← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Patrick

Exposing the Heretical Cult of 'Christian Identity'

Thread ID: 19210 | Posts: 146 | Started: 2005-07-12

Wayback Archive

Patrick [OP]

2005-07-12 15:09 | User Profile

”Someone once quipped that modern Jews are still “God’s chosen people” only in the same sense as Satan was once the most beautiful of all angels...”

.....They are their “god’s” chosen, and their “god” is the serpent...

Quote:
Without the Jews, there would be no Christianity (a fact acknowledged by the great majority of Christians), no Islam (a fact acknowledged by few Muslims)...
”True, but so what?”

True?!?!

.....It’s a lie right out of the pit! Christianity has zero “jewish” roots; they’ve merely repeated such horsespit so long that people believe it... the term “jew” wasn’t even in the KJV A.V. of 1611, nor the Guttenburg Bible, nor the Geneva Bible of 1560; it was sllipped in there in the latter 1700s...

”If hatred of the Jews is unique, it’s because the Jews are uniquely hypocritical.”

.....Uniquely antiChrist, you might say...

Hugh Lincoln...

.....Obadiah declares they were chosen for destrution; they are the edomites of Scripture, and descended of esau...

Petr

2005-07-12 19:44 | User Profile

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - ".....They are their “god’s” chosen, and their “god” is the serpent..."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

I do not believe in any of that "Christian Identity" nonsense about Jews (or non-Whites) being inherently demonic. It's frankly like a spitting image of Talmudic hatred, and there are and has been many decent Jews who have sincerely renounced Judaism.

In any case, some of these occult interpretations of Kabbalah are indeed creepy:

[COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Georgia] [COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=4]The Holy Serpent and the Kabbalah [/SIZE]

"And (it is interesting to note) the Messiah himself will become the Holy Serpent (please, remember the Serpent made of silver -- sic! which was erected by Moses in the desert to save Israelites from the poisonous snakes), or [B]the Holy Dragon, the true King-Pharaoh [/B] (the gematria of the word "nahash" -- "serpent" is equal to gematria of the word "mashiah", "Messiah"). And, as you know, I suppose, there were Gnostic sects (2-3 C.E.) of ophythes and nahasens (both words were derived from the Greek and Aramaic designations of the "serpents") [B]who called the Christ (i.e., Messiah) the Holy Serpent [/B] who opened to the spiritualized souls (pnumatics) the mysteries of the Tree of Life.

"In Early Kabbalah, The Kohen Brothers, who lived in mid 13th century Castilia in Spain, in particular the "Treatise on the Left Emanation" by Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob Ha-Kohen. [This composition can be found in Joseph Dan and Ronald Kiener's "The Early Kabbalah", printed in New York 1986 -- also available at amazon.com.] The Kohen Brothers were the first who actually made the connection between [B]the gematria of "Nahash" (serpent) and the gematria of "Mashiah" (messiah) = 358[/B].

[B]-Some Kabbalists' musings gleaned by FW...[/B] [/COLOR] [/FONT] [/COLOR]

[url]http://freemasonrywatch.org/markofcain.html[/url]

Petr

Patrick

2005-07-12 19:59 | User Profile

.....You merely need more study; it isn't a matter of "belief", be it your's or my own, but the documented record from both Scripture and History...

Petr

2005-07-12 20:06 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Arial][B][I].....You merely need more study; it isn't a matter of "belief", be it your's or my own, but the documented record from both Scripture and History...[/I][/B][/FONT[/COLOR]]

On the issue of the "Christian Identity" cult, I think that this (un-PC) net writer expressed it nicely:

[COLOR=Blue][B]"Bible-believing Christians know any person who accepts CI over true Bible doctrine will burn forever in the Lake of Fire, along with all other infidels, for as Paul stated "but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:7 - 8).

...

"The "Christian" in Christian Identity is an offense to the Lord Jesus Christ, and we pray that all who are involved with this foolishness repent before it is too late.[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://hometown.aol.com/thejman99/book3.html[/url]

Petr

Patrick

2005-07-12 20:16 | User Profile

”But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:7 - 8).”

.....He was speaking of any Doctrine contrary to the one I carry, Sir; I am a Christian, and the two seedlines brought forth in Genesis, 3:15 cannot be refuted...

”The “Christian” in Christian Identity is an offense to the Lord Jesus Christ, and we pray that all who are involved with this foolishness repent before it is too late.”

.....Hardly; Identity is hardly a cult, either, Petr... there is no one singular head, nor is there agreement on the part of all parties concerning some areas of the Doctrine, both of which dispell the nonsense of “cult”; I see far more cultlike behavior in the whoring “church” today than anything I’ve witnessed from those calling themselves Identity... you are aware, are you not, that Billy Graham sounded much like myself in the forties; that was before he discovered there was no money in it, and turned, instead, to today’s variety of ersatz Christianity...

Petr

2005-07-12 20:34 | User Profile

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "the two seedlines brought forth in Genesis, 3:15 cannot be refuted."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

May I quote that link one more time:

[COLOR=Blue][B]"Of course, one only needs to read one Bible verse to negate all of CI doctrine: "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain. . ." (Genesis 4:1)."[/B][/COLOR]

Besides, in a purely secular sense, Christian Identity (especially Dual-Seedliners) are a bloody embarrassment to the WN cause with their paper-thin dogmas that are even clearly borrowed from Talmud, dammit.

