the A.N., but that does not make it a "identity" teaching any more then a Nazi inventing the tubeless tire makes anyone using tubeless tires a nazi.
Identity as many refer to it as is again just an understanding. One can be of any particular Christian 'denomination' and still know who the Israelites are and are not in todays time and in the Biblical times.
One can then believe in 'satan', 'satanic seedlines', 'beasts of the field being negroes', 'second commings of Christ' or one can believe in none of these things and still be identity.
2005-01-09 04:30 | User Profile
I am tired of talking. I am tired of thinking that information has any relevance at all. It means nothing..there is no legal way to make changes at all.. we LIVE in slavery..
2005-01-09 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]I am tired of talking. I am tired of thinking that information has any relevance at all. It means nothing..there is no legal way to make changes at all.. we LIVE in slavery..[/QUOTE] Sometimes I feel that way, as well, but you must keep hoping. Remember that despair is a sin.
2005-01-10 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=folkandfaith] First, they make Identity out to be a religion when it is not. It is an understanding of history and a conviction gained through studies in such and most importantly of Biblical passages. [/QUOTE]
If Christian Identity was true, the early writers and commentators of Christianity would have talked about it. They didn't, so the doctrine is inarguably false.
2005-01-10 07:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]If Christian Identity was true, the early writers and commentators of Christianity would have talked about it. They didn't, so the doctrine is inarguably false.[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
Doctrinal revelation is closed. CI is a major innovation, and is therefore false.
Walter
2005-01-10 10:16 | User Profile
I have some sites I highly recommened you ALL look at. They give a pro-view on British/Christian Israelism (some things even written by Jews and Rabbis alike.
[url="http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/servantpeople.html"]http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/servantpeople.html[/url]
[url="http://www.israelite.ca/BooksWePublish_files/Saxons.htm"]http://www.israelite.ca/BooksWePublish_files/Saxons.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm"]http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm[/url] (Chapter 5, Paragraphy 2) (The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus)
[url="http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/british-israel%20fact%20or%20fiction.htm"]http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/british-israel%20fact%20or%20fiction.htm[/url] (From the own mouths of British Israelism's supporters and believers)
[url="http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/lost-tribe-migration.htm"]http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/lost-tribe-migration.htm[/url]
[url="http://asis.com/~stag/migratio.html"]http://asis.com/~stag/migratio.html[/url]
EVERYONE HERE SHOULD CHECK THEM ALL OUT!
2005-01-10 13:47 | User Profile
[img]http://www.missiontoisrael.org/images/id-crisis-cover-200.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.missiontoisrael.org/images/id-crisis.jpg[/img]
2005-01-10 14:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Ditto.
Doctrinal revelation is closed. CI is a major innovation, and is therefore false.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Christian Identity, like most all recent heresies, invariably rely on at least the pretense of sola Scriptura and therefore seemingly clever manipulations of certain Bible verses. This tactic should be an obvious tip-off of every heresy and false teaching.
Having said that, let me also acknowledge that all branches of Christianity have failed to some degree and pandered to political fashion. Otherwise, no one would be motivated towards Christian Identity. I see this as a reaction by race-conscious white people against this liberalism that has infected the churches to varying degrees. But the fact is real Christianity has not changed, but rather men have changed and by their weakness they attempt to make Christianity follow ideas which are extraneous or contradictory to essential Christianity. For example, using Christianity to impose racial equality, open borders, and racial destruction on Christians. The answer to this is not to jump into a custom-tailored heresy, but to reclaim our churches.
2005-01-10 18:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Christian Identity, like most all recent heresies, invariably rely on at least the pretense of sola Scriptura and therefore seemingly clever manipulations of certain Bible verses. This tactic should be an obvious tip-off of every heresy and false teaching.
Having said that, let me also acknowledge that all branches of Christianity have failed to some degree and pandered to political fashion. Otherwise, no one would be motivated towards Christian Identity. I see this as a reaction by race-conscious white people against this liberalism that has infected the churches to varying degrees. But the fact is real Christianity has not changed, but rather men have changed and by their weakness they attempt to make Christianity follow ideas which are extraneous or contradictory to essential Christianity. For example, using Christianity to impose racial equality, open borders, and racial destruction on Christians. The answer to this is not to jump into a custom-tailored heresy, but to reclaim our churches.[/QUOTE]
Show us your proof about manipulations of certain Bible verses.
" custom-tailored heresy"... they probably said the same thing about Martin Luther.
No one ever said real Christianity has changed. But do you know why Thomas Jefferson rejected most of the Bible? Because he could not believe God would choose such unrepentant vile usurers and liars as the so-called Jews. How many other good men and women have turned away from the holy Word of God because of the false teaching of men?
Certain men on this forum are very arrogant and holier than thou and think nothing of calling good Christian people all kinds of insulting names. You remind me of the people who screamed, ââ¬ÅCrucify Him, crucify Him!ââ¬Â Think before you speak, foolish men.
2005-01-10 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Show us your proof about manipulations of certain Bible verses.
" custom-tailored heresy"... they probably said the same thing about Martin Luther.
Luther was wrong. And your point?
No one ever said real Christianity has changed. But do you know why Thomas Jefferson rejected most of the Bible? Because he could not believe God would choose such unrepentant vile usurers and liars as the so-called Jews. How many other good men and women have turned away from the holy Word of God because of the false teaching of men?
You Identity people are trying to change real Christianity. You're essentially trying to Judaize it by claiming that things like the OT dietary laws are still in effect and claiming that physical Israel is still the central focus of the NT, which is obviously false.
Certain men on this forum are very arrogant and holier than thou and think nothing of calling good Christian people all kinds of insulting names. You remind me of the people who screamed, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Think before you speak, foolish men.[/QUOTE]
Good Christians should follow Christianity as it has been taught for 2,000 years, not try to create some new version which they think better serves the present political situation.
2005-01-10 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Show us your proof about manipulations of certain Bible verses.
" custom-tailored heresy"... they probably said the same thing about Martin Luther. Are you actually denying that certain verses of the Bible have been interpreted in such a way as to foment heresy? If so, why do you go on to state -- [quote=Gabrielle]How many other good men and women have turned away from the holy Word of God because of the false teaching of men? Those 'false teachings of men' were usually wrapped up in a veneer of Bible verses. The Devil can quote scripture, after all. You also state this -- [quote=Gabrielle]Certain men on this forum are very arrogant and holier than thou and think nothing of calling good Christian people all kinds of insulting names.[/QUOTE] Of whom, pray tell, are you speaking? Perhaps you'd be so bold as to name names? Wild_Bill's post hardly seems worthy of such accusations. He wrote this -- [quote=wild_bill]Having said that, let me also acknowledge that all branches of Christianity have failed to some degree and pandered to political fashion. That hardly seems arrogant or holier-than-thou to me.
2005-01-10 20:01 | User Profile
Luther was wrong. And your point?
Was he? So you must agree with selling of indulgences, which, in essence, means the more money you have the more you can sin and get away with it?
You must also believe in the unbiblical church teaching of purgatory; I guess Martin was wrong about that too.
What about priests not getting married? Why do you think your so-called traditional churches are over run with sodomites preying on little boys?
These are laws of men, not of Godââ¬Â¦ think for yourself, Bill.
You Identity people are trying to change real Christianity. You're essentially trying to Judaize it by claiming that things like the OT dietary laws are still in effect and claiming that physical Israel is still the central focus of the NT, which is obviously false.
Bill, Jesus never did away with Godââ¬â¢s laws ââ¬â he did away with the rituals, not the Law. Can we murder people, can we rape people, or can we steal from people?
The swine is unclean to you, Bill, and you should not pollute the temple of God with the unclean. I mean, heck, why donââ¬â¢t you eat rats and snakes?
God said He came for Israel; it is Israel that he loves; He has only known Israel; etc, etc.
Good Christians should follow Christianity as it has been taught for 2,000 years, not try to create some new version which they think better serves the present political situation.
It is because Christians have turned from the holy righteous laws of God that we are in so much trouble againââ¬Â¦ there is nothing new under the sun.
Good Christians are returning to true Christianity, and awakening to the light of what has been hidden from them.
Regards, Gabrielle
2005-01-10 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Was he? So you must agree with selling of indulgences, which, in essence, means the more money you have the more you can sin and get away with it?
I'm not Catholic, so why would I support the selling of indulgences?
You must also believe in the unbiblical church teaching of purgatory; I guess Martin was wrong about that too.
No, I don't believe in purgatory.
What about priests not getting married? Why do you think your so-called traditional churches are over run with sodomites preying on little boys? These are laws of men, not of God… think for yourself, Bill.
My priest is married as are most priests in the Orthodox Church and we have no significant sodomite problem.
You incorrectly assume that if someone isn't Protestant, then he's Roman Catholic.
2005-01-10 20:19 | User Profile
Bill, what do you think Luther was wrong about?
2005-01-10 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Bill, what do you think Luther was wrong about?[/QUOTE]
Of course, every Protestant on this board will disagree, but from the view of the apostolic Church, his sola Scriptura idea is a false teaching - no ifs ands or buts. By categorically rejecting Holy Tradition, he essentially unhinged the Scripture, making it vulnerable to abuse by any halfway clever sheister and confidence man.
Luther's protest against the Pope resulted in essentially every person becoming his own pope. Kind of ironic, isn't it? In effect, Luther created a new religion.
2005-01-10 20:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Of course, every Protestant on this board will disagree, but from the view of the apostolic Church, his sola Scriptura idea is a false teaching - no ifs ands or buts. By categorically rejecting Holy Tradition, he essentially unhinged the Scripture, making it vulnerable to abuse by any halfway clever sheister and confidence man.
Luther's protest against the Pope resulted in essentially every person becoming his own pope. Kind of ironic, isn't it? In effect, Luther created a new religion.[/QUOTE]
Protestants don't adhere to it anyways... not even most of the so called Identity Christians. Most 'Christians' follow men, not the Truth.
2005-01-10 23:07 | User Profile
Bill.... Sola Scriptura defines Scripture as the final authority. IT does not preclude using tradition as a guide to how to interpret the Scripture, we do it all the time in my church, looking back to the early Church fathers even before the Schism. The problem comes in making tradition equal to Scripture or when a conflict in the two arise putting tradition above the Word. Early Protestants often drew from early sources (like Augustine) for guidance.
2005-01-10 23:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jozen1]Bill.... Sola Scriptura defines Scripture as the final authority. IT does not preclude using tradition as a guide to how to interpret the Scripture, we do it all the time in my church, looking back to the early Church fathers even before the Schism. The problem comes in making tradition equal to Scripture or when a conflict in the two arise putting tradition above the Word. Early Protestants often drew from early sources (like Augustine) for guidance.[/QUOTE]
You're close. Scripture should be interpreted WITHIN Tradition, not exclusive or independant of it.
Unfortunately, the attitude I encounter on every message board is where someone will claim a particular interpretation of Scripture. I will ask how they know their interpretation is correct, and the response will be that they're being "guided by the Holy Spirit," so therefore it has to be correct! This is what I mean by every person becoming his own pope.
As you know, Tradition preceded the Bible, so its obviously impossible to claim Christianity is actually based on the Bible.
In Orthodox Christianity, the sources of doctrine are:
Revelation Tradition Bible The Liturgy The Councils The Fathers The Saints Canons Church Art
[url]http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/index.html#sources[/url]
Each is interconnected to the others. And even if every Bible in existance were to suddenly disappear, by using the other sources of doctrine, the Church could re-create the Bible. But if one's church is based solely on the Bible, and there's no Bible, then you have no church. Or what's even worse is what we see happening today: the Bible is subverted and then the church becomes immediately subverted. Convince enough people that the Bible says something new and the church has a new teaching. Watch how homosexuality is being accepted by more and more churches. The fact that homosexuality has been categorically condemned for thousands of years is not important to these people.
2005-01-10 23:45 | User Profile
Bill, who does 'Tradition' teach are the Israel people of the Bible?
Does 'Tradition' teach that God's laws have been done away with?
2005-01-10 23:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Bill, who does 'Tradition' teach are the Israel people of the Bible?
What difference would it make anyway? Physical Israel's day has passed.
Does 'Tradition' teach that God's laws have been done away with?[/QUOTE]
That depends on what you mean by "God's laws."
2005-01-11 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]What difference would it make anyway? Physical Israel's day has passed. [/Quote]
Jesus failed His mission ââ¬â to call His sheep to His name! The Bible is written for His people ââ¬â New and Old Testament. He came for those called by His name, for only Israel has He loved. He said this Himself! If His people are really the so-called jews of today, or if they were until He rejected them, then He failed: he could not convince them, He could not call them to His voice; they all betrayed Him, and He failed completelyââ¬Â¦He lost the apple of His eye, His only love, Israel. Are you telling me God is a failure?
[Quote]That depends on what you mean by "God's laws."[/QUOTE]
The Ten Commandments, the food laws, the hygiene laws, etc...
2005-01-11 00:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Jesus failed His mission – to call His sheep to His name! The Bible is written for His people – New and Old Testament. He came for those called by His name, for only Israel has He loved. He said this Himself! If His people are really the so-called jews of today, or if they were until He rejected them, then He failed: he could not convince them, He could not call them to His voice; they all betrayed Him, and He failed completely…He lost the apple of His eye, His only love, Israel. Are you telling me God is a failure?
You know the traditional interpretation of all that is that out of mercy Christ gave Israel one last chance to save themselves. Except for a tiny remnant, they rejected Christ and by doing so cursed themselves. Once they had rejected the Messiah, God's favor passed to the Church which is spiritual Israel.
God didn't fail. Men failed.
The Ten Commandments, the food laws, the hygiene laws, etc...[/QUOTE]
The dietary laws, etc. are no longer in effect. The Ten Commandments are still in effect, but these would be largely redundant in relation to Christ's teachings.
2005-01-11 00:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]You know the traditional interpretation of all that is that out of mercy Christ gave Israel one last chance to save themselves. Except for a tiny remnant, they rejected Christ and by doing so cursed themselves. Once they had rejected the Messiah, God's favor passed to the Church which is spiritual Israel.
God didn't fail. Men failed. [/Quote]
The Bible is very clear that God (Jesus) came for His beloved Israel people and by men's traditional interpretation He failed.
[Quote]The dietary laws, etc. are no longer in effect. The Ten Commandments are still in effect, but these would be largely redundant in relation to Christ's teachings.[/QUOTE]
Why are they no longer in effect? Are the hygiene laws no longer in effect also?
2005-01-11 00:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]The Bible is very clear that God (Jesus) came for His beloved Israel people and by men's traditional interpretation He failed.
No, its "clear" only by your personal opinion. Here again we get into this interpretation issue. You obviously reject the traditional interpretation upon which Christianity is based and substitute what you THINK it should say. But the fact is no Christian writer of authority in any age agrees with your interpretation.
Why are they no longer in effect? Are the hygiene laws no longer in effect also?[/QUOTE]
Do you sacrifice animals at the temple? If you claim the laws are still in effect, you can't just pick and choose certain ones.
2005-01-11 00:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]No, its "clear" only by your personal opinion. Here again we get into this interpretation issue. You obviously reject the traditional interpretation upon which Christianity is based and substitute what you THINK it should say. But the fact is no Christian writer of authority in any age agrees with your interpretation.[/Quote]
It is very simple! God came in the flesh to redeem His Israel people. He died for Israel. He loved only Israel. He did not fail!
[Quote]Do you sacrifice animals at the temple? If you claim the laws are still in effect, you can't just pick and choose certain ones.[/QUOTE]
Christ did away with the rituals of the law... not the law itself.
2005-01-11 00:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]It is very simple! God came in the flesh to redeem His Israel people. He died for Israel. He loved only Israel. He did not fail! [/QUOTE]
The only Israel that exists today is the Church. There is nothing else.
2005-01-11 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]The only Israel that exists today is the Church. There is nothing else.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... I am sorry, but that is not what God's Holy Word says.
Ministers teach that the New Testament is for Christians and the Old Testament is for todayââ¬â¢s fake jews, that they say are Israelites. But look at who the Old Covenant (Testament) was made with, and look at who the New Covenant (Testament) was made with.
Old Covenant (Testament): Rom. 11:29 God promised Abraham unconditional covenant
Gen. 12: 1-3 God promised Abraham he would bless the earth
Gen. 17:2-9 I will establish my everlasting covenant
Rom. 1:5-8 Christ confirmed the promises made to the fathers
Gal. 3:17 God does not change even the Law
New Covenant (testament):
Heb.8: 8-10; Jerm. 31:31 New Covenant with Israel
Jerm.31: 33 He would write His law in Israelââ¬â¢s heart
Rom. 11: 26-27 Christââ¬â¢s covenant to Israel
Think on what Jesus (God come in the flesh) says about Israel:
Matt. 10:6 ââ¬Å But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.ââ¬Â
John 10: 14- 15 My sheep hear my voiceââ¬Â¦
John 10: 26-27 My sheep hear my voiceââ¬Â¦
Matt. 15:24 Christ came only to the lost sheep of Israelââ¬Â¦
And:
Jerm. 33:17 Throne of Israel shall not want for a manââ¬Â¦
Ezk. 3:5 Sent only to the house of Israelââ¬Â¦
Dan. 9:7 Israel that are near and that are far offââ¬Â¦
Heb.8: 8 New Covenant with Israelââ¬Â¦
Is. 65:11-15 Israel shall have a new nameââ¬Â¦
Gen. 49:10 The scepter shall not depart form Judah ââ¬Â¦
Lam. 2:18 Israel shall not cease as the ââ¬Åappleââ¬Â of Godââ¬â¢s eyeââ¬Â¦.