[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "I see far more cultlike behavior in the whoring “church” today than anything I’ve witnessed from those calling themselves Identity"[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

The oldest excuse in the book: "they are also doing it, so why can't we?" Two wrongs don't make a right.

Petr

Patrick

2005-07-12 20:52 | User Profile

*”May I quote that link one more time:

”Of course, one only needs to read one Bible verse to negate all of CI doctrine: “And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain. . .” (Genesis 4:1).””*

.....I could easily explain why the verse does not say what you suggest, as the original languages bring forth far more than the bastardized antiChrist massoretic text allows, (or were you likewise unaware that the whoring antiChrist “jewish” massoretes were working to destroy our Scripture?); I take you trust the purely English transliterations? Grave is your error, if that be the case; if you wish to see what the text truly says, you need only ask...

”Besides, in a purely secular sense, Christian Identity (especially Dual-Seedliners) are a bloody embarrassment to the WN cause with their paper-thin dogmas that are even clearly borrowed from Talmud, dammit.”

.....Nothing is borrowed from the filthy talmud in the Doctrine I carry, Sir; nor do I care about an house built without YHVH, as Scripture declares it will not stand, so if you wish to elevate your white nationalism to the status of “religion”, you prove yourself a far larger fool than you could accuse me of being; I’m attemoting to explain to you that our cuacasian nationalism has far deeper roots than your petty pride allows... you probably don’t even know from whence comes your nationalism, save the color of your soul suit...

- “I see far more cultlike behavior in the whoring “church” today than anything I’ve witnessed from those calling themselves Identity”

”The oldest excuse in the book: “they are also doing it, so why can’t we?” Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

.....I’ve said nothing of the sort; neither do I have anything to excuse myself of... were you even noddingly familiar with the History behind my claims, and the actual Scripture that bears out every assertion, you’d realize how foolish your staments make you appear herein...

Ponce

2005-07-12 21:11 | User Profile

Well people, you guys are to sophisticated for me and all that I can tell you is that to me is more important what the Jews are doing now than what they did 2,0000 years ago.

I know that if we don't learn from history then we are bound to make the same mistake again and if that's the case then remember that the Jews were kick out from over 76 countries with some of them doing it two and three times, there must have been a reason for all those countries doing that ....at this time Russia is working on that problem and the US should pay deed as to what is going on.

All those Russian Jews are going from Russia to the state of Israel, and to the US, with many of those that went first to the estate of Israel then changing their minds and coming to the US.

wild_bill

2005-07-13 03:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick] .....Hardly; Identity is hardly a cult, either, Petr... there is no one singular head, nor is there agreement on the part of all parties concerning some areas of the Doctrine, both of which dispell the nonsense of “cult”; I see far more cultlike behavior in the whoring “church” today than anything I’ve witnessed from those calling themselves Identity... you are aware, are you not, that Billy Graham sounded much like myself in the forties; that was before he discovered there was no money in it, and turned, instead, to today’s variety of ersatz Christianity...[/QUOTE]

Identity, whether a cult or not by the usual definition, remains a false teaching due to the simple fact that it flatly contradicts two thousand years of Christian teaching.

Patrick

2005-07-13 14:01 | User Profile

”The Hebrew people and the Jews are never described has anything remotely beautiful. They were a stiff-necked people whose burnt offerings were a stench to God.”

.....The Hebrew people and the antiChrist “jews” are two entirely different peoples; you err when you believe the “jews” were either Hebrew, or Israelite... to whit:

.....Who are the Esau-Edomite Jews and where is the proof of their existence today? The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41, says: “EDOM IS IN MODERN JEWRY.” In addition, under the heading of “A brief History of the Terms for Jew” in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: “STRICTLY SPEAKING IT IS INCORRECT TO CALL AN ANCIENT ISRAELITE A ‘JEW’ OR TO CALL A CONTEMPORARY JEW AN ISRAEL*ITE OR A HEBREW.” (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3)...

.....No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. {“You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. OUR [Jewish] MENTALITY IS OF EDOMITISH CHARACTER, AND DIFFERS FROM THAT OF AN ENGLISHMAN. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.” (From the manifesto of the “World Jewish Federation,” January 1, 1935, through its spokesperson, Gerald Soman)} No other people fit the characteristics and follow the role of Esau-Edom so completely as do the Jewish people. The Jews follow the role that their ancestors the Edomites had followed...

.....So you see, they, themselves, admit to the facts I’ve stated above in official publications; those of you who believe the ruse of the “jews” being YHVH’s chosen should now reject such notions and admit you were conned... also, Jeremiah tells us that Our Father never spoke of making burnt offerings, but this concept was infused into Scripture by those selfsame massoretes...

”When someone says “chosen people”, what is meant by that? The Jews were chosen to be given the Law. And, by the Law, they were damned.”

.....Nonsense; if you read Scripture carefully, you will see that the “jews” are never referred to as chosen; Scripture says Israel, (the caucasian race), were to be a “peculiar” people unto YHVH and a servant race... likewise, The Law was given only to Israel, (not the antiChrist “jews”), therefore, only Israel can sin, as Our Father reckons the term, (transgression of The Law); those of you that learn something contrary need to get out of these beth a’ven, (house of nothingness), “churches”, as they are in a profound state of apostacy, and have so been for all of our entire lifetimes...

”Christ is and has always been the only way to Heaven. The only Hebrews saved were those who put their faith in God and thus in Christ. The chosen people are and have always been the spiritual, not the physical, children of Abraham.”

.....I disagree; why do you think Paul stressed “of the flesh” so often? Why do all of the Epistles carry an address “to the brethren, Greek terminology illustrates this means blood)? There is no “spiritual” versus “physical” aspect to the Scriptural message; that is just another of the multitude of lies from the adversary, (antiChrist “jews”), that needs to be discarded onto a dung heap where it belongs...

”The Hebrew people were God’s chosen people in that they were a physical demonstration of spritual truth, such as the concept of chosen people itself. God chose them to be the blood line of Jesus. God chose them to reveal scripture to. But, God did not choose them to be saved just because of their blood. God did not choose them to be the masters of Christians or of America. “

.....I’m not saying that one finds salvation merely due to blood; many Israelites are in trouble with Our Father for the lives they live... what I am saying is that the hindus have their vedas, the molsems their koran, and the antiChrist “jews” have their filthy talmud; the Scriptures of the Bible are written by, to and about the caucasian Israelites and the only time any other race is mentioned is when they come into contact with the Israelites... it is, indeed, a racial Book and the story of our heritage; the story tells us the birthright would be “stolen” by esau’s children, thus proving the validity thereof; if you’re unaware of the proof of identity of Israel, please read here:

[url]http://www.israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/MarksIsrael.html[/url]

”Identity, whether a cult or not by the usual definition, remains a false teaching due to the simple fact that it flatly contradicts two thousand years of Christian teaching.”

.....No, it does not; our founding fathers knew they were Israel; George Washington himself proffered the name New Jerusalem for this country at the time of our founding... neither was America named after Vespucci, as we had been falsel taught; The Old Gothic form for the word “America” was “Amel Ric”. “Amel” means “Heaven”, and “Ric” means “Kingdom”—Kingdom of Heaven. Amel Ric is still found in the German language as “Emerich”, or “Himmelreich”...

.....Strong’s Concordance gives the Hebrew word “Meluwkah’ for kingdom...

.....The letter “l” and “r” under certain circumstances are interchangeable. Thus the Hebrew word “Meluwkah” (pronounced “mel-oo-kah”) became “Merukah”, this became “Amerucah” which in the Latin form is “America”...

.....Thus “Amel Ric”, “Emerich’, “himmelreich”, “Amerlukah”, “Amerukah”, and “America”, became words for “The Kingdom of Heaven”...

.....For you to make this statement, I can only surmise that you’ve spent far too long in the whoring “church” of today, being infused wiith “judaic” teachings that turned true Christianity on its ear; further, “straight is the path and narrow the gate and few there be that find it”... this proves the majority is always wrong, and Our Father has long since lamented our disobedience, as was alluded to above...

Patrick

2005-07-13 19:53 | User Profile

.....Where'd everybody go?

Sertorius

2005-07-13 22:15 | User Profile

Patrick,

What do you mean?

Petr

2005-07-14 03:50 | User Profile

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - ".....Where'd everybody go?"[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

They probably got tired of debating with a cultist who simply declares those Biblical verses that contradict his pet theories as forgeries.

Petr

Patrick

2005-07-14 12:41 | User Profile

"They probably got tired of debating with a cultist who simply declares those Biblical verses that contradict his pet theories as forgeries."

.....Well, just becuase you ran them off is no reason they can't talk to me; I have evidence for all of my assertions, but you have too many coats of shellack on your views to even consider it, it seems...

Ponce

2005-07-14 20:25 | User Profile

Books about Jews written 100 years ago or older are very different to the ones written now days by the Jews.

The one now days are written in order to back up the new propaganda that they keep repeating over and over again.

wild_bill

2005-07-17 13:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick”Identity, whether a cult or not by the usual definition, remains a false teaching due to the simple fact that it flatly contradicts two thousand years of Christian teaching.”

.....No, it does not; our founding fathers knew they were Israel; George Washington himself proffered the name New Jerusalem for this country at the time of our founding... neither was America named after Vespucci, as we had been falsel taught; The Old Gothic form for the word “America” was “Amel Ric”. “Amel” means “Heaven”, and “Ric” means “Kingdom”—Kingdom of Heaven. Amel Ric is still found in the German language as “Emerich”, or “Himmelreich”...[/QUOTE]

Friend, mone of that proves anything. The Church IS Israel, but that is not due to white people actually being the so-called "lost tribes." Christians have referred to themselves as "Israel" because we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. This is what Christianity has taught going back to the beginning.