Hos. 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ââ¬Â¦
Very important:
Jerm. 51: 20 Israel is Godââ¬â¢s battle axeââ¬Â¦.
".....Further, true Christianity is not merely ââ¬Åcompatibleââ¬Â with nationalism, but demands such; the entire Scripture is a racial Book, written by, to and about Israelites, (demonstrably, the caucasian race)... The other races are not even mentioned with the exception of where they have come into contact with Israel; are you at all familiar with Richard Kelly Hoskins?"
2005-01-11 01:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Why are they no longer in effect? Are the hygiene laws no longer in effect also?[/QUOTE] No, they aren't. Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10 specifically does away with the dietary laws. The whole book of Acts relates how the Apostles (acting by the Holy Spirit) did away with one OT law after another -- dietary, circumcision, etc.
2005-01-11 01:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle] Ministers teach that the New Testament is for Christians and the Old Testament is for todayââ¬â¢s fake jews, that they say are Israelites.[/QUOTE] God used the Israelites as an instrument to bring His Son to the world. He fulfilled His promise to Abraham that his descendants would bless the earth by bring forth Jesus Christ from that line. God prepared Israel to accept the Christ; the vast majority of them refused. They turned their backs on God; He did not turn His back on them.
2005-01-11 01:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]No, they aren't. Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10 specifically does away with the dietary laws. The whole book of Acts relates how the Apostles (acting by the Holy Spirit) did away with one OT law after another -- dietary, circumcision, etc.[/QUOTE]
Quantrill, that vision was about men, not animals. Please reread Acts 10 - that, and the verses preceding and following it.
2005-01-11 01:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Hmmm... I am sorry, but that is not what God's Holy Word says.[/QUOTE]
No, Gabrielle, that's what YOU say it says. The problem is your interpretation flatly contradicts 2,000 years of basic Christian teaching and is by that fact alone a false teaching.
2005-01-11 01:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]God used the Israelites as an instrument to bring His Son to the world. He fulfilled His promise to Abraham that his descendants would bless the earth by bring forth Jesus Christ from that line. God prepared Israel to accept the Christ; the vast majority of them refused. They turned their backs on God; He did not turn His back on them.[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right and that is a basic and traditional Christian teaching and confirmed through the ages by the fathers of the Church:
THE APOSTASY OF THE JEWS
There is no doubt that the prophets of the Old Testament foretold God's rejection of the Jews. "That the Jews, according to what to what had been foreseen, have departed from God and have lost His favor," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage in Testamonies Against the Jews, "which in times past had been given to them and had been promised to them; but the Christians have succeeded to their place, deserving well of the Lord by faith, and coming out of all the nations and from the whole world."
The Jews were repudiated by God because they turned from Christ. "He came to His Own and they recieved Him not." (John 1:11). "For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their rulers," said the Apostle Paul, "because they knew Him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled their words by condemning Him," the Apostle continues, "yet they urged Pilate to kill Him. And when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, He was taken down from the tree and layed in a sepulchre." (Act 13:27-28). But their hope was frustrated for "the God of our fathers raised Jesus Who you killed by hanging Him on a tree." (Acts 5:30). "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, That same Jesus Whom you crucified"(Acts 2:36).
To the Jews, St. Jerome wrote in his homily 94 On the Pascha,
"Oh truly unhappy Jews, O truly wretched and pitiable Jews, who failed to realize that the Stone which Isaiah promised would be laid in the foundations of Zion (Isa. 28:16), and would unite both peoples, was the Lord Savior, the Son of God! That is the Stone you rejected when you were building the congregation of the Lord and were custodians of the sacred rites of the Temple. Rejected by you, He has become the cornerstone; and the first Church, gathered from among the Jews and the believers from the nations, He has united into one flock and into one divine mystery. 'By the Lord has this been done; it is wonderful in our eyes' (Ps. 117:23). It is wonderful that we who, before the Passion of the Lord, were without covenant and without law, should be adopted into the sonship of God, and that while the former lioncloth was disintegrating and falling away (Jer. 13:7-12), God would weave for Himself another and prepare for Himself another people."
When the Jews, at the trial of Jesus shouted, "Away with Him! Crucify Him.....Let His blood be upon us and our children!" (John 19:15; Matt. 24:25), say all the Fathers, they condemned themselves and their posterity.
These words, this curse upon themselves with the very blood of the Messiah - with all the significance "blood" had for the Jews - more than anything else led to their estrangement from God. It was the final act of defiance, the supreme act of disobedience, a defiance and disobedience with no excuse, because St. John Chrysostom rightly maintained, they had the prophets.
"If they did not have the prophets, they would not deserve punishment; if they had not read the sacred books, they would not be so unclean and unholy. But, as it is, they have been stripped of all excuse. They did have the heralds of truth, but, with hostile hearts, they set themselves against the prophets and the truth they spoke. So it is for this reason that they would be all the more profane and guilty of blood....."
The prophets foretold that the Messiah would come and under what circumstances. They could have believed and all the house of Israel would have been saved; indeed, she could have entered into a new and glorious Covenant with Him, joining Him and the Gentiles in the divine task of redeeming the human race and transforming the creation. Instead the Jews fulfilled the prophesies concerning their apostasy. As Malachi said,
"Judah is forsaken, and has become an abomination in Israel and in Jerusalem, because Judah profaned the likiness of the Lord in those things wherein he has loved and courted strange gods. The Lord will cut off the man who does such things, and he shall be made base in the tabernacle of Jacob" (Mal. 2:11).
And Nehemiah prophecied also,
"They have fallen away from Thee, and have cast they law behind their backs, and have killed the prophets which testified against them that they should return to Thee" (Neh. 9:26).
Likewise, Isaiah,
"Israel has not known Me, and My people have not perceived Me. A sinful nation, a people filled with sins, a wicked seed, lawless children; ye have forsaken the Lord, and provoked the Holy One of Israel" (Isa. 1:3,4).
And Hosea,
"And the Lord said, 'Call his name not My people, and I am not your God' (Hos. 1:9).....My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge; because they have rejected knowledge, I will reject you from being a priest to Me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children!" (Hos. 4:6).
And finally, the prophet Amos, announced the destruction of Old Israel, but not "utterly."
"Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground; except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, says the Lord" (Amos 8:9).
In other words, although the covenant with the Jewish nation has been nullified, God has not forgotten His promises to Abraham, Moses, and David.
Prophesy has ended in Israel - St. John the Baptists was the last of the prophets; the Temple will be destroyed and its rites and priesthood abolished (70 A.D.), as the Lord said; the Jews will be dispersed among the Gentiles; and the Jews will lose their unity. Nevertheless, a "remnant will remain" and provide the nucleus for the new Israel (Joel 2:32). Together with the Gentiles, God will give them a new and final Covenant. "And I will sow Her unto Me in the earth," Hosea said, reporting the words of the Lord, "and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which are not My people, 'You are My people; and they will say to Me, 'Thou art my God'." (Hosea 2:23) Therefore, St. Justin Martyr could justifiably assert about the Church, the new Israel,
"We have been led to God through the crucified Christ and we are the true spiritual Israel, and the descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, who, though uncircumsized, was approved and blessed by God because of his faith and was called the father of many nations."
All those who hold the Faith of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, compose the New Israel and share in the new Covenant. As the Lord said, "Behold I am God to a nation which has not called upoin My Name" (Isa. 65:1); and "it shall come to pass that whomever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved" (Joel 2:32; John 3:16). The Church of Jesus Christ, here is the "nation" promised to the patriarchs and prophecied by type and vision, a new nation, begun with the "remnant" of Old Israel, but which welcomes all peoples, all who profess that Christ is Lord.
Rev. Michael Azkoul Ph.D., The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church, printed by Dormition Skete, Bueana Vista, CO, with the blessing of His Grace, ALPY, Bishop of Cleveland and Vicar of Chicago, Detroit, and Middle America, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
2005-01-11 01:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]God used the Israelites as an instrument to bring His Son to the world. He fulfilled His promise to Abraham that his descendants would bless the earth by bring forth Jesus Christ from that line. God prepared Israel to accept the Christ; the vast majority of them refused. They turned their backs on God; He did not turn His back on them.[/QUOTE]
God came for Israel only...
Matt. 15:24 Christ came only to the lost sheep of Israel
Lam. 2:18 Israel shall not cease as the "apple" of His eye
2005-01-11 01:47 | User Profile
The Jews were repudiated by God because they turned from Christ. "He came to His Own and they recieved Him not." (John 1:11).
Yes, but was does the very next verse (John 1:12) say?
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.
"Israel has not known Me, and My people have not perceived Me. A sinful nation, a people filled with sins, a wicked seed, lawless children; ye have forsaken the Lord, and provoked the Holy One of Israel" (Isa. 1:3,4).
You must read onââ¬Â¦ what does Isaiah 1: 27 say?
Isaiah 1:27 ââ¬â Zion will be redeemed with justice,
And her ** repentant ** ones with righteousness.
2005-01-11 02:04 | User Profile
"And I will sow Her unto Me in the earth," Hosea said, reporting the words of the Lord, "and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which are not My people, 'You are My people; and they will say to Me, 'Thou art my God'." (Hosea 2:23) Therefore, St. Justin Martyr could justifiably assert about the Church, the new Israel,.
Once again your tradition is way offââ¬Â¦ chapter 2 of Hosea is talking about the restoration of Israel, not some church. Please read the entire chapter.
2005-01-11 02:22 | User Profile
"Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground; except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, says the Lord" (Amos 8:9).
In other words, although the covenant with the Jewish nation has been nullified, God has not forgotten His promises to Abraham, Moses, and David.
I believe you mean Amos 9:9. But once again you must read on. In verse 11, we read :ââ¬Â In that day I will raise up the booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days old
Now down to verse 14 of the same chapter, ââ¬ÅAlso I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them, They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit.
2005-01-11 02:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]No, Gabrielle, that's what YOU say it says. The problem is your interpretation flatly contradicts 2,000 years of basic Christian teaching and is by that fact alone a false teaching.[/QUOTE]
Bill, don't forget what Jesus said about the traditions of the elders. :wink:
2005-01-11 02:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]No, they aren't. Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10 specifically does away with the dietary laws. The whole book of Acts relates how the Apostles (acting by the Holy Spirit) did away with one OT law after another -- dietary, circumcision, etc.[/QUOTE] For your consideration ....
What I can best determine about Peter's vision when taken in context, is that Peter was shown the sheet full of unclean animals in Acts 10:14 and was told by God to "kill and eat"; to which he vehimently refused saying, "not so Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Now it would seem that after spending 3 years in close contact with Jesus, that Peter would have known the food laws had been cancelled. Taking that verse in context, it is about Peter resisting the visit to Cornelius, because Cornelius was uncircumcised and henceforth considered unclean. So, taking this verse in context, the vision did not pertain to the food laws, but to the Israelites who had not been living in Judea, therefore considered unclean, but were still Israelites.
The men of the New Testament knew and followed the law. John the Baptist told Herod in Mt. 14:4 that it was not lawful for Herod to have the daughter of Herodias. It was not lawful because of her prior relationships with other men. John refers to the laws found in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21, in that it is unlawful to take a brother's wife.
Because you do not know my beliefs yet, let me also state that when I discuss biblical laws that it is not through the law that we have salvation: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8). But we are also given Justification and Sanctification, both of which, I believe, are biblical concepts.
In Romans, Paul records for us: "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:12-13.
It would appear that if we know the whole law (not just the Ten Commandments) and do not keep it, we will still be judged by the law. And those who hear and obey the law will be justified while those who simply hear the law and disregard it will not be justified.
The sin of our people in the Old Testament were covered with the blood sacrifices of animals. The "Blood of Calvary" replaced that, and that is the law that Christ did not abolish, but fulfilled. It is 'the works' of those animal sacrifices that are no longer a legitimate endeavor, and that's why to pursue the animal sacrifices is to deny Christ's sacrifice. Circumcism is another 'ritual' law that was 'nailed to the Cross'.
2005-01-11 03:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Bill, don't forget what Jesus said about the traditions of the elders. :wink:[/QUOTE]
Two completely different things. The Jews always attempted to circumvent God and find loopholes in oder to engage in wickedness. The Church only seeks to obey God.
2005-01-11 05:35 | User Profile
The most egregious of your scriptural misinterpretations
[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]For your consideration ....
The men of the New Testament knew and followed the law. John the Baptist told Herod in Mt. 14:4 that it was not lawful for Herod to have the daughter of Herodias. It was not lawful because of her prior relationships with other men. John refers to the laws found in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21, in that it is unlawful to take a brother's wife.
That was for a Jews, before Christ died. So what?
Because you do not know my beliefs yet, let me also state that when I discuss biblical laws that it is not through the law that we have salvation: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8). But we are also given Justification and Sanctification, both of which, I believe, are biblical concepts.
Do they apply to you?
Whosoever are justified by the law, ye are fallen from Grace" (Gal 5:4)
In Romans, Paul records for us: "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:12-13.
It would appear that if we know the whole law (not just the Ten Commandments) and do not keep it, we will still be judged by the law. And those who hear and obey the law will be justified while those who simply hear the law and disregard it will not be justified. And when they are [B]not [/B] justified by the law they [B]are [/B] covered by grace. And when they [B]are[/B] justified by law, they are [B]not[/B] covered by grace.
The sin of our people in the Old Testament were covered with the blood sacrifices of animals. The "Blood of Calvary" replaced that, and that is the law that Christ did not abolish, but fulfilled. It is 'the works' of those animal sacrifices that are no longer a legitimate endeavor, and that's why to pursue the animal sacrifices is to deny Christ's sacrifice. Circumcism is another 'ritual' law that was 'nailed to the Cross'.[/QUOTE] Well I don't know where you get that ritual law stuff. Of course modern day Jews don't make blood sacrifices either.
All in all, it seems to me that [I]Christian[/I] identity is just too much weirdly jewish How are you different than jewish prosylites to one of those ultra-conservative jewish sects that also believe they are the only "real" jews?
To conservatives who view judaism fundamentally more of a religious than a biological problem, this is just too weird.
Tell me, what do the one-seedliners believe?
2005-01-11 09:31 | User Profile
One Seedline is a designation that Seedliners have designated for us. We do not submit to that designation. We are Christians that are active in the Christian Identity Movement. We are non denominational.
We do not consider ourselves, nor reference ourselves as "the real jews". That is a WTOTC designation, for which we do not submit to their outright misnomer.
Even Jesus said to the Pharisees, if you believed in Moses, you would believe in me. We do not believe that God changed His mind or went back on His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and perhaps this is the biggest issue that we disagree with Traditionalist Christian theology, is they either identify Israel as jews or the church. We understand that 1.) [font=Verdana][size=2]The Laws of the Old Testament were set as an everlasting covenant between God and His people. There are both conditional and unconditional aspects to God's covenants with His people. 2). [/size][/font]Per Hebrews 8:8-10, there is a new covenant with Israel.
Case in point: Jesus did not say that we have a responsibility to educate our children, but we instinctly know that it's the right thing to do. And that goes back to Gen. 18:19; Deut. 4:9-10; 6:6-9; 11:18-20; 31:12, 13; Josh 22:24-27; Ps. 78:1-7; Joel 1:3; Eph 6:4.
So here's a question to you. Would you say that those laws that were done away with are grievous? How are those laws grievous (like the dietary laws). Is it just the Ten Commandments that you hang on to? Mosaic law is over 300 laws in the Old Testament, many of which are moral laws: incest being one. Are they no longer applicable?
So if these moral laws are done away with, are they replaced? Or are we without law to cover these moral issues? Another point, if sin is transgression of the law and these laws are done away with, what is sin?
You asked a question on Grace and Justification. With my husband's help, I studied and conveyed the following thoughts on Stormfront:
[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=848761&postcount=1"]On Grace and Law[/url]
Here is a portion of that piece, the section on Grace, which covers law, grace and sanctification:
In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus tells us He did not come to destroy the law and that we should follow God's commandments. Paul echoes the same theme in Romans 3:31, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we ESTABLISH the law." In Romans 6:15, Paul writes, "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we commit sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!"
We are all sinners and the law convicts us all. We are therefore "under the law" our whole lives, striving to do good works to pay restitution for our sins. But the debt is too much for us to repay by ourselves. God knows that. So what did He do about it? Did He suspend the sentence, thus putting away the law? God forbid! Jesus came to earth and paid the penalty for us. When we put our faith in Him, we finally come "under grace", and we can stop trying to pay off the debt by our works.
Does this mean we should stop doing good works? Should we stop being obedient to the law? Of course not. Now that we are under grace, we can stop trying to be JUSTIFIED by our works. We are justified by Jesus' works. So from now on, we do good works and obey God because we love Him for justifying us. We work BECAUSE we are justified; not in order to obtain justification. Once we become a follower of Christ's, we are supernaturally given help from the Holy Spirit working within us that helps us to refuse the natural desires of our sinful nature, helping us to overcome the impulses of sin and helping us to turn to God for His Word on what's right and wrong. That's what God wants; for us to turn to Him.
2005-01-11 15:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Once again your tradition is way offââ¬Â¦ [/QUOTE]
Breathtaking arrogance.
2005-01-11 16:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]" custom-tailored heresy"... they probably said the same thing about Martin Luther. [/QUOTE]
Some of us still do.
2005-01-11 16:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Some of us still do.[/QUOTE]Yes - it was certainly heretical to oppose great Catholic doctrines like
"When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"
2005-01-11 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes - it was certainly heretical to oppose great Catholic doctrines like
"When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"[/QUOTE] You do know that that statement was not documented, and only attributed to that bishop by his enemies? That even if he did say it, it does not represent Church doctrine, and that he was censured by the Church? And that an indulgence has nothing to do with how long a soul stays in Purgatory? But why let the facts get in the way of such a darn handy rhetorical device?
2005-01-11 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]You do know that that statement was not documented, and only attributed to that bishop by his enemies? Uh-hmm.
That even if he did say it, it does not represent Church doctrine, and that he was censured by the Church? And that an indulgence has nothing to do with how long a soul stays in Purgatory?
But why let the facts get in the way of such a darn handy rhetorical device?[/QUOTE]Well I guess that's what the Church said when they went ahead and made huge gobs of money off indulgences from the slogan.
Trying to defend the indefensible. If Catholics of the time hadn't been so similarly rigid, they could have reformed more internally, (which was Luther's intent) and perhaps the reformation, although still needed, might not have been so irreversible or bitter.
Traditionalists need to remember the difference between being conservative/traditionalist and being reactionary.
2005-01-11 16:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Trying to defend the indefensible. If Catholics of the time hadn't been so similarly rigid, they could have reformed more internally, (which was Luther's intent) and perhaps the reformation, although still needed, might not have been so irreversible or bitter.[/QUOTE]
Amen.
2005-01-11 17:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]One Seedline is a designation that Seedliners have designated for us. We do not submit to that designation. We are Christians that are active in the Christian Identity Movement. We are non denominational.
We can discuss labels all we want, but I am confused slightly by your terminology. I understood you to be a dual seedliner. Why do "Seedliners" (are they the mono or dual type) call you "One Seedline"?
I'm just more curious about this actually than about your stand on law. It is the dual seedline concept that IMO is far the most heretical-appearing doctrine. Your standpoint on law I think is, to traditional questions, mainly problematical because of tying into other doctrines like the dual-seedline, which seem to tie you more directly into doctrines that seem overtly judaizing from a religious and cultural perspective, succinctly. It seems to have the potential to replicate the bad thing of Jewish racism toward those they viewed as gentiles.
Even Jesus said to the Pharisees, if you believed in Moses, you would believe in me. We do not believe that God changed His mind or went back on His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and perhaps this is the biggest issue that we disagree with Traditionalist Christian theology, is they either identify Israel as jews or the church. We understand that 1.) [font=Verdana][size=2]The Laws of the Old Testament were set as an everlasting covenant between God and His people. There are both conditional and unconditional aspects to God's covenants with His people. 2). [/size][/font]Per Hebrews 8:8-10, there is a new covenant with Israel.
Case in point: Jesus did not say that we have a responsibility to educate our children, but we instinctly know that it's the right thing to do. And that goes back to Gen. 18:19; Deut. 4:9-10; 6:6-9; 11:18-20; 31:12, 13; Josh 22:24-27; Ps. 78:1-7; Joel 1:3; Eph 6:4.
So here's a question to you. Would you say that those laws that were done away with are grievous? How are those laws grievous (like the dietary laws). Is it just the Ten Commandments that you hang on to? Mosaic law is over 300 laws in the Old Testament, many of which are moral laws: incest being one. Are they no longer applicable?
So if these moral laws are done away with, are they replaced? Or are we without law to cover these moral issues? Another point, if sin is transgression of the law and these laws are done away with, what is sin?
You asked a question on Grace and Justification. With my husband's help, I studied and conveyed the following thoughts on Stormfront:
[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=848761&postcount=1"]On Grace and Law[/url]
Here is a portion of that piece, the section on Grace, which covers law, grace and sanctification:[/QUOTE]Historical Christianity has had a number of different opinions on OT law. A number of us here like Walter are quite admiratory of the work of [URL=http://www.chalcedon.edu]Chalcedon Institute[/URL], which says things on OT law prett much like you do, although minus the dietary laws. Mixing up the Old and NT has a long tradition in not just Protestantism and Catholicism, so I would say whatever your views are on OT law they certainly are justifiable as being within the spectrum of todays accepted Protestant groups.
It is really the seedline doctrines that seem most problematical to mainstream Christians. Other doctrines seem problematical I think only because they are tied in with this.
2005-01-11 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Well I guess that's what the Church said when they went ahead and made huge gobs of money off indulgences from the slogan. Yes, Okie, they jumped in a timemachine and changed all the pre-existing expositions of what an indulgence was after Luther called them out. Maybe you should take your fingers out of your ears and read up on what an indulgence actually is.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Trying to defend the indefensible. If Catholics of the time hadn't been so similarly rigid, they could have reformed more internally, (which was Luther's intent) and perhaps the reformation, although still needed, might not have been so irreversible or bitter. How would you know what is indefensible, since you seem to lack a basic understanding of the belief in dispute? And Luther's doctrines are incompatible with the traditional understanding of what the Church is. They were revolutionary doctrines, yet you want to place the blame on the Catholics for not adopting them wholesale, instead of on Luther for casting aside centuries of belief on nothing more than his certainty that his personal interpretation was the One True Faith.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Traditionalists need to remember the difference between being conservative/traditionalist and being reactionary.[/QUOTE] As well as the difference between reform and revolution.
2005-01-11 17:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]And Luther's doctrines are incompatible with the traditional understanding of what the Church is.
False. What you call 'Luther's Doctrines' were the traditional understanding of the Church.
They were revolutionary doctrines, yet you want to place the blame on the Catholics for not adopting them wholesale, instead of on Luther for casting aside centuries of belief on nothing more than his certainty that his personal interpretation was the One True Faith.
James Carville has nothing on that spin! :)
And it seems that German catholics adopted them rather well, being quite united in opposition to Roman tyranny. :thumbsup:
2005-01-11 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]False. What you call 'Luther's Doctrines' were the traditional understanding of the Church.[/QUOTE] Yes, they were so 'traditional' that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy recognize them as such. So 'traditional' that only the followers of the guy that invented them see them as such. Protestantism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Each person can interpret orthodoxy right out of existence. You will say, as you invariably do, that all you have to do is look at the Scriptures, and it is all clear what is orthodox and what is not. This is simply not the case. In your disputations with Lydia regarding CI, for example, you can both quote scripture back and forth. Both of you feel that your personal interpretation of scripture is self-evidently correct. If each of you is perfectly qualified to interpret the meaning of the text, how is it that your conclusions are so different? Protestantism is, at bottom, rebellion against authority. You might say that you are only rebelling against human authority so that you may more perfectly obey God's authority. Well and good. However, when each person decides for himself exactly what God's authority is, then the practical effect is to eventually define that authority to parallel human ideologies. Thus, authority is rendered meaningless. Protestantism only survives insofar as its adherents refuse to take its underlying assumptions to their logical conclusions. Once that happens, it disappears into a poof of smoke, and reappears as Unitarianism, Quakerism, Jehovah's Witnessism, Seventh-day Adventism, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
2005-01-11 18:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Breathtaking arrogance.[/QUOTE]
I can be. :wink:
2005-01-11 18:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, they were so 'traditional' that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy recognize them as such. So 'traditional' that only the followers of the guy that invented them see them as such. Protestantism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Each person can interpret orthodoxy right out of existence. You will say, as you invariably do, that all you have to do is look at the Scriptures, and it is all clear what is orthodox and what is not. This is simply not the case. In your disputations with Lydia regarding CI, for example, you can both quote scripture back and forth. Both of you feel that your personal interpretation of scripture is self-evidently correct. If each of you is perfectly qualified to interpret the meaning of the text, how is it that your conclusions are so different? Protestantism is, at bottom, rebellion against authority. You might say that you are only rebelling against human authority so that you may more perfectly obey God's authority. Well and good. However, when each person decides for himself exactly what God's authority is, then the practical effect is to eventually define that authority to parallel human ideologies. Thus, authority is rendered meaningless. Protestantism only survives insofar as its adherents refuse to take its underlying assumptions to their logical conclusions. Once that happens, it disappears into a poof of smoke, and reappears as Unitarianism, Quakerism, Jehovah's Witnessism, Seventh-day Adventism, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.[/QUOTE]
Do you believe the American Revolution was wrong?
2005-01-11 18:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Do you believe the American Revolution was wrong?[/QUOTE] No, I don't, although I also do not attach the religious significance to it that many Americans do. However, a political revolution against the City of Man, and a spiritual revolution against the City of God are two different things.
2005-01-11 18:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Protestantism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Each person can interpret orthodoxy right out of existence.
So you keep saying, yet somehow, someway it continues to thrive and flourish. Of course that is not because of the work of protestant men and women, but rather entirely the work of the Holy Spirit.
You will say, as you invariably do, that all you have to do is look at the Scriptures, and it is all clear what is orthodox and what is not. This is simply not the case.
If that is your position, then you are denying the perspicuity of Scripture and directly contradicting what it claims for itself. I wouldn't want to be in that position.
In your disputations with Lydia regarding CI, for example, you can both quote scripture back and forth. Both of you feel that your personal interpretation of scripture is self-evidently correct. If each of you is perfectly qualified to interpret the meaning of the text, how is it that your conclusions are so different?
Simple, either one is right or the other. See jozen1's comment earlier in the thread. You continue to misinterpret what sola scriptura really is.
Protestantism is, at bottom, rebellion against authority.
Correction: protestantism is rebellion against self-seeking earthly authority that sets itself against the Holy Scriptures, God's revealed Word to man and the final authority we are commanded to test every doctrine with.
2005-01-11 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, Okie, they jumped in a timemachine and changed all the pre-existing expositions of what an indulgence was after Luther called them out. Maybe you should take your fingers out of your ears and read up on what an indulgence actually is.
Sounds like you're trying to sell me some :lol:
How would you know what is indefensible, since you seem to lack a basic understanding of the belief in dispute? And Luther's doctrines are incompatible with the traditional understanding of what the Church is. They were revolutionary doctrines, yet you want to place the blame on the Catholics for not adopting them wholesale, instead of on Luther for casting aside centuries of belief on nothing more than his certainty that his personal interpretation was the One True Faith.
Well the Church at the time was a fascist institution, burning people at the state for heresy. Jefferson said a little revolution now and then was a good thing. Gabrielle seems right asking you about the American revolution.
I also have to wonder about your take on the Alamo and Tex's avatar, who were fighting a tyrrany that was genuinely PC for the Catholic Church of its day. BTW, I think your avatar was Protestant.
Also sounds like you're like the people that want to blame the peasant rebellions, where the Barons massacured 100,000 people, on Luther. Its unfair regarding Luther of course, at the minimum, and also seems to place you on the side of serfdom - a rather reactionary position.
2005-01-11 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So you keep saying, yet somehow, someway it continues to thrive and flourish. Of course that is not because of the work of protestant men and women, but rather entirely the work of the Holy Spirit. [/QUOTE]
The only things "thriving and flourishing" within Protestantism is heresy and subversion. Take just dispensationalism alone which has taken over or at least contaminated most all Protestant denominations. There's nothing traditional about dispensationalism, yet millions of average Protestant Bible thumpers believe it just because some liar convinced him that "its in the Bible." Never mind that their particular sect may not have been dispensational in the past, after all who cares about the past and what they believed back then. That doesn't mean anything!
Of course, its possible to point to a few small Protestant groups which have resisted dispensationalism, but these are the minority. Whereas both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have rejected this heresy. Therein demonstrates the power and safeguard of Tradition, while your Protestant sects swing like weather vanes to heresy and fashion and continuously spin-off new sects and cults almost daily.
2005-01-11 19:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Whereas both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have rejected this heresy. Therein demonstrates the power and safeguard of Tradition, while your Protestant sects swing like weather vanes to heresy and fashion and continuously spin-off new sects and cults almost daily.[/QUOTE]Uh, I don't know about the orthodox church, but you seem to be in a time warp regarding Catholicism.
2005-01-11 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Uh, I don't know about the orthodox church, but you seem to be in a time warp regarding Catholicism.[/QUOTE]
On the point of dispensationalism, I think Catholics have been far more resistant to this subversion. I have heard of so-called "evangelical Catholics." Maybe these have been corrupted, but I don't know that for sure.
The only times I have ever heard dispensationalism advocated among Orthodox Christians is by new converts who came out of Protestant fundamentalism. In every case, such people have been immediately corrected and informed that such nonsense is definitely not part of or compatible with Orthodox teachings.
2005-01-11 19:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]The only things "thriving and flourishing" within Protestantism is heresy and subversion. Take just dispensationalism alone which has taken over or at least contaminated most all Protestant denominations. There's nothing traditional about dispensationalism, yet millions of average Protestant Bible thumpers believe it just because some liar convinced him that "its in the Bible." Never mind that their particular sect may not have been dispensational in the past, after all who cares about the past and what they believed back then. That doesn't mean anything!
Of course, its possible to point to a few small Protestant groups which have resisted dispensationalism, but these are the minority. Whereas both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have rejected this heresy. Therein demonstrates the power and safeguard of Tradition, while your Protestant sects swing like weather vanes to heresy and fashion and continuously spin-off new sects and cults almost daily.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, wild bill. I enjoy drawing you out to reveal your true feelings about non-Orthodox Christianity. It starkly demonstrates what Frank Schaeffer said about the Orthodox Church - it is a "sort of social-ethnic club, infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and indifference to the sacraments."
2005-01-11 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]On the point of dispensationalism, I think Catholics have been far more resistant to this subversion. I have heard of so-called "evangelical Catholics." Maybe these have been corrupted, but I don't know that for sure. [/QUOTE] I wasn't just talking about dispensationalism. Communists don't believe in dispensationalist theology either, but that doesn't mean you should go looking for a party card.
2005-01-11 19:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you, wild bill. I enjoy drawing you out to reveal your true feelings about non-Orthodox Christianity. It starkly demonstrates what Frank Schaeffer said about the Orthodox Church - it is a "sort of social-ethnic club, infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and indifference to the sacraments."[/QUOTE] The 'social-ethnic' bit comes from the Orthodox being members of persecuted groups (under the Turks and Soviets, for example) for much of the last millennium. And since Protestants celebrate the Eucharist maybe once a month, and even then it is only a symbol, and they have done away with confession and last rites completely, the charge of 'indifference to the sacraments' rings rather hollow.
2005-01-11 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The 'social-ethnic' bit comes from the Orthodox being members of persecuted groups (under the Turks and Soviets, for example) for much of the last millennium. And since Protestants celebrate the Eucharist maybe once a month, and even then it is only a symbol, and they have done away with confession and last rites completely, the charge of 'indifference to the sacraments' rings rather hollow.[/QUOTE]
Good stuff, Q. :thumbsup: FYI, Frank Schaeffer is Orthodox. :)
'Course with regards to the Lutheran confession your charges are entirely untrue.
2005-01-11 20:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sounds like you're trying to sell me some :lol: Excellent response, if your objective is to avoid having to educate yourself about what an indulgence actually is.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Well the Church at the time was a fascist institution, burning people at the state for heresy. What does that even mean? The concept of fascism didn't even exist at that time. Your Enlightenment biases are showing through. Modern states execute people for treason, and I'm sure you find that just. At that time, society was Christian through and through, so any willful subversion of Christian doctrine was not one's own private business, but rather a subversion of the foundation upon which the society was built. Thus, when states of that time (it was states, after all, that executed any punishment decreed by an ecclesiastical court) executed heretics, they felt that they were executing them for treason, as well. And the fact of the matter is that there were people trying to destroy the Church from the inside, such as the Marranos. The Inquisition was the immune system of Christian Europe.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Jefferson said a little revolution now and then was a good thing. Jefferson said a lot of things. Does that quote mean that the French Revolution was great as well? [QUOTE=Okiereddust]Gabrielle seems right asking you about the American revolution. And I already answered her. I try to judge each case on its merits, instead of becoming enamored of simply throwing the old order down.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]BTW, I think your avatar was Protestant. That would be a great point if I had made the comment that all Protestants were evil. But since I didn't, I'm not sure of what the relevance is supposed to be.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Also sounds like you're like the people that want to blame the peasant rebellions, where the Barons massacured 100,000 people, on Luther. Its unfair regarding Luther of course, at the minimum, and also seems to place you on the side of serfdom - a rather reactionary position.[/QUOTE] Firstly, I don't consider 'reactionary' the bad word that you seem to. Secondly, my ideal society would have a Christian monarch, a strong Church, an aristocracy, and a landed citizenry.