Show me a theologian or writer of any authority of the early Church that says that whites are Israel. Please don't give me some ambiguous reference about Christians being Israel, I mean where has any Christian authority said that the Israelites of the Old Testament are the whites of Europe. BTW, I've issued this challenge on every message board where Identity devotees were found and NONE, ZERO, NADA can answer that. Not even your self-appointed preachers. Why? Very easy, because its not true!

Manipulations using Strong's Concordance mean nothing without support from some of the Church fathers. If whites were actually the physical descendants of the Israelites, this would have certainly been taught from the beginning, but it never was because its simply not true.

Patrick

2005-07-17 15:43 | User Profile

Come now, Bill...

.....Did you bother to look into the "Marks of Israel" I posted? Was not one of those very "marks" the fact that Israel would lose her identity? Were we not told that some of the important knowledge was to be "sealed up" until the latter days? Since the time of the first century Church, the antiChrist "jews" have been about their insidious work of destroying the faith; the whoring massoretes, all of whom were antiChrist "jews", were rewriting the MSS as they destroyed the originals, which is why we have fluff today concerning "spiritual descendents" of Abraham...

.....I gladly accept your challenge, but rather than relying solely upon some compromised, "jew"-trained theologian, (the "seminaries" were the early target of infiltering by said antiChrist "jews"), I will bring forth more than sufficient evidence to convince all but the most heavily indoctrinated of the factual nature of my assertion of the caucasian race fulfilling said marks of Israel...

.....May as well begin at the beginning; as I had said earlier, I intend to put this together in a series of posts that will take a few days... I ask that those unfamiliar with this information try to suspend judgement until all of the evidence is in; I don’t mind at all taking time for questions, but I don’t wish to get into another term parsing contest until after the fact... no concept from Scripture hinges exclusively upon a single term or even a single verse; we are told that “out of the mouth of two witnesses, shall a thing be established, which precludes such a notion completely...

.....I appreciate the definition put up on Aw-dawm, (to blush red), as that is a pretty good clue to begin with... Scripture is a Book solely intended for “Adam-kind”, or “Adamites”; it is the story of the History, (His story), of the race of Adamic man and the only time any other peoples, (yes, races), are mentioned is when they come into contact with Adam-kind... Unless one holds the unScriptural evolutionary view, then they will have to admit that the other races do not descend from Adam, or that YHVH is a liar and violates His own immutable Law of “kind after it’s kind”... He also declares in 1Corintians fifteen that not all “flesh” is the same...

.....From Adam, the chosen Holy Seed had to go through the “substitute” of Seth, (which translates to “substitute”), due to the murder of Abel by the first murderer and son of the wicked one, Cain; after a goodly number of generations, the Holy Seed was corrupted by those nephilim, (from the root word “nephal”, meaning, to fall), those fallen angels came down unto the daughters of Adam and took for wifes, all that they chose, (this is the “marrying and giving in marriage” from Matthew twenty four), until the only Godly Sethite, (and his family), that remained was Noah, whom we are told was “perfect in his generations, (posterity)... The next progenitor of the scarlet thread was in the person of Eber, from whom we get the name “Hebrew”; from Eber and his descendent Hebrew family, who, once again, after generations they became corrupted, but YHVH directed Abram to “separate himself”, even from his own people...

.....This choosing of Abraham was a profound occurance to YHVH’s people; inspite of their tendency at disobedience, YHVH had made a covenant with His people, whom He had chosen as a peculiar people unto Himself... YHVH promised He would never forsake His people, nor choose any other, (Deuteronomy, 4:31, 34, 37; 7: 6-8); His promises of incredible blessings to come for His people, some of which were contingent upon their moral behavior, but the main thrust was unconditional... The Paternal head, upon the death of Abraham, passed to Isaac, then on to His son Jacob, as the younger brother of Esau, who had despised his birthright and sold it for pottage, then to slap YHVH in the face, took wives from the Canaanites; Jacob’s name was changed by YHVH to Israel, which translates to “he who reigns as a pince with YHVH over man successfully”...

.....Years passed and Israel grew to a great multitude; YHVH, through Moses, then gave the first written Law to His people and formally married his bride Israel and they had accepted their place in the covenant by agreeing to do all that He commanded... It was at this time that He also gave them a special Name by which they alone were to call upon, that of YHVH, (pronounced, Ya’ ho vay, not Je ho’ vah); this was a covenant Name... after many more years the Israel people would often wander away from their promises to their Father; they had gone after “strange flesh” as we read in Ezra, 9:2, among other offenses and came under the judgements of Deuteronomy, 28:15, on, Leviticus, 26 and 2Samual, 7, as their sins went beyond where He could withold His judgement; after the death of king Solomon, (around 931 B.C.), the “whole House of Israel” had split into the House of Judah, consisting of Judah, Benjamin and Levy and the House of Israel, consisting of the ten northern tribes...

.....The House of Israel had their capital in Samaria and was under the headsip of King Omri; the House of Judah had their capital in Jerusalem... In the timeframe around 721 B.C., the House of Israel, (as well as a good portion of the House of Judah), were taken captive by the Assyrians; an-hundred-thirty-five years later, the remaining portion of the House of Judah was taken to Babylon in captivity... The entire population at this time was approximately thirteen million people; eleven million in the northern House and two million in the House of Judah... Of these, a mere 40,000 returned to Jerusalem after seventy more years; question... What happened to this large mass of people? The acclaimed Historian, Flavius Josephus, in his work Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter V, paragraph 2, states: “ the entire body of people of Israel remained in that country, (Assyria); wherefore, there are but two tribes, (a remnant of Judah and Benjamin, which were present in Jerusalem at the time of the Ministry of The Christ), in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, not to be estimated by number”...