2005-01-11 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Good stuff, Q. :thumbsup: FYI, Frank Schaeffer is Orthodox. :) I'm aware of that. In fact, he is a Protestant convert, I believe. I was trying to put some of the human failings of the Orthodox into historical context.
[quote=Texas Dissident] 'Course with regards to the Lutheran confession your charges are entirely untrue.[/QUOTE] Lutherans hold to the dogma of the Real Presence, and good for them. Perhaps I should have clarified that it is only the overwhelming majority of Protestants that don't believe it. Lutherans have, however, jettisoned confession and extreme unction, correct?
2005-01-12 03:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Excellent response, if your objective is to avoid having to educate yourself about what an indulgence actually is. Die hard traditionalist. Tell me, what's your defense for burning at the stake?
What does that even mean? The concept of fascism didn't even exist at that time. Your Enlightenment biases are showing through. Modern states execute people for treason, and I'm sure you find that just. At that time, society was Christian through and through, so any willful subversion of Christian doctrine was not one's own private business, but rather a subversion of the foundation upon which the society was built. [B]Thus, when states of that time (it was states, after all, that executed any punishment decreed by an ecclesiastical court) executed heretics, they felt that they were executing them for treason, as well.[/B] Never mind :lol:
Firstly, I don't consider 'reactionary' the bad word that you seem to. Secondly, my ideal society would have a Christian monarch, a strong Church, an aristocracy, and a landed citizenry.[/QUOTE]Funny, the "landed citizenry" of Luther's time didn't find their situation so ideal. Well actually they were enslaved to the land, but whatever. I guess there will always be trouble-makers. Thank God for the Catholic Church and the knaut, stake, and rack.
If the heathen fronters were still here, they'd put you ahead of Walter and his famous "Christian Talibaner" remark :lol:
2005-01-12 03:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you, wild bill. I enjoy drawing you out to reveal your true feelings about non-Orthodox Christianity.
If you can prove me wrong, please do. I think the only thing I could have done is used more delicate wording, but the essential observation is reasonably accurate.
It starkly demonstrates what Frank Schaeffer said about the Orthodox Church - it is a "sort of social-ethnic club, infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and indifference to the sacraments."[/QUOTE]
That's one man's opinion. I don't agree with it.
I'm not even sure what he means by nominalism. And indifference to the sacraments? I don't get that one at all, since I think Orthodoxy pays more attention to the sacraments than any church I've ever known. For example, how could I have raised in the Methodism and NEVER even heard of them having the Lord's Supper? And my grandfather was a Sunday school teacher!
Many Orthodox parishes are to varying degrees ethnically conscious, but so what? That's a good thing. It didn't stop me from joining or the people treating me very nicely.
2005-01-12 04:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I wasn't just talking about dispensationalism. Communists don't believe in dispensationalist theology either, but that doesn't mean you should go looking for a party card.[/QUOTE]
I'm not Catholic, so that should indicate where I stand in regard to your comparison. My criticism is against the democratization of Christianity and the consquences of the every-man-is-a-pope principle that underlines sola Scriptura.
2005-01-12 06:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]We can discuss labels all we want, but I am confused slightly by your terminology. I understood you to be a dual seedliner. Why do "Seedliners" (are they the mono or dual type) call you "One Seedline"? We can agree that whenever someone takes one scripture and builds their entire theology around it, that they are asking for trouble. The Dual Seedline theory has gone under a variety of names such as Two-Seedline, Serpent Seedline, Seedline (the term I have stayed with) which are all based on Genesis 3:15. The reason these Seedliners label anyone who disagrees with them as One Seedliners is to mis-characterize their opposition. It's all a matter of interpretation, and we find the Seedline proponents cannot even agree amongst themselves exactly what their theology is. They have a preoccupation with the origins of jews linked to a sexual liason with Eve and Satan. We do not share this preoccupation or obsession, and tend to align ourselves with the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.
2005-01-12 06:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I'm not Catholic, so that should indicate where I stand in regard to your comparison. My criticism is against the democratization of Christianity and the consquences of the every-man-is-a-pope principle that underlines sola Scriptura.[/QUOTE]Well you were defending Catholicism, not Orthodoxy. Probably you feel the same principles are at stake, as both reject [I]sola scriptura[/I], although it seems by my limited study Orthodoxy's rejection is more nuanced.
2005-01-12 06:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you, wild bill. I enjoy drawing you out to reveal your true feelings about non-Orthodox Christianity. It starkly demonstrates what Frank Schaeffer said about the Orthodox Church - it is a "sort of social-ethnic club, infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and[B] indifference to the sacraments[/B]."[/QUOTE]
The "social-ethnic" club part of that hits home, but I must strenously object to "indifference to the sacraments." The Orthodox are all about the sacraments. In practice they put us Catholics to shame with their dogged devotion to pure liturgy.
2005-01-12 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Die hard traditionalist. Tell me, what's your defense for burning at the stake?:[/QUOTE]
Burning at the stake in the cause of orthodoxy can be a good thing. It makes a strong statement, that's for sure. Sends a message.
Calvin certainly thought so. Do you reject him for [URL=http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm]burning that Spanish heretic fellow[/URL]?
And it wasn't as if [URL=http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ503.HTM#II.%20Luther's%20Own%20Words]Luther wasn't all for a little mayhem in a good cause [/URL] (something I actually agree with him on).
Methinks we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here. Surely no serious follower of Calvin or Luther could decry Catholic tactics. How could you reject the stake and the gibbet and then claim as your own the main cheerleader of the horrors of the Peasant Revolt?
And I emphasize that I'm the one who agrees with Lutheran and Calvinist tactics. So did the Jesuits. They were united on that score. I just disagree, along with the Jesuits, with the cause of the Reformation.
2005-01-12 07:31 | User Profile
[url="http://www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.html"]http://www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.html[/url]
Just read that...
Oh and Christian Identity and British-Israelism are not bad. True Israel exist today, both in spirit and in body - the Jews are not nor ever were the Israelites.
2005-01-12 08:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Luther was wrong. And your point?
You Identity people are trying to change real Christianity. You're essentially trying to Judaize it by claiming that things like the OT dietary laws are still in effect and claiming that physical Israel is still the central focus of the NT, which is obviously false. [/QUOTE] Um, Christian Identity is nothing like "Judaism/Taludism" - which is a corrupted religion on Hebrewism. The true Hebrelites/Israelites became Christian. Apart from the Tribes in Exile - who became Anglo-Saxons. Yeshua came to Israel, he said that.
[QUOTE]Good Christians should follow Christianity as it has been taught for 2,000 years, not try to create some new version which they think better serves the present political situation.[/QUOTE] Um Christian Identity isn't a new version, many Pastors of several forms of Christianity believe in British Israelism - even some Jewish Rabbis. Christian/British Israelism isn't linked to it's own faith, but open for anyone to believe. Maybe before you knock something, check it out.
Back on page 3 or 4 I posted some links I think, check em out, if you can't find them pm me and I'll send them through.
2005-01-12 08:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Burning at the stake in the cause of orthodoxy can be a good thing. It makes a strong statement, that's for sure. Sends a message. [/QUOTE]Walter, see [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=97141#post97141] Moeller on Reactionary vs. Conservative[/URL]
2005-01-12 08:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Firstly, I don't consider 'reactionary' the bad word that you seem to. Secondly, my ideal society would have a Christian monarch, a strong Church, an aristocracy, and a landed citizenry.[/QUOTE]See [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16275]Moeller on the Difference Bewteen Conservative and Reactionary[/URL]
2005-01-12 11:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]We can agree that whenever someone takes one scripture and builds their entire theology around it, that they are asking for trouble. [/QUOTE]
That's exactly how Identity was started. You can't single out dual seedline.
2005-01-12 12:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Free The Truth]Um, Christian Identity is nothing like "Judaism/Taludism" - which is a corrupted religion on Hebrewism. The true Hebrelites/Israelites became Christian. Apart from the Tribes in Exile - who became Anglo-Saxons. Yeshua came to Israel, he said that.
This is a point that we come back to over and over. Traditional Christian teaching is very clear on it. Yes, He came to Israel during His ministry to give them one last chance to save themselves. Once they rejected Him, they lost that chance and God replaced them with the Church, aka Spiritual Israel.
Um Christian Identity isn't a new version, many Pastors of several forms of Christianity believe in British Israelism - even some Jewish Rabbis. Christian/British Israelism isn't linked to it's own faith, but open for anyone to believe. Maybe before you knock something, check it out.
I have checked it out. I have many CI books and tapes.
And many pastors believe all kinds of false teachings, but the fact remains that no early Christian writer ever advocated CI. Search the writings of the students of the apostles and you'll find nothing about it.
2005-01-12 12:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Free The Truth]Um, Christian Identity is nothing like "Judaism/Taludism" - which is a corrupted religion on Hebrewism. The true Hebrelites/Israelites became Christian. Apart from the Tribes in Exile - who became Anglo-Saxons. Yeshua came to Israel, he said that.
Um Christian Identity isn't a new version, many Pastors of several forms of Christianity believe in British Israelism - even some Jewish Rabbis. Christian/British Israelism isn't linked to it's own faith, but open for anyone to believe. Maybe before you knock something, check it out.
Back on page 3 or 4 I posted some links I think, check em out, if you can't find them pm me and I'll send them through.[/QUOTE]
The point that I'm making - and I think Wild Bill will agree - is that whatever interpretation of Scripture you come up with must pass muster with the Church Fathers and at least the early Councils. Even many evangelicals agree with the inevitablility of the authority of Tradition. It's inescapable.
If your interpretion wasn't addressed or even alluded to in that sizeable body of literature (and it wasn't), then it just ain't in the Bible. It is rather a figment of your religious imagination. Not that I'm deriding your religious feelings - perish the thought - but feelings are subjective, and in order to avoid the dead end of solipcism, your and my subjective impressions of Scripture must be judged before the bar of Holy Tradition. That means the Councils and the Church Fathers. To say otherwise places the reader above the Scriptures, and constitutes idolatry, the most fundamental of all sins.
Since this CI theology is a wholly new thing and wasn't addressed in that authorative body of dueteronomic literature at all, and since doctrinal revelation is closed, CI is clearly heretical.
I urge you (and myself) to read the Church Fathers. The answers to all of our interpretive questions are to be found there.
2005-01-12 12:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The point that I'm making - and I think Wild Bill will agree - is that whatever interpretation of Scripture you come up with must pass muster with the Church Fathers and at least the early Councils. Even many evangelicals agree with the inevitablility of the authority of Tradition. It's inescapable.
If your interpretion wasn't addressed or even alluded to in that sizeable body of literature (and it wasn't), then it just ain't in the Bible. It is rather a figment of your religious imagination. Not that I'm deriding your religious feelings - perish the thought - but feelings are subjective, and in order to avoid the dead end of solipcism, your and my subjective impressions of Scripture must be judged before the bar of Holy Tradition. That means the Councils and the Church Fathers. To say otherwise places the reader above the Scriptures, and constitutes idolatry, the most fundamental of all sins.
Since this CI theology is a wholly new thing and wasn't addressed in that authorative body of dueteronomic literature at all, and since doctrinal revelation is closed, CI is clearly heretical.
I urge you (and myself) to read the Church Fathers. The answers to all of our interpretive questions are to be found there.[/QUOTE]
Does your 'Holy Tradition' teach that you go to heaven when you die?
Were the Church Fathers ever wrong? Did they sin?
Does your Tradition teach that todayââ¬â¢s Jews are the physical Jews of the Bible?
Does your Tradition teach you that it is lawful to eat the unclean?
2005-01-12 12:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]That's exactly how Identity was started. You can't single out dual seedline.[/QUOTE]
Duel seedline is not part of Identity... they are a whole different critter. I don't care what they call themselves.
Do you believe that all the races came from Adam and Eve?
2005-01-12 14:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Does your 'Holy Tradition' teach that you go to heaven when you die?
Were the Church Fathers ever wrong? Did they sin?
Does your Tradition teach that todayââ¬â¢s Jews are the physical Jews of the Bible?
Does your Tradition teach you that it is lawful to eat the unclean?[/QUOTE]
You miss the main point. Of course, you're a chick, so I'm not surprised.
Please describe to me the essence of the argument I make above just so I'm sure you've got it. As it is, your response is pure ditz.
2005-01-12 16:13 | User Profile
In case anyone is truly interested .... [url]http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/[/url] a good resource on early Chrurch fathers and if you download the windows help file versions a very useful easily searchable reference.
2005-01-12 16:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Die hard traditionalist. Tell me, what's your defense for burning at the stake? And what is your problem with it? Should they have given them a lethal injection instead? Or are you saying that it is always illegitimate for the Church to impose a death sentence on anyone for any reason? If so, what is your basis for this position? If it is lawful for the state to execute a man for a single murder, why is it abhorrent for the Church to recommend execution for men who continually and unrepentantly advocated suicide, lying under oath, that sex within marriage was a sin, that Christ is a creature, that all matter is evil, that procreation is evil, etc., such as the Albigensians? They were undermining the very foundation on which civilization is built. Is the welfare of souls truly less important that the laws of the state? Everyone recognizes that there are limits to free expression. The old 'fire in a crowded theatre' example is one. Threats on the President is another. Slander is a third. Is it really so crazy to think advocation of civilization-destroying heresy should not be allowed? Or does the man-made First Amendment represent a divine pronouncement? I'm not denying that there were excesses, but the fundamental principle of the Inquisition is sound. It was the immune system of Christendom.
2005-01-13 06:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]And what is your problem with it? Should they have given them a lethal injection instead? No, I was criticizing them for their sentimental humanitarianism. If you're going to torture someone, do it right! :lol:
Or are you saying that it is always illegitimate for the Church to impose a death sentence on anyone for any reason? If so, what is your basis for this position? Less than you seem to be saying it is always justified for any arbirtrary reason they could think of. If it is lawful for the state to execute a man for a single murder, why is it abhorrent for the Church to recommend execution for men who continually and unrepentantly advocated suicide, lying under oath, that sex within marriage was a sin, that Christ is a creature, that all matter is evil, that procreation is evil, etc., such as the Albigensians? They were undermining the very foundation on which civilization is built. Is the welfare of souls truly less important that the laws of the state? Everyone recognizes that there are limits to free expression. The old 'fire in a crowded theatre' example is one. Threats on the President is another. Slander is a third. Is it really so crazy to think advocation of civilization-destroying heresy should not be allowed? Or does the man-made First Amendment represent a divine pronouncement? Obviously you have a problem with Democracy and Free Speech, and your opposition to hate speech laws is hypocritical (if you believe that).
If you had political power, would you burn people like me for heresy? Obviously. Do you ever consider anything paradoxical about your abiding on a free speech forum such as this?
I'm not denying that there were excesses, but the fundamental principle of the Inquisition is sound. It was the immune system of Christendom.[/QUOTE]Folks, you heard it here first.
2005-01-13 09:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Folks, you heard it here first.[/QUOTE]
Hardly first. I've been a vocal supporter of the Inquisition since Sam Francis days.
2005-01-13 09:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]This is a point that we come back to over and over. Traditional Christian teaching is very clear on it. Yes, He came to Israel during His ministry to give them one last chance to save themselves. Once they rejected Him, they lost that chance and God replaced them with the Church, aka Spiritual Israel.[/QUOTE] He told the Apostles to not enter the cities of the Samaritans. Read 2nd Kings 17:24 where this counterfiet nation was placed in Israel/Judea
John 8:33 the JEWISH Priests told Yeshua that they were never in bondage to any man, but were still children of Abram, did they forget Exodus? Israel didn't reject him, he said that his Sheep ISRAEL would know him and would come to him, the Jews wouldn't know him because they were not his Sheep. "Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are not, for they lie [Rev. 3:9]
... many among the [heathen non-Judahite] peoples of the land [of Babylon] became Jews [converts in name only] for the dread of the Jews [genetic Judahites] had fallen on them. (Esther 8:17)
[QUOTE]I have checked it out. I have many CI books and tapes.
And many pastors believe all kinds of false teachings, but the fact remains that no early Christian writer ever advocated CI. Search the writings of the students of the apostles and you'll find nothing about it.[/QUOTE] I have quite a few CI/BI books as well. The fact is, British Israelism is NOT racism, but trying to show the world that God didn't lie and that the 10 Tribes of Israel still exist.
[url="http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm"]http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm[/url]
Chapter 5, Paragraph 2....
2. When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king's great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers. Now there came a great number of priests, and Levites, and porters, and sacred singers, and sacred servants to Esdras. So he gathered those that were in the captivity together beyond Euphrates, and staid there three days, and ordained a fast for them, that they might make their prayers to God for their preservation, that they might suffer no misfortunes by the way, either from their enemies, or from any other ill accident; for Esdras had said beforehand that he had told the king how God would preserve them, and so he had not thought fit to request that he would send horsemen to conduct them. So when they had finished their prayers, they removed from Euphrates on the twelfth day of the first month of the seventh year of the reign of Xerxes, and they came to Jerusalem on the fifth month of the same year. Now Esdras presented the sacred money to the treasurers, who were of the family of the priests, of silver six hundred and fifty talents, vessels of silver one hundred talents, vessels of gold twenty talents, vessels of brass, that was more precious than gold, [url="http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm#EndNote_ANT_11.8b"][color=#800080](8)[/color][/url] twelve talents by weight; for these Presents had been made by the king and his counselors, and by all the Israelites that staid at Babylon. So when Esdras had delivered these things to the priests, he gave to God, as the appointed sacrifices of whole burnt-offerings, twelve bulls on account of the common preservation of the people, ninety rams, seventy-two lambs, and twelve kids of the goats, for the remission of sins. He also delivered the king's epistle to the king's officers, and to the governors of Celesyria and Phoenicia; and as they were under a necessity of doing what was enjoined by him, they honored our nation, and were assistant to them in all their necessities.
There is nothing wrong with British Israelism, Yeshua told the Apostles to seek out the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL. They wouldn't find them all but that they should still search. We continue this search...we know we won't find them all, but we will do our best to let the truth be known.
2005-01-13 14:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Free The Truth]He told the Apostles to not enter the cities of the Samaritans. Read 2nd Kings 17:24 where this counterfiet nation was placed in Israel/Judea
John 8:33 the JEWISH Priests told Yeshua that they were never in bondage to any man, but were still children of Abram, did they forget Exodus? Israel didn't reject him, he said that his Sheep ISRAEL would know him and would come to him, the Jews wouldn't know him because they were not his Sheep. "Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are not, for they lie [Rev. 3:9] . . . [/QUOTE]
FTT: You're still missing the main point, which is this.
Scripture cannot be understood outside the Tradition that gave it birth. This is simply inescapable. Since the Tradition precedes and encompasses the Scriptures, any Scriptural interpretation that flatly contradicts the consistently held position of Tradition is by definition wrong. Indeed, as [URL=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/articles/ect.html]many leading evangelicals now recognize[/URL], any interpretation of Scripture must be brought to the bar of the early Councils and the Church Fathers.
[QUOTE]There always have been, and likely will be until our Lord returns in glory, disputes and disagreements about how rightly to discern the teaching of the Word of God in Holy Scripture. We affirm that Scripture is to be read in company with the community of faith past and present. Individual ideas of what the Bible means must be brought to the bar of discussion and assessment by the wider fellowship.
ââ¬ÅThe church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truthââ¬Â (1 Timothy 3:15). Because Christââ¬â¢s Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, in disputes over conflicting interpretations of the Word of God the Church must be capable of discerning true teaching and setting it forth with clarity. This is necessary both in order to identify and reject heretical deviations from the truth of the gospel and also to provide sound instruction for passing on the faith intact to the rising generation.[/QUOTE]
Since revelation is closed, and since your completely innovative interpretation of Scripture is nowhere to be found in the Tradition so defined, your interpretation is ipso facto erroneous.
Please indicate whether or not you understand that argument, and if you do understand it please address it directly.
Walter
2005-01-13 14:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]No, I was criticizing them for their sentimental humanitarianism. If you're going to torture someone, do it right! :lol: If you could not tell, Okie, my lethal injection remark was tongue-in-cheek.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Less than you seem to be saying it is always justified for any arbirtrary reason they could think of. Since you seem to avoid addressing the issues head on, perhaps I should simplify things for you. In a Christian society, is the Church ever justified in recommending execution for anyone for any reason? If no, why not? If yes, then what is your problem, specifically, with the Inquisition? That it used torture (as all secular governments did at the time)? That it restricted 'free speech' (a concept that would not even be invented for hundreds of years)? That it was Catholic? That it was an ecclesiastical court, and not a state court?
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Obviously you have a problem with Democracy and Free Speech You finally noticed. And I only had to post around 600 times. :wink:
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]and your opposition to hate speech laws is hypocritical (if you believe that). No, actually, it isn't. Everyone believes in some restriction on speech, yourself included. Traditionally, heresy (which is really just another form of slander) has been restricted. I can support that without having to support criminal charges for anybody that says 'kike.'
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If you had political power, would you burn people like me for heresy? Obviously. No, I wouldn't. I am trying to get you to understand the principle that the Church is the upholder of civilization, and that the Church has a duty to combat heresy. Persuasion is always preferred, but if offing a few heretics could have avoided the Russian or French Revolutions, for example, how exactly is that a bad thing?
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Do you ever consider anything paradoxical about your abiding on a free speech forum such as this? Do you ever consider that this is a civilized forum, not a 'free speech' forum? Tex has, justifiably, banned people for outright blasphemy, aggression, and vulgarity. Adhering to a code of conduct (which includes speech) is a cornerstone of civilization. You keep claiming loyalty to absolute free speech to score rhetorical points, but you don't believe in it any more than I do. [QUOTE=Okiereddust]Folks, you heard it here first.[/QUOTE] Actually, I have defended the Inquisition (and the Crusades, for that matter) on many other threads.
2005-01-13 15:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Scripture cannot be understood outside the Tradition that gave it birth. This is simply inescapable. Since the Tradition precedes and encompasses the Scriptures, any Scriptural interpretation that flatly contradicts the consistently held position of Tradition is by definition wrong. Indeed, as [URL=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/articles/ect.html]many leading evangelicals now recognize[/URL], any interpretation of Scripture must be brought to the bar of the early Councils and the Church Fathers. Since revelation is closed, and since your completely innovative interpretation of Scripture is nowhere to be found in the Tradition so defined, your interpretation is ipso facto erroneous. Please indicate whether or not you understand that argument, and if you do understand it please address it directly. [/QUOTE]
I understand it and the truth is exactly the opposite. Tradition is valid only when it jibes with the Scripture.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate y'all's effort to show the CIers the error of their ways, but an argument based on "you're wrong because so and so Holy Father, Royal Tradition or some such says so" is just not going to carry any weight with them. This is going to have to be reasoned out from the Scriptures only and hopefully I'll get some time to make some points soon.
2005-01-13 15:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I understand it and the truth is exactly the opposite. Tradition is valid only when it jibes with the Scripture.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate y'all's effort to show the CIers the error of their ways, but an argument based on "you're wrong because so and so Holy Father, Royal Tradition or some such says so" is just not going to carry any weight with them. This is going to have to be reasoned out from the Scriptures only and hopefully I'll get some time to make some points soon.[/QUOTE]
"The church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truthââ¬Â (1 Timothy 3:15).
2005-01-13 15:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]"The church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).[/QUOTE]
Sorry Walter, but that has no application to the principle you are trying to make above. Paul is simply writing to Timothy about qualifications for deacons, standard ecclesiastical practices and such within the Church. That's a HUGE leap to try and take that and extrapolate what you're saying above. Won't wash, amigo.
2005-01-13 16:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Actually, I have defended the Inquisition (and the Crusades, for that matter) on many other threads.[/QUOTE]Any other forums?
I'm interested in what your reaction would be, especially if you forthrightly stated there (as you claim you have here, although I never picked it up that clearly) that your first order of business on achieving political influence would be to shut these forums down and burn all the posters at the stake as heretics. :lol:
You sound like Bush's new Homeland Security nominee! :lol:
2005-01-13 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I understand it and the truth is exactly the opposite. Tradition is valid only when it jibes with the Scripture.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate y'all's effort to show the CIers the error of their ways, but an argument based on "you're wrong because so and so Holy Father, Royal Tradition or some such says so" is just not going to carry any weight with them. This is going to have to be reasoned out from the Scriptures only and hopefully I'll get some time to make some points soon.[/QUOTE]
Why does it have to be reasoned by Scripture only? The Bible is only part of the Tradition recognized by either Catholic or Orthodox Christians.
Sources of Christian doctrine:
Revelation Tradition Bible The Liturgy The Councils The Fathers The Saints Canons Church Art
[url]http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/index.html#sources[/url]
2005-01-13 17:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Any other forums?
I'm interested in what your reaction would be, especially if you forthrightly stated there (as you claim you have here, although I never picked it up that clearly) that your first order of business on achieving political influence would be to shut these forums down and burn all the posters at the stake as heretics. :lol:
You sound like Bush's new Homeland Security nominee! :lol:[/QUOTE] Actually, Okie, I never said any such thing. I am defending the underlying principle that the Church has to the duty to protect Christian civilization, and that this entails some limitations on speech and actions. Furthermore, in extreme cases, this duty must be backed up by the use of force. Your flippancy (and willful misrepresentation of my position) indicates that you are either unwilling or unable to address the actual issue here. Thanks for the discussion (such as it was.)
2005-01-13 17:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Why does it have to be reasoned by Scripture only? The Bible is only part of the Tradition recognized by either Catholic or Orthodox Christians. [/QUOTE]
Correction. I should have said authority instead of Tradition.
2005-01-13 21:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You miss the main point. Of course, you're a chick, so I'm not surprised.
Please describe to me the essence of the argument I make above just so I'm sure you've got it. As it is, your response is pure ditz.[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't...
Originally Posted by Walter Yannis The point that I'm making - and I think Wild Bill will agree - is that whatever interpretation of Scripture you come up with must pass muster with the Church Fathers and at least the early Councils. Even many evangelicals agree with the inevitablility of the authority of Tradition. It's inescapable.
If your interpretion wasn't addressed or even alluded to in that sizeable body of literature (and it wasn't), then it just ain't in the Bible. It is rather a figment of your religious imagination. Not that I'm deriding your religious feelings - perish the thought - but feelings are subjective, and in order to avoid the dead end of solipcism, your and my subjective impressions of Scripture must be judged before the bar of Holy Tradition. That means the Councils and the Church Fathers. To say otherwise places the reader above the Scriptures, and constitutes idolatry, the most fundamental of all sins.
Since this CI theology is a wholly new thing and wasn't addressed in that authorative body of dueteronomic literature at all, and since doctrinal revelation is closed, CI is clearly heretical.
I urge you (and myself) to read the Church Fathers. The answers to all of our interpretive questions are to be found there.
Youââ¬â¢re saying that anything not ââ¬Ëaddressed or even alluded toââ¬â¢ in ââ¬Ëholy traditionââ¬â¢ by ââ¬ËCouncils and the Church Fathersââ¬â¢ is not really the message of the Bible, merely oneââ¬â¢s incorrect interpretation, or ââ¬Ëhereticalââ¬â¢.
If Iââ¬â¢m reading this wrong, do tellââ¬Â¦but, if Iââ¬â¢m not, let me just say that you couldnââ¬â¢t be more off.
The apostles themselves, men chosen by God himself to follow Him, were wrongââ¬Â¦how much greater is the chance that others would be incorrect in their interpretations? Human minds are susceptible to fault ââ¬â whether through our own misinterpretation, the poor influence of others, or any other factor. God alone sets the rules; man can only follow them as best as he can.
chirp, chirp, chirp. I think the majority of the males here want to believe that CI is evil, and that is all there is to it.
I noticed you never answered my questions. You are afraid of the truth... run and hide, little boy.
Were the Church Fathers ever wrong? Did they sin?
Does your Tradition teach that todayââ¬â¢s Jews are the physical Jews of the Bible?
Does your Tradition teach you that it is lawful to eat the unclean?
2005-01-13 21:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Gabrielle]No, I didn't...
Youââ¬â¢re saying that anything not ââ¬Ëaddressed or even alluded toââ¬â¢ in ââ¬Ëholy traditionââ¬â¢ by ââ¬ËCouncils and the Church Fathersââ¬â¢ is not really the message of the Bible, merely oneââ¬â¢s incorrect interpretation, or ââ¬Ëhereticalââ¬â¢.
If Iââ¬â¢m reading this wrong, do tellââ¬Â¦but, if Iââ¬â¢m not, let me just say that you couldnââ¬â¢t be more off.
The apostles themselves, men chosen by God himself to follow Him, were wrongââ¬Â¦how much greater is the chance that others would be incorrect in their interpretations? Human minds are susceptible to fault ââ¬â whether through our own misinterpretation, the poor influence of others, or any other factor. God alone sets the rules; man can only follow them as best as he can.[/QUOTE]
The Scriptures themselves are a product of the Tradition. The Tradition precedes and encompasses the Scriptures. It follows that one cannot assert the inerrancy of Scripture while rejecting the authority of the very Tradition upon which the authority of the Scriptures rest.
You're like a person sitting on the branch of a tree, claiming the branch stand independently from the tree, and then sawing the branch off to prove the point. The thing inevitably falls.
[QUOTE]chirp, chirp, chirp. I think the majority of the males here want to believe that CI is evil, and that is all there is to it. [/QUOTE]
CI is obviously heresy. I don't think CI adherents are evil.
[QUOTE]Were the Church Fathers ever wrong? Did they sin? [/QUOTE]
Yes and yes.
This doesn't go to the authority of Tradition, which is of the Holy Spirit.
[QUOTE]Does your Tradition teach that todayââ¬â¢s Jews are the physical Jews of the Bible? [/QUOTE]
The Tradition could not speak to this question, since it precedes by so many centuries the formation of the Ashkenazim. The question is nonsensical.
[QUOTE]Does your Tradition teach you that it is lawful to eat the unclean?[/QUOTE]
I don't understand the question, please elaborate.
Jesus said that nothing that goes into a man's mouth can make him unclean, thereby in a single swoop cancelling entire volumes of OT dietary laws and the commentaries on them. This was confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem, which I point out had athority well before it was recorded in Acts, thereby proving the fact that the Tradition preceded the Scriptures. There are no unclean foods, except I suppose food offerred to idols in sacrifice (again, this was the directive of the First Council of the Church at Jerusalem as described in Acts), but I haven't actually run into anything like that in practice. Have you been offerred any food sacrificed to idols? I sure haven't.
2005-01-14 09:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Scriptures themselves are a product of the Tradition. The Tradition precedes and encompasses the Scriptures. It follows that one cannot assert the inerrancy of Scripture while rejecting the authority of the very Tradition upon which the authority of the Scriptures rest.
You're like a person sitting on the branch of a tree, claiming the branch stand independently from the tree, and then sawing the branch off to prove the point. The thing inevitably falls.
Jesus said that nothing that goes into a man's mouth can make him unclean, thereby in a single swoop cancelling entire volumes of OT dietary laws and the commentaries on them. This was confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem, which I point out had athority well before it was recorded in Acts, thereby proving the fact that the Tradition preceded the Scriptures. [/QUOTE]
I don't like the word Tradition, as a Protestant, because I think Catholics can use it in two ways. What you are referring to is apostolic authority, whence comes both the founding traditions of the Church Fathers and the scriptures. To me the Catholics Church's traditions are one way of continuing these original apostolic traditions. Catholics of course tend to link these two traditions, say pre and post 400, (the time the scriptures were finalized) more closely than Protestants.
I'd agree that some sort of transcendent divine authority were needed to establish the scriptures, just as miracles were needed to establish the authority of Jesus and the Apostles. After their purpose was fulfilled though, their work was transferred to the immutable scriptures.
As a Protestant I feel no one really has a right to claim the same sort of authority that the Apostles and their close historical associates, the Church Father's had, and that whenever they infringe too much on that prerogative and try to appropriate it for themselves today, [B]that [/B] is true heresy.
2005-01-14 10:46 | User Profile
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Heritage[/font]
Southwest JEWISH PRESS
Combined Paid in California Post Office Reports
$5 per year 3321 Wilshire Blvd Second Class Postage Paid at Los Angeles Calif.
Vol. 5727
WE 9 133 Angeles 36, Calif. Thurs., April 20, 1967 ONLY IN AMERICA
The 10 Lost Tribes
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Harry Golden [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Isaiah, the prophet, wrote that the remnant of Yahweh's peoplewould be found in the "isles of the great sea." Isn't it reasonable this remnant may be the people of the British Isles? [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Grant me the possibility and I shall proceed to unravel the this archaeological riddle of the ages; what happened to the ten lost tribes? [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The men of Dan escaped slaughter when Shalmaneser [King of-Assyria ] subjugated the ten tribes. As they made their way across Europe, they left indelible evidence of their journey. They called the places they stopped after the name of their "tribe: thus Danube, Dnieper, Denmark, etc., all of which lay along their route of march. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The men of Dan eventually settled in Ireland and were known as Tuatha de Daanana [the warriors of Dan] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]None of this is imaginary research. One has only to dip into the work of the eminent Rabbi S. Raisin to see how well documented and probable this hypothesis is. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Along with the Danites, the other coastal tribes, the Asher, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon escaped Shalmaneser's fury. Obviously, the Simeonites became the Simoni (or Cimerii) of Wales. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Danites called their new home arzaret, which means "an other Land of Israel" and gradually they also came to call themselves Gauls which is a metamorphosis of the word "Golim" meaning exiles. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Some of them called themselves Saccae which derives from Succotites and means "dwellers in booths." [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These were the fellows who emigrated to the next island and came to call themselves Scotsmen for all Scotch means, as any student of Anglo-Saxon knows, is Irisher. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Others from Ireland emigrated to Wales and the folk ethos [custom] remained strongest here. [/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]David remained their favorite and became their patron saint, although they forgot their Hebrew for as Isaiah said, "For with stammering lips and with a strange tongue shall it be spoken to the people. 5[/font] [font=Times New Roman][/font]
2005-01-14 11:06 | User Profile
[url="http://img99.exs.cx/img99/521/hebrew5pd.jpg"]http://img99.exs.cx/img99/521/hebrew5pd.jpg[/url] - this came from the same site, just it makes it a bit easier to read.
WHO ARE THE ISRAELITES TODAY?