.....The Book of Esdras, (Ezra), of The Apocrypha reveals to us that these Israelites left Assryia and migrated into a new country, which was uninhabited: “these are the ten tribes that in the days of King Hoshea were carried away from their own land into captivity, whom Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, made captives, and carried beyond the river, (Euphrates, which was always the spiritual border between Jerusalem and Babylon), they were carried off to another country. But they formed this plan among themselves, to leave the heathen population, and to go to a more distant region, where the human race had never lived, so that there perhaps they might keep their statutes, which they had not kept in their own country. And they went by the narrow passage of the Euphrates River. For the Most High then did wonders for them, for He held back the sources of the river until they had passed over. But it was a long journey of a year and a half to that country, and that country is called Azareth”, (2Esdras, 13:40-47)...

.....Now, Herodotus, (Greek Historian of the fifth century B.C. known as the father of History), confirms every detail of this account; This is a fulfillment of Sciptural prophecy... YHVH declared that due to the sin of His people, he would drive them from the land He had given them and scatter them throughout the earth; they would have a new home to the north and the west of jerusalem, (Isaiah, 49:12, Jeremiah, 3:18), a land that was previously not inhabited by man, a wilderness, virgin, uncultivated, a new land... Azareth was a country that was to the north and west of Jerusalem, a one-an-one-half year’s walk away...

.....Israel is to number as the sands of the sea, and you’re looking at a people that never went above 13 million or so; duh! How about them losing their identity? The “jews” can count themselves clear back to their ancestors; again, not Scriptural... The trail never got cold; it’s there to be found... like a lost dog, if one were to go looking and not find it where last seen, he’d go looking for the trail... but just because the dog’s collar was found empty, even the dimmest bulb on the planet wouldn’t conclude that the dog failed to exist...

.....Is it not rather odd to you, that at the time Israel supposedly disappeared from History there was another huge body of people, of roughly the same number, discovered in roughly the same place? The secular minds say they have no clue as to the destiny of the one peoples nor the origin of the other? C’mon... even when the Historical records prove they are the self-same people? Can it be they are just plain ignorant, or are they trying to hide something from you? Why is it that no one in the religious monopolies of recent times has ever publically connected the disappearance of the Israelites with the emergence of the Germanic tribes? Particularly when enormous proof exists that these tribes are, in fact, the Israelites of Scripture? Note: the Germanic peoples existed for at least a thousand years before the ”Germans". Secular minds have proposed an elaborate “theory” of evolution, deducing that man came from an ape, but have not suceeded in determining from whence originated these Germanic peoples... These “scientists” and “great minds” can supposedly trace the earth’s origins back hundreds of billions of years using bits and pieces of weeds, bugs and animals, yet they claim they cannot trace the origins of the Germanic peoples back a mere 2,500 years?! Right...

.....Here are the “marks” of Israel; we can discuss them individually if anyone cares to and how they apply to only one peoples on the planet through fulfillment of the prophetic utterance... this will probably be all I have time for this evening, but I have the next installment started...

.....It is a matter of inspired record that God placed “marks” on His people Israel. During the Christian dispensation, “lost” Israel was to possess these marks of identification. So then, if we can discover the nations and peoples that possess these marks, we have found the people whom God chose to serve Him to be a channel of blessing to all mankind. There are many God-given marks; the list I am providing is not exhaustive, but they constitute a chain of evidence that only the unlearned can ignore.

.....One race of mankind, and one race alone, has all of these marks. With few exceptions, Joseph, (the birthright nation), was the recipient of them all. By inheritance, his two sons, Ephraim, (Great Britain), and Manasseh, (USA), will be found possessing them all.

.....While Israelites remain in other countries, (such as Benjamin of Iceland), America is the home of millions of all the thirteen tribes, (E pluribus unum meaning, “out of many, one”), and thus is representative of the whole house of Jacob. We are bound by Israel’s responsibilities, fulfilling Israel’s destiny. The MARKS are on us everywhere; in our NAME; in our SABBATH; in our INSTITUTIONS; in our PHILANTHROPY; in our COMMERCE; in our WEALTH; in our MINES; in our AGRICULTURE; in our CHURCHES; in our MISSIONARY; in our ENTERPRISES; in our ARMED FORCES; in our POSSESSION OF THE BIBLE; all BIRTHMARKS, which neither time, nor the ages, nor even our sin can wipe out.

1. Israel to be a great and mighty nation. Gen. 12:2; 18:18; Deut. 4:7, 8.

2. Israel to have multitudinous seed. Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 22:17; 24:60; 26;4, 24; 28:3, 14; 32:12.

3.Israel to spread abroad to the west, east, north and south. Gen. 28:14; Isa. 42:5, 6.