Even asking the question presupposes that there are reservations about the identity of the modern-day Jew and his relationship to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. For the majority of Christians the answer is a foregone conclusion. Ask this question of the average person claiming to be a Christian, and he will quickly tell you: "The true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are those people today who call themselves Jews." Yet in light of that answer, we should know that the Bible makes it very clear that there are imposters masquerading as Israelites although no Israelite blood flows through their veins. The book of Revelation informs us of this deception and the identity of these blasphemers:
[indent]I [Yhshua] know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the blasphemy by those [imposters] who say they are Jews [Judahites] and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9)[/indent]
In other words, there are those who claim to be of the house of Judah or Judahites, and therefore Israelites, but who in reality are imposters identified by Yhshua as a synagogue of Satan. We find a double witness to this statement in Revelation 3:
[indent]... I [Yhshua], will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews [Judahites], and are not, but lie - behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9)[/indent]
Modern-day Jews themselves verify the truth of these passages in what they say and write, although in many cases their admissions are not meant for non-Jewish eyes or ears.
Reprinted below is the first sentence of the first chapter of The (1980) Jewish Almanac:
JEWISH ALMANAC **[/size][/font]
IDENTITY CRISIS
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TERMS FOR "JEW"
Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew."' size=2[/size]
This is a remarkable admission. Read it again and let it really sink in! Furthermore, in the San Diego Union (August 28, 1966) Leo Heiman quoted Nathan M. Pollock, a professor of Medieval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, who, after spending forty of his sixty-four years in research, confirmed the preceding statement from The Jewish Almanac:
Are Today's Jews True Israelites? **
The Jews That Maybe Arenââ¬â¢t **
By Leo Heiman: Coplan News Service
Nathan M. Pollock has a beef with the Israeli government.
His elaborate plans to celebrate this September the 1,000[size=2]th[/size] anniversary of the Jewish Khozar alliance were summarily rejected.
An elderly meek-looking man who migrated to Israel from Russia 43 years ago, Pollock ekes out a living as a translator of Scientific texts and proofreader in publishing firms.
But his great passion, hobby and avocation is historic research.
He has devoted 40 of his 64 years to trying to prove that six out of 10 Israelis and nine out of 10 Jews in the Western Hemisphere are not real Jews' Jews, but descendants of fierce Khozar tribes which roamed the steppes of southern Russia many centuries ago.
For obvious reasons the Israeli authorities are not at all eager to give the official stamp of approval to Pollock's theories.
"For all we know, he may be 100 per cent right," said a senior government official. "In fact, he is not the first one to discover the connection between Jews and Khozars. Many famous scholars, Jews and non-Jews, stressed these links in their historical research works."
In the year 965 the Khozars were defeated for the first time in 500 years by Prince Sviatoslav of Kiev. King Bulan of Khozaria concluded that Prince Sviatoslav emerged victorious from the war because his troops and mercenaries were Christians, while his nomads were pagan worshippers. The king and his nobles embraced Judaism in 965, and in 966 a royal edict was passed enforcing Judaisnm as the only legal religion in the Khozar Kingdom. Tribesmen had to undergo circumcision, learn Hebrew prayers, and recognize Jewish rabbis as their spiritual leaders ââ¬â on pain of death.
This also would explain why so many European Jews are blond and blue eyed, with a slight Mongol slant to their eyes, as well as the total absence of Semitic features among many Israelis of European descent.
The flourishing Jewish-Khozar Kingdom was destroyed in 1239 by the Mongol invasion of Balu Khan.
Following the Mongol invasion and conquest, surviving members of Jewish-Khozar tribes trekked west and settled in Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Austria, Romania, and the Ukraine (Russia).
According to Pollack, whose parents came from Poland, if your name is Halperin, Alpert, Halpern, Galpern, etc., you are 100 per cent Khozar. "Alper"
means "brave knight" in the Khozar tongue, and the name was granted by the king to the most distiguished warriors. Names like Kaplan, Caplon, Koppel, and the like, are positive proof of Khozar descent, according to the scholar. "Kaplan" means "fierce hawk" in the Khozar language. Kogan, Kagan, Kaganovich show aristocratic descent from Kagan, Hagan, King Bulanââ¬â¢s chief-minister. [size=2]2[/size]
KHAZARS
Under an alternate spelling of Khazars, *The Jewish Encyclopedia *
states the following: **
CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia....[size=2]3[/size] **[indent]
It was probably about that time that the chaghan of the Chazars and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion [Judaism/Talmudism - an adulterated religion brought back from Babylon]. According to A. [Albert] Harkavy ("Meassef Niddahim," i.), the conversion took place in 620; according to others, in 740. King Joseph, in his letter to [C]Hasdai ibn Shaprut (about 960), gives the following account of the conversion: "Some centuries ago King Bulan reigned over the Chazars. To him God appeared in a dream and promised him might and glory. Encouraged by this dream, Bulan went by the road of Darian to the country of Ardebil, where he gained great victories (over the Arabs). The Byzantine emperor and the caliph of the Ishmaelites sent to him envoys with presents, and sages to convert him to their respective religions. Bulan invited also wise men of Israel, and proceeded to examine them all. As each of the champions believed his religion to be the best, Bulan separately questioned the Mohammedans and the Christians as to which of the other two religions they considered the better. When both gave preference to that of the Jews, that king perceived that it must be the true religion. He therefore adopted it." (see Harkavy, "Soobshchenija o Chazarakh" in "Yevreishaya Biblioteka," vii. 153). This account of the conversion was considered to be of a legendary nature. Harkavy, however, (in "Bilbasov" and "Yevreiskaya Bibliotek"), proved from Arabic and Slavonian sources that the religious disputation at the Chazarian court is a historical fact. Even the name of [Isaac] Sangari has been found in a liturgy of Constantine the Philosopher (Cyrill). It was one of the successors of Bulan, named [King] Obadiah, who regenerated the kingdom and strengthened the Jewish religion. He invited Jewish scholars to settle in his dominions, and founded synagogues and schools.... From the work "Kitab al-Buldan," written about the ninth century (p. 121; cited by [Daniel] Chwolson in "Izvyestiya o Chazarakh," etc., p. 57), it appears as if all the Chazars were Jews and that they had been converted to Judaism only a short time before that book was written.[size=2]4[/size]
[/indent]The following map from The Jewish Encyclopedia clearly illustrates the Jews' position regarding their ancestry. The Jews recognize that their genetic lineage is primarily from the TurkishMongolian Khazars rather than from the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Khazars adopted the religion of Judaism between the seventh and ninth centuries; this conversion gave rise to their false claim of being Judahites when in fact they have no historical or racial basis for doing so. The Khazars' and their modern-day descendants' claim to being Jews is strictly religious.
[img]http://www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/images/khazar-map.jpg[/img] Map showing the Distribution of Religions in Europe in the Tenth Century, C.E., Indicating Extent of the Kingdom of the Chazars. (After Schrader, "Atlas de Géographic Historique.")
2005-01-14 11:07 | User Profile
The information contained in The Jewish Encyclopedia is corroborated under the heading "KHAZARS" in *The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia: ***
KHAZARS: A Turkish ... tribe which settled in the lower Volga region.... In the 8th cent., a powerful Judaizing movement manifested itself among the K. [Khazars]. Ultimately, about 786-809, their king BULAN and 4,000 of his nobles accepted Judaism, **the prince Obadiah being active in securing their Judaization. [size=2]5[/size]
Under the heading "PROSELYTES," this same source states the following: **
PROSELYTES: ... in the 8th - 9th cents., there was a widespread conversion movement among the Khazars, led by the king and embracing other classes, and in W. Europe too, numerous persons continued to enter Judaism **.... [size=2]6[/size] *
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, *under the heading "KHAZARS," begins its very similar narrative by repeating essentially the same information: **
KHAZARS, a medieval people, probably related to the Volga Bulgars, whose ruling class adopted Judaism **during the 8th cent.[size=2]7[/size]
In Antisemitism: Its History And Causes, Bernard Lazare summarizes the Khazarian conversion to Judaism:
About 620 they [the Jews] converted there a whole tribe, the Khazars, whose territory was in the neighborhood of Astrakhan. Legend seized upon this fact, which greatly stirred up the Jews of the West, but ... [in spite] of this, there can be no doubt about it. Isidore Of Seville [Spain], a contemporary of the event, mentions it, and afterwards Chasdai Ibn-Shaprut, minister of the Khalif Abd-er-Rahman, corresponded with Joseph, the last Khagan of the Khazars, whose kingdom was destroyed by Svyatoslav, prince of Kieff [Kiev, Russia] .... The [Judaized] Khazars exercised a great influence over the neighboring Slav tribes, the Polyane, Syeveryane and Vyatichi, and made numerous proselytes among them.[size=2]8[/size]
In an article "The Jewish Kings of Russia" from the Jewish magazine Shabbat Shalom, Robert C. Quillan elaborated upon the Khazar Gentile?Jews:
[indent]King Menachem? King Benjamin? King Joseph? King Obadiah? King Isaac? King Hanukkah? King Zebulun? King Moses? King Nessi?
Bible students won't find these names in the Scriptures; instead, these [non?genetic] Jewish kings ruled what is now part of the southern Soviet Union. Long before the modern [twentieth century] State of Israel, a Jewish kingdom located between the Caspian and Black seas arose amid a world overtly hostile to the Jews. This new Israel was called Khazaria.[size=2]9[/size]
The King converted to Judaism. His Khazar nobles followed, as did much of the population. [King] Bulan and 4,000 Khazars were soon circumcised. Thus began a line of Gentile?Jewish [non?Israelite] kings that ruled into the tenth century.[size=2]10[/size] Though not of Semitic origin, Joseph [one of the Khazar kings] regarded his people as a part of Israel, and considered himself a Jew by faith rather than by genetics. He was a spiritual son of Abraham rather than a biological one. He apparently considered Semitic and non-Semitic Jews ... to be brothers in a common faith and a common Messiah[size=2]11[/size]
[/indent]
This same article later admitted that since "...the Jews of Poland and eastern Europe are of largely Khazar? Jewish, rather than Semitic? Jewish origin," and "Because many American Jews trace their lineage to these countries," many scholars have concluded that this "disturbs the concept of a chosen people [from today's Jews] extending back to Abraham."[size=2]12[/size]
The following are portions of a letter written by Dr. Benjamin H. Freedman, a Jew, that was published by the National Economic Council, Inc. as "Council Letter No. 177 (October 15, 1947)." Dr. Freedman's letter exposed political Zionism for what it really is: [indent]
Popular ignorance of the real basis of political Zionism is beyond calculation. Vaguely most Christian Americans have the idea that the Jews claim Palestine because it was the "Promised Land" in which they lived for a period of a few centuries that ended 2000 years ago. And the thought of a people returning to its "homeland" seems emotionally satisfying and good. **
But here are facts most Americans do not know: **
Political Zionism is almost exclusively a movement by the Jews of Europe. But these Eastern European Jews have neither a racial nor a historic connection with Palestine. Their [non-Semitic] ancestors were not inhabitants of the "Promised Land." They are the direct descendants of the people of the Khazar Kingdom, which existed until the 12th century. **
The Khazars were a non-Semitic ... Mongolian tribal people who, about the 1st century A.D., emigrated from Middle Asia to Eastern Europe .... About the 7th century A.D., the King of the Khazars adopted Judaism as the state religion, and the majority of inhabitants joined him in the new allegiance. Before that date there was no such thing as a Khazar who was a Jew. Neither then nor since was there such a thing. as a Khazar whose ancestors had come from the Holy Land. The Semitic people who established Judaism in Palestine many centuries before the Khazars became converts to the Hebrew faith [Dr. Freedman errs at this point - Judaism, a corrupt and blasphemous religion brought back from Babylon to Judea, has nothing to do with the Hebrew faith of the Old Covenant, as is proven in chapter 101, did mostly emigrate from Palestine. But none of them [Semitic Judahites] emigrated to the Khazar Kingdom far to the North. **
In view of this fact, what becomes of the cry for "repatriation" to the "homeland"? These Eastern European, Yiddish-speaking Jews have no historic or racial connection with Palestine.... ... if the Indians should demand America back, would we all pack up and return to the lands of our ancestral origins? Yet the Arabs have been in Palestine a thousand years longer than we have been here [in America]. And if the claim of Palestinian-descended Jews is so dubious, what of the claim of Khazar-descended Jews? Would a single Christian support their trek back to the "homeland" or want to oblige them by expelling the Arabs, if it were known that these Eastern European, Yiddish-speaking Jews who form the Zionist group practically in toto [almost entirely], have neither a geographic, historic nor ethnic connection with either the Jews [Israelite Judahites] of the Old Testament or the land known today as Palestine[size=2]13[/size]
[/indent]
Dr. Freedman's statements are substantiated in the book The Circle of Knowledge in a section entitled "Book Of Races And Peoples":
[indent]The social solidarity of the Jews is chiefly a product of religion and tradition. Taking all factors into account, and especially their type of civilization, the Jews of today are more truly European than Asiatic or Semitic.[size=2]14[/size][/indent]
Under the heading, "Khazar," The New Encyclopaedia Britannica validates this Khazar-Jew connection: [indent]Khazar, But the most striking characteristic of the Khazars was the apparent adoption of Judaism by the khagan and the greater part of the ruling class in about 740 [A.D.]. The circumstances of the conversion remain obscure, the depth of their adoption of Judaism difficult to assess; the fact itself, however, is undisputed and unparalleled in the history of central Eurasia. A few scholars have even asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote [genetic] ancestors of many of the Jews of eastern Europe and Russia. [size=2]15[/size]
[/indent]
H. G. Wells, in his Outline of History, reached the same conclusion: [indent]The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea. [size=2]16[/size]
[/indent]
On September 10, 1985 in an address to the Cornell Club of Washington, DC, Jewish author Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal revealed that the Khazar-Jewish connection has been verified by many prominent anthropologists: [indent]**
Many [modern-day Jews] of whom have clamored to go back [to Palestine] never had antecedents [physical ancestors] in that part of the world.... The overwhelming majority of Jews are descendants from the converts of Khazaria and elsewhere who adopted Judaism.... This view of the non-ethnicity of the largest portion of Jewry is sustained by such prominent anthropologists as Ripley, Weissenberg, Hertz, Boas, Pittard, Fishberg, Mead and others[size=2]17[/size]
[/indent]**
In his book From Pharaoh to Hitler, 'What Is A Jew?", Bernard Joseph Brown, another Jew, admitted that since the Jews of today are not Israelites, they have no claim to the land of Judea: [indent]Being consciously Jewish is the lowest kind of chauvinism [excessive patriotism], for it **is the only chauvinism that is based on false premises.[size=2]18[/size]
[/indent]**
All of the previous quotations are documented as true and historically accurate in the remarkable book The Thirteenth Tribe by the well-known Jewish author, Arthur Koestler, published in 1976. Following are a few of the many admissions made by Mr. Koestler about the true ancestry of today's Jewish people: [indent]
... genetically they [today's Jews] are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the term "anti-Semitism" would become void of meaning. [size=2]19[/size] **
The Khazars and their King are all Jews [not genetically, but rather by conversion to Judaism].... Some are of the opinion that Gog and Magog are the Khazars **[Ezek. 38:1-9].[size=2]20[/size] **
Joseph [one of the Khazar kings] then proceeds to provide a genealogy of his people. Though a fierce Jewish nationalist, proud of wielding the "Sceptre of Judah," he cannot, and does not, claim for them Semitic descent; he traces their ancestry not to Shem, but to Noah's third son, Japheth; or more precisely to Japheth's grandson, Togarma, the ancestor of all Turkish tribes. **
According to the article "Statistics" in The Jewish Encyclopedia, in the sixteenth century the total Jewish population of the world amounted to about one million. This seems to indicate ... that during the Middle Ages the majority of those who professed the Judaic faith [Judaism/Talmudism] were [non-Semitic] Khazars .[size=2]22[/size]
In this last chapter I have tried to show that the evidence from Anthropology concurs with history in refuting the popular belief in a Jewish race descended from a biblical tribe [the tribe of Judah] .[size=2]23[/size] ... the lingering influence of Judaism's racial and historical message [that today's Jews are descended from Israel], though based on illusion, acts as a powerful emotional break by appealing to tribal loyalty... Abraham Poliak, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University and no doubt an Israeli patriot, made a major contribution to our knowledge of Jewry's [true non-Semitic] Khazar ancestry, undermining the legend of the Chosen Race. [size=2]24[/size]
[/indent]Random House advertised Mr. Koestler's book quite extensively; they began some of their ads with the headline: "WHAT IF MOST JEWS AREN'T REALLY SEMITES AT ALL?" Not only should most Jews be asking themselves this question, but so should modem-day Christians.
2005-01-14 11:09 | User Profile
ASHKENAZIM
Khazars are also known by the name "Ashkenazim." The following quotations are from the book The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel by Jack Bernstein, an Ashkenazi or Khazar Jew: [indent]
The powerful Zionist propaganda machine has led the American people to believe that a Jew is a Jew - one race of people and that they are "God's Chosen People." I will deal with the "God's Chosen People" lie later. First, it is important for you to understand that Jews are NOT [Mr. Bernstein's emphasis] **one race of people. **
There are two distinct groups of Jews in the world and they come from two different areas of the world - the Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazi Jews come from Eastern Europe.