1. Israel to have a new home. II Sam. 7:10; I Chron. 17:9.

2. Israel’s home to be north - west of Palestine. Isa. 49:12; Jer. 3:18.

3. Israel to live in islands and coasts of the earth. Isa. 41:1; 49:1-3; 51:5; Jer. 31:7-10.

7.Israel to become a company of nations. Gen. 17:”4-6, 15, 16; 35:11; 48:19; Eph. 2:12.

1. Israel to have a Davidic King, (a perpetual monarchy within Israel). II Sam. 7:13, 19; II Chron. 22:10; II Chron. 13:5; Psa. 89:20, 37; Eze. 37:24; Jer. 33:17, 21, 26.

2. Israel to colonize and spread abroad. Gen. 28:14; 49:22; Deut. 32:8; 33:17; Psa. 2:8; Isa. 26:15; 27:6; 54:2; Zech. 10:8, 9.

3. Israel to colonize the desolate place of the earth. Isa. 35:1; 43:19, 20; 49:8: 54:3: 58:11, 12.

4. Israel to lose a colony, then expand, demanding more room. Isa. 49:19, 20.

5. Israel to have all the land needed. Deut. 32:8.

6. Israel to be the first among nations. Gen. 27:29; 28:13; Jer. 31:7.

7. Israel to continue as a nation forever. II Sam 7:16, 24, 29; I Chron. 17:22-27; Jer. 31:35-37.

8. Israel’s home to be invincible by outside forces. II Sam7:10; Isa. 41:11-14.

9. Israel to be undefeatable - defended by God. Num. 24:8, 9; Isa. 15-17; Micah 5:8, 9.

10. Israel to be God’s instrument in destroying evil. Jer. 51:19-24; Dan. 2:34, 35.

11. Israel to have a land of great mineral wealth. Gen. 49:25, 26; Deut. 8:9; 33:15-19.

12. Israel to have a land of great agricultural wealth. Gen. 27:28; Deut. 8:7, 9; 28: 33:13, 14, 28.

13. Israel to be rich by trading. Isa. 60:5-11; 61:6.

14. Israel to be envied and feared by all nations. Deut. 2:25; 4:8; 28:10; Isa. 43:4; 60:10, 12; Micah 7:16, 17; Jer. 33:9

15. Israel to lend to other nations. Deut. 15:6; 28:12.

16. Israel to have a new name. Isa. 62:2; 65:15; Hos. 2:17.

17. Israel to have a new language. Isa. 28:11.

18. Israel to possess the gates of his enemies. Gen. 22:17.

19. Israel to find the aborigines diminishing before them. Deut. 33:17; Isa. 60:12; Jer. 31:7.

20. Israel to have control of the seas. Deut. 33:19; Num. 24:7; Psa. 89:25; Isa. 60:5.

21. Israel to have a new covenant. Heb. 8:10-13; 9:17; Matt. 10:5-7; Lue 1:77; 2:32; 22:20; John 11:49-52; Gal. 3:13.

22. Israel to lose all trace of her lineage (vital) Isa. 42:16-19; Hos. 1:9, 10; 2:6; Rom. 11:25.

23. Israel to keep the Sabbath forever, (one day in seven set aside). Ex. 31:13, 16, 17; Isa. 58:13, 14.

24. Israel to be called the sons of God, (i.e. accept Christianity). Hos. 1:10-11.

25. Israel to be a people saved by the Lord. Deut. 33:27-29; Isa. 41:8-14; 43:1-8; 44:1-3; 49:25, 26; 52:1-12; 55:3-10, 13; Jer. 46:27, 28; Eze. 34:10-16; Hos. 2:23; 13:9-14; 14:4, 6.

26. Israel to be the custodians of the oracles, (Scriptures), of God. Psa. 147:19, 21; Isa. 59:21.

27. Israel to carry the gospel to all the world. Gen. 28:14; Isa. 43:10-12, (witnesses), 21; Micah 5:7.

28. Israel to be kind to the poor and set slaves free. Deut. 15:7, 11; Psa. 72:4; Isa. 42:7; 49:9; 58:6.

29. Israel to be heir to the world. Rom. 4:13.

30. Israel to be God’s glory. Isa. 46:13; 49:3; 60:1, 2.

31. Israel to possess God’s Holy Spirit as well as His Word. Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Hagg. 2:5.

32. Israel to be God’s Heritage, formed by God, forever. Deut. 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; II Sam. 7:23; I Kings 8:51, 53; Isa. 43:21; 54:5-10; Hos. 2:19, 23; Joel 2:27; Micah 7:14-18.

33. Israel is the nation appointed to bring glory to God. Isa. 41:8-16; 43:10, 21; 44:23; 49:3.

Patrick

2005-07-17 15:46 | User Profile

.....The above was by way of introduction only; the Historical proof of the identification of the Israel peoples is no less than astounding, and the scholarship is unassailable... Just as the lost dog could conceivably receive a new name, the Israelites were known by their captors of a number of names, which changed across time in their differing locales; beginning mainly with "Iskuza" in a number of forms... Secular Historians have proven that this name was the earlier name for those that were later known as Scythians; the Scythians were the self-same people that populated Europe as the Germanic tribes...