The Sephardic is the oldest group and it is they, if any, who are the Jews described in the bible because they lived in the area described in the bible. They are blood relatives to the Arabs - the only difference between them is religion. The Ashkenazi Jews, who now comprise 90% of the Jews in the world, had a rather strange beginning. According to historians, many of them Jewish, the Ashkenazi Jews came into existence about 1200 years ago [approximately the 8th century A.D.].[size=2]25[/size]
[/indent]
Mr. Bernstein's evaluation is verified in The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. Under the heading "ASHKENAZI, ASHKENAZIM," this source provides population statistics for the Ashkenazim: [indent]ASHKENAZI, ASHKENAZIM: ... constituted before 1933 some nine-tenths of the Jewish people (about 15,000,000 out of 16,500,000) [as of 1968 it is believed by some Jewish authorities to be closer to 100%].[size=2]26[/size]
[/indent]
The veracity of Jack Bernstein's remarks concerning the Ashkenazi Jews was also confirmed by Wilmot Robertson in his book The Dispossessed Majority: [indent]
The [non-Israelite] Jews in Slavic lands, the Ashkenazim, are to be distinguished from the Sephardim, the purer-blooded Mediterranean Jews .... [size=2]27[/size] The Zionist pioneers of Palestine were mostly Ashkenazim.... The "un-Jewish" [non-Israelite] temperament and character of these Zionists were accented by their " un-Jewish" [non-Israelite] appearance.[size=2]28[/size]
[/indent]
In his book The American Jews Jewish author, James Yaffe, wrote of the Ashkenazim. in America. Note that he considers the Sephardic Jew nearly extinct: [indent]**
It has been estimated that 95 percent of the Jews in America today are descended from these East European [Khazar/Ashkenazi] immigrants. What the American Jew is now, his style of living and thinking, comes to him from the shtetl [a small town or village formerly found in Eastern Europe], tempered in the furnace of the lower East Side [of New York City].[size=2]29[/size] ... the early Sephardic settlers, for example, left practically no descendants who are still Jewish.... They disappeared not because they intermarried but because they refused to intermarry ... without sufficient choice among their own, they remained unmarried and died out.... choosing extinction rather than assimilation.[size=2]30[/size]
[/indent]
Arriving at the obvious conclusion that the Ashkenazi Jews were not Semitic, Dr. Lilienthal wrote: [indent]These "Ashkenazim [Khazar] Jews" (the Jews of Eastern Europe), whose numbers were swelled by Jews who fled from Germany at the time of the Crusades and during the Black Death, have little or no trace of Semitic blood **.[size=2]31[/size]
[/indent]
A very recent admission that the Jews of today are not Israelites was made by Rabbi Cyril A. Stanway in "Viewpoints," Thursday, November 8, 1990, in the Sun-News (Las Cruces, New Mexico): [indent]... Though many Jews are not of Semitic origin, we are the religious, spiritual, and national [but not genetic] descendants of those who first formed the early foundations of Judaism who were Semites.
[/indent]
In other words, Rabbi Stanway admitted that many Jews are not Semites. Since they are not Semites, then today's Jews certainly can not be of Abraham's lineage because Abraham was a Semite (or Shemite) descended from Shem, the son of Noah. Following the same line of reasoning, since today's Jews are not Semites, they can not be Israelites either because Jacob/Israel was also a Semite, a direct descendant of Shem through Abraham.[size=2]32[/size]
More than once in history, genetically non-Judahite (non-Israelite) peoples became known as Judahites or Jews, and were, therefore, looked upon as Israelites. The Bible records that in Esther's day this very thing occurred: [indent]... many among the [heathen non-Judahite] peoples of the land [of Babylon] became Jews [converts in name only] for the dread of the Jews [genetic Judahites] had fallen on them. (Esther 8:17)
[/indent]
Obviously those non-Israelite peoples could not alter their genealogy, so they simply assumed the name Judahites or Jews, and then came to be regarded as such, at least by some people.
As clearly demonstrated, there is an abundance of substantial evidence proving that contemporary Jews are not descendants of the Bible patriarchs. Mr. Bernstein echoes the findings of Arthur Koestler regarding the adoption of Judaism on the part of the Ashkenazim (Khazars), and under the heading "God's Chosen People," he uncovers the chosen people myth of the Ashkenazim: [indent]**
The American people have been led to believe that Jews are "God's chosen people." This myth was started by a small group of Jews. **A few Jewish leaders took excerpts from the Bible and interpreted them to mean that God designated them as "chosen people".... **
Leading the cry, "We are God's Chosen People," are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish [Judahite or Israelite] blood in them....
The Judeo-Christian ethic we hear so much about in America is a big joke - the result of an intense Zionist propaganda campaign. I'll toss in one last thought about the "God's chosen people" myth: God said, "Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are not, for they lie [Rev. 3:9]." Could it be the Ashkenazi Jews are the people to whom God was referring?[size=2]33[/size]
[/indent]**
2005-01-14 11:10 | User Profile
Mr. Bernstein ends his book by challenging his Zionist-Jewish brethren to a debate before the American people: [indent]
I am well aware of the tactics you, my Zionist brethren, use to quiet anyone who attempts to expose any of your subversive acts.
If the person is a Gentile [non-Jew], you cry, "You're anti-semitic" which is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide your actions.
But, if a Jew is the person doing the exposing, you resort to other tactics:
0 First, you ignore the charges, hoping the information will not be given widespread distribution.
0 If the information starts reaching too many people, you ridicule the information and the person or persons giving the information.
0 If that doesn't work, your next step is character assassination. If the author or speaker hasn't been involved in sufficient scandal, you are adept at fabricating scandal against the person or persons.
0 If none of these are effective, you are known to resort to physical attacks.
But, NEVER do you try to prove the information wrong.
So, before you start your efforts to quiet me, I OFFER THIS CHALLENGE:
YOU ZIONISTS ASSEMBLE A NUMBER OF ZIONIST JEWS AND WITNESSES TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION; AND I WILL ASSEMBLE A LIKE NUMBER OF ANTIZIONIST, PRO-AMERICAN JEWS AND WITNESSES.
THEN, THE ZIONISTS AND ANTI-ZIONISTS WILL STATE THEIR POSITION AND DEBATE THE MATERIAL IN THIS BOOK AS WELL AS RELATED MATERIAL - THE DEBATE TO BE HELD ON PUBLIC TELEVISION.
Let's explore the information and let the American people decide for themselves if the information is true or false.
ISN'T THAT A FAIR CHALLENGE? Certainly, you [my Zionist brethren] will willingly accept the challenge if what I have written is false. But, if you resort to crying, "Lies, all lies," and refuse to debate the material, you will, in effect, be telling the American people that what I have written are the true facts.[size=2]34[/size]
[/indent]
Mr. Bernstein wrote his book in 1984, and his challenge has yet to be accepted. Obviously the Jews are using the tactic of ignoring the charges and hoping they will not be given widespread distribution. The last thing the Jews want is to have this type of information aired for the world to see, hear and evaluate. If too many people discover and try to stop this hoax, the Jews will lose their "favored" status, along with the money and political power they extort and relish.
The Jews will never debate this issue. They think they can go undetected, and thus they even brag about their deceit. In the following quotation the Jewish writer, Paul Meyer, boldly bragged of this deception: [indent]
Yet, I [a non-Semitic Jew] have a clever touch, and pander [cater] to your [Christian] vices, while looking on in exultation.
And so I play my game, with the exuberance of experience, **
the strange and terribly subtle aims of my Asiatic [non-Semitic] blood that remain a mystery to you **[Christians] .[size=2]35[/size]
Certain religious groups claim that the Caucasian peoples are Israelites, descendants from the house of Israel, while maintaining that the Jews are Judahites, descendants from the house of Judah. But by the authorities previously quoted, it is clear that most, if not all, modern-day Jews are not ancestrally or genetically linked to the house of Judah, and, therefore, they have no right to be called Israelites in any sense of the word. *Today's Jews are neither Judahites nor Israelites. They are, instead, imposters! *
In the preface of the book The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, Dr. Oscar Ludwig Levy, another Jew, asked the following rhetorical question: [indent]are not they [today's non-Israelite Jews] the inventors of the Chosen People Myth?[size=2]36[/size]
[/indent]
Your pastors who falsely declare that the Jews are God's Chosen People without any proof whatsoever to substantiate their claim.
Jews who truthfully admit (to their own kind and occasionally to those outside of Jewry) what Jewish and non-Jewish historians have verified: The Jews of today have no historical or racial connection to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/ Israel.
The Zionist Jews who lie for their own political gain and profit as they falsely claim to be Israelites, the Chosen People of God, but who refuse to debate the facts when challenged. Whom should you believe? Almighty God who warned us of "the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." Not only does the Bible warn. us, but the Jews themselves also confess that today's Khazar Jews are imposters. Consequently, we Christian Americans no longer have any excuse for perpetrating or financing the lie that the modem-day Jews are either Judahites or Israelites.
[/indent]
2005-01-14 14:56 | User Profile
Excellent work, Free The Truth! Nothing like the truth to wake up the sleepers.
2005-01-16 00:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Excellent work, Free The Truth! Nothing like the truth to wake up the sleepers.[/QUOTE] Sadly most will disregard this and continue to worship the Jew before God...
2005-01-16 02:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Free The Truth]Sadly most will disregard this and continue to worship the Jew before God...[/QUOTE]
That's because most Americans don't like to read, specially foreign news, and only like to wach the new from America.....which of course is controlled by the Khazard Zionists.
2005-01-16 03:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]That's because most Americans don't like to read, specially foreign news, and only like to wach the new from America.....which of course is controlled by the Khazard Zionists.[/QUOTE] Sad fact is it just isn't America but the world as a whole...
2005-01-16 05:25 | User Profile
Thought I'd post some pictures...
[IMG]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/5875/canadiansailor3kp.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/3176/royalbritishsword6tc.jpg[/IMG]
Interesting isn't it...
[IMG]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/2989/israelhighpriest0yh.jpg[/IMG]
Israelite High Priest
[IMG]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/3626/armswestminster9qg.jpg[/IMG]
And gee, look at that...
2005-01-16 13:15 | User Profile
Well done FTT...Well done! Thank you for an excellent post.
2005-01-16 15:34 | User Profile
I don't understand the question, please elaborate.
Jesus said that nothing that goes into a man's mouth can make him unclean, thereby in a single swoop cancelling entire volumes of OT dietary laws and the commentaries on them. This was confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem, which I point out had athority well before it was recorded in Acts, thereby proving the fact that the Tradition preceded the Scriptures. There are no unclean foods, except I suppose food offerred to idols in sacrifice (again, this was the directive of the First Council of the Church at Jerusalem as described in Acts), but I haven't actually run into anything like that in practice. Have you been offerred any food sacrificed to idols? I sure haven't.
DID CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES KEEP THE FOOD LAWS?
ON THE basis of the words used by our Lord in Mark 7, verses 18 and 19, and the story of Peter's vision as found in Acts 10, it has become the popularly accepted teaching in organised Christendom, that the Divine Food Laws as set forth in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 have been abolished, and that Christians can now eat any kind of food they wish.
BUT what are the Biblical facts?
The Food Laws are much older than their codified form given to Moses. The distinction between clean and unclean was known even before the Genesis Flood, and so we read of Noah that he was commanded by God:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens the male and the female, and of the beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female" - (GENESIS 7:2)
This distinction was set out clearly and in detail to the Children of Israel by Moses and Aaron in Leviticus 11, where such abominable things as swine's flesh, shellfish etc., were strictly forbidden, God Almighty declaring:
"This is the law of beasts and of fowl and of every living creature that moveth upon the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten" - (LEVITICUS 11:46-47)
A generation later in Deuteronomy 14, Moses reiterated the Divine Food Laws once again to God's Covenant People Israel, forbidding them to eat unclean food because:
"Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself above all the nations that are upon the earth." - (DEUTERONOMY 14:2)
The same God who said: "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing," also said "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Do our clergy who so glibly proclaim that they are not under law but under grace and can eat what they choose, also suggest that these other "Thou shalt not" commands are abolished, blotted out or nailed to the cross?
These animals, birds and fish were prohibited by God for the health and well being of His people. Whilst Israel obeyed these laws, they were a fit and healthy people, an example to all other nations, and we read of them at the end of their wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, and on the eve of their entry into Canaan, that:
"There was not one feeble (sick) person among their tribes" - (PSALM 105:37)
It was only when they fell into religious apostacy, as we have done nationally today, that they abandoned God's Divine Food Laws, and thus we read of them that they became:
"A rebellious people ... a people that provoketh me to anger ... that burneth incense upon altars of brick ... which eat swine's flesh and the broth of abominable things in their vessels." - (ISAIAH 65:2-4)
Now let us turn to the New Testament and see if the Lord Jesus, Peter or any of the other Apostles changed the Commandment of Almighty God or in any way purified forbidden meats to make them acceptable.
Purging All Meat
We read the following words of our Lord in the Gospel of Mark 7 verses 18 and 19:
"And He saith unto them. Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly and goeth out into the draught, PURGING ALL MEATS."
If we study this passage honestly and sincerely, we will see that our Lord was not referring to the Food Laws, nor was He making unclean and forbidden meat to be clean and acceptable. He was, in point of fact, drawing attention to the man-made observances and rituals of the Pharisees and religious leaders in Jewry, who had made the Word of God null and void by their tradition. Jesus was attacking and repudiating their ritual handwashing, and pointing out that it was not the dirt which enters into our system by eating with unwashed hands which defiles, but the evil thoughts which emanate from the heart of man, e.g., adultery, murder, fornication. This becomes crystal clear if we read on into verses 20-23. This much-misquoted text, taken from its context, has therefore absolutely nothing to do with abolishing the Divine Food Laws. It merely shows that anything harmful taken into the system, is purged out in the natural way, and therefore the religious rituals of Phariseeism are irrelevant and unnecessary.
Peter's Vision
In Acts 10, we find the story of Peter asleep on the roof of Simon the Tanner in Joppa, when he sees a strange vision. In this vision he saw a great sheet let down from Heaven, full of forbidden, unclean animals, and he heard a voice saying:
"Rise Peter, kill and eat" - Verse 13
Peter objected saying:
"Not so Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." - verse 14
In spite of his objection, the voice proclaimed.
"What God hath cleansed THAT call not thou common" - Verse 15
On the slim basis of these verses, modern Christians are told that the vision meant the total abolition of the Divine Food Laws, and that we can now eat anything we like or desire. Evidently Peter did not see this explanation, for we read that he:
"doubted in himself (was not sure) what this vision which he had seen should mean." - Verse 17.
The true meaning was soon to become clear to him and I trust to you also. At the outset of Chapter 10, we are told that while Peter was having his vision, some miles away in Caesarea, a devout Gentile, a Roman soldier called Cornelius, also had a vision in which an angel told him to:
"send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon whose surname is Peter ... he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." - Verses 5 and 6.
When these messengers arrived with Peter, he obeyed their summons, went to Caesarea and preached the Gospel, resulting in Cornelius and others listening with him, being saved, baptized in water and filled with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. (Verses 44-48).
This was the first occasion when such a thing had occurred amongst the Gentiles, and then and only then did Peter know the real genuine meaning of his roof-top vision:
"Ye know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call ANY MAN unclean" - Verse 28.
The vision was in Symbols, it concerned men, not animals or food. Peter had been shown that it was time to take the Gospel beyond the narrow confines which had operated up to that point. In no way was he being told that forbidden food was now clean. There is not one verse of Scripture to teach or even suggest that our Lord, Peter or the other Apostles cleansed or ate that which God had declared to be forbidden and unclean.
Eating what is set before us
A favourite Scripture used by our opponents to justify their eating of unclean food and the breaking of God's Commandment, is found in I Corinthians 10, verses 25 and 27:
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (meat market) that eat, asking no question for conscience sake ... whatsoever is set before you eat asking no questions for conscience sake"
It is suggested on the basis of these two verses, that we should not ask any questions about the food given to us, or the method of slaughter etc. If this were true, it would be the worst possible advice for those with stomach or digestive ailments. However that is not what Paul meant, and in order to get a proper understanding, we must look in to the world of the First Century A.D., when the Apostles wrote and ministered.
The context starting from verse 14, has to do with the custom of these days where food was often offered to an idol either in a pagan temple, or to the household gods and idols, before being eaten. Animals were frequently killed and offered as sacrifices to the gods in heathen temples, and the meat would later be re-sold to the public in the shambles or meat market. Paul was therefore saying that it would be improper to ask the host at a meal if the food had previously been part of an idolatrous ceremony, only as is clearly seen in verses 28 and 29, if it was made clear from the outset that the meat had been so offered, had the Christian an obligation to refuse it.
Nothing unclean of itself
Not to be deterred in their disobedience, our opponents will go on to quote the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 verse 14:
"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself."
Once again it is essential that we do not allow a text to be removed from its context to make it a pretext. Therefore we need to read the whole chapter and in so doing we find the key to the subject matter:
"For one believeth that he may eat all things: Another who is weak eateth herbs (vegetables)" - Verse 2.
Paul is in reality telling the members of the Church of God at Rome, not to judge each other over the question of vegetarianism. He goes on in verse 21 to state that as Christians we should do nothing that would cause another Christian to stumble, even if it is something not contrary to God's Law.
As for the word unclean as used in verse 14, it comes from a Greek word KOINOS, in the original, more frequently and more accurately rendered in most other passages of Scripture as 'Common', whilst the more correct Greek word for unclean is AKATHARTOS. Hence we can see that this text has nothing to do with any supposed cleansing of the food prohibited as unclean in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Nothing to he refused
The final Scripture used by those who reject the Divine Food Laws, is found in I Timothy 4, verse 4:
"For every creature of God. is good, and nothing to be refused, if it is received with thanksgiving"
Just try serving some mice, rats or snakes to our pork-eating friends, ask them to give thanks and eat, quote them this much misquoted Scripture and see the reaction. It will be a real test of their faith and sincerity.
All levity aside however, this verse once again as in all the other cases quoted, is being removed from its true context and misapplied in order to justify disobedience. Paul is writing to young Timothy concerning those who had fallen away from the faith to follow the doctrines of demons. One of the marks of this apostacy and declension was:
"to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" - Verse 13
In order to find out which foods God did create to be received with thanksgiving, we must return to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, the only Scriptural guidelines. No amount of prayers of thanksgiving will purify, cleanse or make acceptable for human consumption those foods including pork, which God has declared to be unclean.
Conclusion
Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles kept the Commandments of God, and as faithful Christian Israelites, we must do likewise if we would follow in the footsteps of He whom the Scriptures declare to be:
"the Captain of our salvation"
Whilst disobedience to the Divine Food Laws will not deprive you of a place in. God's Kingdom, which is accorded on the basis of saving faith and repentance, such disobedience, like smoking and the excessive use of alcohol, will rob your body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) of good and abundant health.
For the guidance of our readers, we reproduce the following chart, setting forth in simple form God's Divine Food Laws. May your obedience to the Lord's command produce health and blessing in your life.
Jesus said:
"If ye love Me, keep My Commandments"
[url]http://www.1335.com/foodlaws.html[/url]
Clean and Unclean Foods
As Listed in the Bible
God created certain animals that man CAN use for food and others that by His design are UNFIT to eat. "Clean" foods are those which in their natural state do not harm the human body and which man can use for his nourishment. "Unclean" foods are those which are unhealthy to consume and are poisonous to the body. Below is a comprehensive list of foods, defined in the Bible, as being Clean (fit to eat) and Unclean (unfit and harmful to eat). The Bible discusses this topic in detail in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
Clean Land Animals(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:1-3, Deut. 14:4-6) Antelope Deer (venison) Goat Ox Bison (buffalo) Elk Hart Reindeer Caribou Gazelle Ibex Sheep (lamb, mutton) Cattle (beef, veal) Giraffe Moose
Clean Birds and Insects(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:21-23, Deut. 14:20) Birds Chicken Grouse Pigeon Sparrow (and other songbirds) Dove Guinea fowl Prairie chicken Swan * Duck Partridge Ptarmigan Teal Goose Peafowl Quail Turkey Pheasant Sagehen
Insects Types of locusts that may include crickets and grasshoppers
Clean Fish
(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:9, Deut. 14:9-10)
Albacore(Crevalle, HorseMackerel, Jack) Hardtail(Blue Runner) Mullet Shad
Alewives(Branch/River Herring) Herring(Alewife, Branch/Glut/Lake/River/Sea Herrings) Muskellunge(Jacks) Sheepshead
Anchovy Kingfish Orange Roughy Silver Hake(Whiting)
Barracuda Long Nose Sucker(Northern or Red Striped Sucker) Perch(Bream) Silversides
Bass Common Sucker(Fresh Water Mullet,White Sucker) Pike(Pickerel, Jack) Smelt(Frost or Ice Fish)
Black Drum Crappie(Black/White Crappies) Pig Fish Snapper (Ebu, Jobfish, Lehi,Onaga, Opakapaka, Uku)
Black Pomfret(Monchong) Drum Pollack(Pollock, Boston Bluefish) Snook(Gulf Pike)
Blue Runner(Hardtail) Flounder(Dab, Gray/Lemon Sole,Summer/Winter Flounder, Yellow Tail) Pompano Sole
Bluebacks(Glut Herrings) Grouper(Black/Nassau/Red/Yellowfish Grouper, Gag) Red Horse Sucker(Redfin) Spanish Mackerel
Bluebill Sunfish Grunt(White/Yellow Grunts) Red Snapper Steelhead
Bluefish Gulf Pike (Robalo, Snook, Sergeant) Redfish Striped Bass
Bluegill Haddock Robalo(Gulf Pike) Sucker(Red Horse Sucker, Redfin)
Bonitos Hake Porgy(Scup) Sunfish
Bowfin Halibut Red Drum(Redfish) Tarpon
Buffalofish Hardhead Rockfish Trout(Gray Sea/Lake/Sand Sea/White Sea/Spotted Sea Trouts, Weakfish)
Butterfish Mackerel(Cobia) Salmon(Chum, Coho, King,Pink or Red) Tuna(Ahi, Aku, Albacore, Bluefin, Bonito, Shipjack, Tombo, Yellowfin, Yellowtail)
Carp Mahimahi (Dorado, Dolphinfish [not the mammal dolphin]) Sardine (Pilchard) Turbot (except European turbot)
Chubs(Bloater, Longjaw, Blackfin) Menhaden Scup(Porgy) Whitefish
Cod Minnow Sea Bass Whiting(Silver Hake)
Sergeant Fish(Gulf Pike) Yellow Perch
Unclean Land Animals(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:4-8, 29-31, Deut. 14:7-8) SwineBoar, Peccary, Pig (hog, bacon, ham, lard, pork)
Canines Equines Gorilla Rat
Coyote Ass Groundhog Rhinoceros
Dog Donkey Hare Skunk
Fox Mule Hippopotamus Slug
Hyena Horse Kangaroo Snail (escargot)
Jackal Onager Llama (alpaca, vicuña) Squirrel
Wolf Zebra (quagga) Mole Wallaby
Felines Other Monkey Weasel
Cat Armadillo Mouse Wolverine
Cheetah Badger Muskrat Worm
Leopard Bear Opossum
Lion Beaver Porcupine
Panther Camel Rabbit
Tiger Elephant Raccoon
Unclean Insects(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:21-23, 41-42) All insects except some in the locust family.
Unclean Birds/Reptiles(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:13-20, Deut. 14:12-19) Unclean Birds Albatross Eagle Magpie Roadrunner Bat Flamingo Osprey Sandpiper Bittern Grebe Ostrich Seagull Buzzard Grosbeak Owl Stork Condor Gull Parrot Swallow Coot Hawk Pelican Swift Cormorant Heron Penguin Vulture Crane Kite Plover Water Hen Crow Lapwing Rail Woodpecker Cuckoo Loon Raven
Unclean Reptiles/Amphibians(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:29-30, Deut. 14:7) Reptiles Amphibians Alligator Blindworm Caiman Frog Crocodile Newt Lizard Salamander Snake Toad Turtle
Unclean Fish/Marine Animals(Biblical Reference: Lev. 11:10-12, Deut. 14:9-10)
Fish Shellfish Soft Body Sea mammals
Bullhead Abalone Cuttlefish Dolphin
Catfish Clam Jellyfish Otter
Eel Crab Limpet Porpoise
European turbot Crayfish Octopus Seal
Marlin Lobster Squid (calamari) Walrus
Paddlefish Mussel Whale
Shark Prawn
Stickleback Oyster
Squid Scallop
Sturgeon (includes most caviar) Shrimp
Swordfish
** Many of the animals labeled as "unclean" are primarily scavengers. They do not have the kind of multiple digestive system that the cud-chewers do, so the poisons that they consume go directly into their flesh. Only the unclean animals are regular hosts to such parasites as the trichina worm. Isn't it amazing that almost every cookbook notes that you should always be extra careful to fully cook pork to a well-done state, but they never mention that their unspoken reason is-so that you will be sure to kill the trichina worms in their little cysts! It is an accepted fact that much of the pork in America, even with all our "modern" health precautions, probably contains trichina. Health authorities also warn against eating shell fish at certain times of year because they are poisonous then. They don't bother to mention that the shellfish have the same scavenging habits all year long that causes this problem. Trichinosis and possible poisoning is bad enough, but the unclean animals are host also to much more serious problems. **
[url]http://www.biblestudy.org/[/url]
[url]http://amprom.org/index.html[/url]
2005-01-18 01:03 | User Profile
Walter Yannis, do you still believe that you can eat the unclean?
2005-01-18 08:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Whilst disobedience to the Divine Food Laws will not deprive you of a place in. God's Kingdom, which is accorded on the basis of saving faith and repentance...[/QUOTE]
This is correct, Gabrielle. We must maintain a proper distinction between [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14820]Law and Gospel[/url].
And having said that, a couple of weekends ago we enjoyed some mesquite bar-b-qued Coyote Ass Groundhog Rhinoceros. I hate to say, but coupled with some collard greens they was some good eatin'! :)
2005-01-18 09:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Walter Yannis, do you still believe that you can eat the unclean?[/QUOTE]
There is nothing unclean, other than food offerred to idols.
2005-01-18 14:21 | User Profile
Oh man, you Judeo Christians can find an excuse to justify any reason to break God's Holy Word. No wonder we are in the mess we are in... the next thing you will be telling me is that you talk in tongues. :wallbash:
2005-01-18 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Oh man, you Judeo Christians can find an excuse to justify any reason to break God's Holy Word. No wonder we are in the mess we are in... the next thing you will be telling me is that you talk in tongues. :wallbash:[/QUOTE]
From the Summa:
[QUOTE]. . . the Law distinguished a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that of sin, whereby the soul was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of the first-mentioned uncleanness, [B]no kind of food is unclean, or can defile a man, by reason of its nature;[/B] wherefore we read (Mt. 15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are explained (Mt. 15:17) as referring to sins. Yet certain foods can defile the soul accidentally; in so far as man partakes of them against obedience or a vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or through their being an incentive to lust, for which reason some refrain from wine and flesh-meat. [/QUOTE]
From the Catechism:
[QUOTE]582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . B. [/B] . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ."346 In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it.347 This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor,348 which his own healings did.[/QUOTE]
The Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterial teachings are united on this point. There is nothing by it's own nature unclean. It's simply beyond reasonable doctrinal dispute.
The point that I hope to impress on you is that any refusal to submit to the doctrinal authority of the totality of Christian Tradition constitutes a terrible sin of prideful self will. There exists lawful authority, and the rest of us - who are after all not Aquinas - should sit quietly, take the cotton from our ears, place it firmly in our mouths, shut up and listen. Great men (and a few women), recognized by the Universal Church as Doctors - Teachers - have long since resolved all of these questions.
Our job as Christians is to learn from them, which requires first and foremost that we make ourselves teachable.
Lest we join company with all the heretical shooting stars of the past, passing into nothingness. For there is nothing outside the light of orthodoxy, only the darkness of our own solipcistic imaginings.
2005-01-18 19:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Oh man, you Judeo Christians can find an excuse to justify any reason to break God's Holy Word. No wonder we are in the mess we are in... the next thing you will be telling me is that you talk in tongues. :wallbash:[/QUOTE] It seems odd to me for you to be accusing Tex and Walter of being 'Judeo Christians', when you are the one who fetishizes Jewish dietary laws.
2005-01-18 19:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]It seems odd to me for you to be accusing Tex and Walter of being 'Judeo Christians', when you are the one who fetishizes Jewish dietary laws.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. These were the arguments of the so-called [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm]Judaizers.[/URL] They were rejected as heretical from Apostolic times.
CI would appear to be repeating things the Church authoritatively rejected 2,000 years ago. But such is the nature of heresy. The same old errors come back over and over again, now in this form, now in that. But it is in substance always the same tired old error.
2005-01-18 19:59 | User Profile
The sad reason why most of the laws of the OT were taken out was to allow for more Pagans to convert. Yeshua did keep food laws, and he was well versed in the Torah and taught its laws to the people. Sad fact is, Yeshua wasn't born on 25th December, this was used as a date to get Pagans who followed Winter Solstace(sp) which is Pagan. Did you know, that the "Christ"mas tree was used in the fashion where each family member would break a branch off and use it to whip each other for each sin...
Oh and no problem on those posts Gabrielle and Vytis, I was quite happy to post them, trying to wake people up. Interesting isn't it, that a Soldier of the British Queen always had a star of David on his sword. Of course the Jews ignore this... :D
Oh and here is another bit of information. EDIT, be careful, Willie Martin has a bit of stuff which could be plain out Jew Hating, which I don't agree with. Anyone can hate a different Race, I am a realist, not a racist.
[url="http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/JesusWasNotAJew.htm"]http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/JesusWasNotAJew.htm[/url] *JESUS WAS NOT A JEW ! *
*Benj. H. Freedman, Historian ‑ Researcher ‑ Scholar. *
*ââ¬Å Christians Duped By The Unholiest Hoax in All History, By So‑Called Jews. This is Considered Their Most Effective Weapon. ââ¬Â *
*ââ¬Å This ââ¬Ë big lie ââ¬â¢ technic is brainwashing U.S.A. Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was ââ¬Ë King of the Jews, ââ¬â¢ in the sense that so‑called ââ¬Ë Jews ââ¬â¢ today call themselves ââ¬Ë Jews. ââ¬â¢ This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so‑called Jews highjacked the word ââ¬Ë Jew ââ¬â¢ in the 19th A.D. century to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so‑called ââ¬Ë Jews ââ¬â¢ of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable. *
*ââ¬Å U.S.A. Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty‑four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their cirricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so‑called ââ¬Å Jews ââ¬Â of historic Khazar ancestry. *
*ââ¬Å Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect. Incontestible facts supply the unchallengable proof of the historic accuracy that so‑called ââ¬Å Jews ââ¬Â throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turco‑Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in blody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges. *
*ââ¬Å The historic existence of the Khazar kingdom of so‑called ââ¬Å Jews, ââ¬Â their rise and fall, the permanent disappearance of the Khazar kingdom as a nation from the map of Europe, and how King Bulan and the Khazar nation in 720 A.D. became so‑called ââ¬Ë Jews ââ¬â¢ by conversion, were concealed from U.S.A. Christians by censorship imposed by so‑called ââ¬Ë Jews, ââ¬â¢ of historic Khazar ancestry, upon all U.S.A. media of mass communications directed by them. *
*Then in 1945 this author gave nation‑wide publicity to his many years intensive research into the ââ¬Ë facts of life ââ¬â¢ concerning Khazars. The disclosures were sensational and very effective but apparently angered so‑called ââ¬Ë Jews ââ¬â¢ who have continued to vent their spleen upon this author since then solely for that reason. Since 1946 they have conducted a vicious smear campaign against this author, seeking thus to further conceal these facts, for obvious reasons. What have they to fear from the truth? *
*ââ¬Å In an original 1903 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia in New Yorks ââ¬â¢ s Public Library, and in the Library of Congress, Volume IV, pages 1 to 5 inclusive, appears a most comprehensive history of the Khazars. Also in the New York Public Library are 327 books by the world ââ¬â¢ s greatest historians and other sources of reference, in addition to the Jewish Encyclopedia, dealing with Khazar history, and written between the 3rd A.D. and 20th centuries by contemporaries of the Khazars and by modern historians on that subject. ââ¬Â *
*Jesus was a ââ¬Ë Judean, ââ¬â¢ not a Jew. *
*During His lifetime, no persons were described as ââ¬Å Jews ââ¬Â anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the ââ¬Å homeland ââ¬Â of the ancestors of those who today style themselves ââ¬Å Jews. ââ¬Â Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their ââ¬Å homeland, ââ¬Â and were known as Khazars. In neither of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a ââ¬Å Jew, ââ¬Â just as the term ââ¬Å Texan ââ¬Â signifies a person living in Texas. *
*In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so‑called ââ¬Å Jews, ââ¬Â they have been unable to prove in all the recorded history that there is a record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as ââ¬Å Jew. ââ¬Â The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self‑styled ââ¬Å Jews ââ¬Â today refer to as ââ¬Å Jews, ââ¬Â were known as ââ¬Å Pharisees ââ¬Â . ââ¬Å Judaism ââ¬Â today and ââ¬Å Pharisaism ââ¬Â in the time of Jesus are the same. *
*Jesus abhored and denounced ââ¬Å Pharisaism; ââ¬Â hence the words, ââ¬Å Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers. ââ¬Â *
Well there you have it, right from a jews works! Spread this far & wide & let the White jew‑day‑o Christians know the Blasphemous LIE they believe, & falsely spread to others knowingly, or unknowingly !
2005-01-18 20:31 | User Profile
Crowned Lion = Kingdom of Judah Unicorn = Kingdom of Israel Harp = King David's favourite Musical Instrument
Then tell me Jews, why do the British have them on their ROYAL ARMS?
[img]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/3117/davidsharp3is.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/4416/judahisraelemblems8op.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img136.exs.cx/img136/5453/britishroyalarms6wy.jpg[/img]