..... This Assyrian derivative was due to the fact that these captives referred to themselves as "sons of Isaac", (which was yet another fulfillment of prophecy, see the declarations of Genesis, 21:12, Hosea, 11:1, Romans, 9:7 and Hebrews, 11:18); there is also one occurance in Scripture of the reference to the "House of Isaac", (Amos, 7:16)... In her punishment, Israel was to be driven from her land and given a new home and that she would lose her identity, (Deuteronomy, 32:26, but not to YHVH, Hosea, 2:17); this identity loss was to History, for a time, due to her disobedience...

.....During captivity, Israel had come into contact with many other peoples and were given differing names by the differing nations throughout her migrations; Isaac, in various languages, became such as Saka/Sakia, (Roman), Sacae/Sakae/Saka/Sakka/Sakiya/Scythia/Scythian, (persian, Median and Susian), Saksuna/Sacasene/Sakkas, (Indian), Skuthes/Skuthae, (Greek), Scolotoi, (Crimean), Skythes, (Welsh), and Sgaithanach, (Scots-Gaelic), most of the variation of which, was a result of the lack of vowells in the Hebrew... All of these names were later translated as Scythians, with minor variations...

.....Madison Grant, an Historian of no small stature, had indicated in his work, The Passing of The Great Race that "the Sacae, or Saka were the long-headed blonde peoples who carried the Aryan language into India"; he informs us that "Strabo recorded these people were the Scythians and Sacasena", (pp. 511)... "The Essene and other literature of the Israelites found in the catacombs reveals that the Israelites and Jesus Christ Himself were the blonde-haired, blue-eyed peole who averaged six feet in height"...

.....Scripture declares that YHVH's Israel would be scattered north of the river Euphrates, (1Kings, 14:15); the fulfillment came when Israel was taken captive into the Assyrian empire.. As Israel left Assyria, they passed northward through the "narrow pass" of the Caucasus mountains, from whence we get the very term "caucasian"; passing through the Kerch straits into the Crimea...

.....The name Saxon was derived from the Hebrew, Saka-sunni and it means "son of Saks" or "Isaac's sons"; in Documents of Destiny, by F. Wallace Connon, (London, 1958), it is stated, "Dr. Holt Yates says: 'The word Saxon comes from sons of Isaac', and he gives Saak, Saac, Saax, Saach-en and shows that in many eastern languages , "sons of" is often written sunnia, which would give the sons of Isaac as saac-sunnia...

.....The Babylonians also referred to the Scythians as Gimirra/Gimiri, meaning "tribes" as the Israelites were virtually the only people broken into subsets of tribes and sub-tribes, and this is borne out by Strabo, greek Historian and geographer; the Romans called them Kimmiroi... all of these names translated to the English "Cimmerian" or "Cimbri"... The Assyrians and Babylonians also called the Israelites "Sak-Galutha" or "Bit-Khumri"; "Galutha" meaning "captive" in Hebrew and "Bit-Khumri" being the Assyrian equivalent to the Hebrew "Beth-Omri", which meant "House of Omri"...

.....To demonstrate that the Cimmerians, Sacae, Saxons and Scythians were of the same race of people as the Angles, Celts, Danes, Gaels and Goths, I will rely upon the words of the scholars; to wit...

.....Albinus, (1st century B.C.), wrote, "the Saxons were descended from the ancient Sacae in Asia, and in the process of time they came to be called Saxons"...

.....George Moore, in his Saxons East and West stated, "The Sacae and the Getae who formerly invaded India sprang from the same source as the Saxons and Goths of the West, and were distinctly connected with the Israelites"...

.....Pliney the Elder, (23-79 A.D.), the Roman scholar and author of Historia Naturalis, said, "the Sakai were among the most distinguished people who lived in Scythia and that they had been called Sacca-suni", (Connon, pp. 102)...

.....Ptolemy, (2nd century, A. D.), Greco-Egyptian astronomer, mathematician, and geographer, stated the "Saxons were a Scythian people descended from the Sakae, who came from Media"...

.....Professor Hans F. K. Gunter, (German ethnologist), states, "Whatever peoples, whatever individual Viking bands, may have trodden English ground, Celts, Angels, Jutes, Danes, Norweigian and Icelandic Vikings, Normans, they were all predominantly Nordic peoples." The Racial Elements of European History, 1927...

.....Professor Huxley, stated, "If what I have to say in a matter of science weighs with any man who has political power, I ask him to believe that the arguments about the differences between Anglo-Saxons and Celts are a mere sham and delusion.", (from a quotation by Sir Arthur Keith, in The Sunday Times, October 27, 1935)...

.....Sir F. Palgrove, stated, "Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Normans were all relations, however hostile, they were all kinsmen, shedding kindred blood.", (English commonwealth)...

.....Sir Arthur Keith, stated, "As regards shape of skull or form of bones I do not think a practised craniologist could distinguish the skulls and bones found in an ancient Saxon cemetary in Surrey from the remains of a Celtic grave in Connemara, so much are the Celtic and Saxon types alike. Were we to dress one group of fishermen from the coast of Norfolk and one group of fishermen from the shores of Connaught in the same garb, I do not think there is an anthropologist in Europe who by mere inspection could tell the Irish from the English group. From a physical point of view the Celt and the Saxon are one; whatever be the source of their mutual antagonism, it does not lie in a difference of race. It is often said that we British are a mixed and mongrel collection of types and breeds; the truth is that as regards physical type the inhabitants of the British Isles are the most uniform of all the large nationalities of Europe.", (Nationality and Race From an Anthropologist's Point of View, (1919, pp. 23-24)...

.....Sir T. Nicholas, wrote, “The researches of modern Historians, unequivocally favor the opinion that under the name Keltai, Galaltai, Gauls, Gaels, Gwyddils, Celts, Cimmerii, Cimbri, Cymry, Brythons, Lloegrians, Scots and Picts, only one race under different tribe or clan divisions, political organizations and periods of existence, is spoken of, hence, one people.“, (Missing Links, pp. 225)...

.....Professor Sharon Turner, F.S.A., R.A.S.L., in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, (1799-1805), states, “The Anglo-Saxons, Lowland Scotch, Normans and Danes have all sprung from the great fountain of the first human race which we have distinguished by the terms Scythian and Gothic... (the Scythians migrated)... crossed the Araxes, (Aras River), passing out of Asia, and suddenly appeared in Europe in the sixth century B. C....

.....William Camden, states, “I think the conjecture of those learned Germans, who imagine the Saxons are descended from the Saci, the most powerful people of Asia; that they are so called, as if one should say Sacasones, that is ‘Sons of Sacae’; and that out of Scythia or Sarmatae Asiatica, they poured little by little into Europe, along with the Getes, the Swevi, and the Daci; deserves credit the best of any other. And indeed, the opinions of those men who fetch the Saxons out of Asia, where mankind had its rise and growth, does not want some color of reason.”, (from Missing Links, pp. 225, quoting The Seed of Isaac, by J.D. Granger, pp. 168)...

.....Professor Dr. Joseph Ehret, states, “Less blood would flow, if the European inhabitants knew how closely they are related as brother and sister, in law. With few exceptions, we constitute a close community of peoples, a true family encompassing the majority of national cultures, stretching from the Islandics in the north to the Italians in the south, and from the Old-Indians in the east to the Portuguese in the west.

.....This Indo-European family, also called by some the Indo-Germanic. encompasses a rich History and for those who take the trouble to leaf through its pages, it promises a rich harvest. This is especially true when one disregards the more recent peoples and works back toward the oldest who have retained their original primordiality, such as... the Greeks of antiquity or the Lithuanians and their stock brothers, the Latvians. In this case one obtains highly valuable knowledge from which one can draw conclusions about their fore-fathers, about the primordial people from which we stem.” (Lithuania: The European Adam, 1983, pp. 9, 10)...

.....In the British Museum, there are Assyrian tablets which were found in Ninevah in which we find the first mention of the Scythians in History around 699-681, B.C., (ironic that the city that was spared judgement by YHVH plays a role in identifying Israel); there were additional records discovered in Ninevah and Babylon that illustrate beyond a doubt that the Israelites were the Sacae and the Scythians, (Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets, by E. Raymond Capt, M.A., A.I.A., F.S.A., 1985)... In the timeframe mentioned the Scythians were living in Medes; the significance of this discovery was that with this, we see the beginning of the fulfillment of prophecy... The Assyrian term Iskuza, was the result of the name the Israelites had for themselves as “Isaaca”, which was more than likely to remind themselves that they were, indeed, the children of the promise, and that YHVH would keep them, even in their captivity; they eventually had forgotten why they were so named and shortly thereafter, forgot they were Israel at all...

.....About 1800 in England, (which coincides with the ending of the 2520 years of national punishment), the population began to wonder of their roots and question from whence they came; there was an exceptional gentleman and scholar that rose to the questions... Sharon Turner, F.S.A., R.A.S.L., (1768-1847), wrote his several volumes of impeccable scholarship, establishing himself as the foremost authority on The History of the Anglo-Saxons, which, even today stands as the final word on the subject; His 1,820 pages reveals that the Anglo-Saxons descend from the Scythians who had come to Europe from the Median cities on the Gaozan River, (this is the exact spot wherein defeated and deported Israel had been located by Shalamanezer V of Assyia)... Mr. Turner quotes The Vetus Chronicon Holstatioe, “The Danes and the Jutes are Jews, (read: Israelites), of the tribe of Dan”; it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that if the Danes and Jutes of European stock are of the tribe of Dan that the other European peoples were derived of the other Israelite tribes...

.....Diodorus Siculus, (1st century), a noted Greek Historian, states, “The Scythians anciently enjoyed but a small tract of ground, but through their valor, growing stronger by degrees, they enlarged their dominion far and near, and attained at last to a vast and glorious empire... seated themselves near the River Araxes... This nation prospered more and more, and had kings that were very famous; from whom the Sacans and the Massagetae, (“greater” Getae, as opposed to the Thyssagetae, “lesser” Getae who together became the Goths; Ostrogoths, east, and Visigoths, west), and the Arimaspians, and many other names derive their origin. Amongst others, there were two remarkable colonies that were drawn out of the conquered nations by those kings; the one they brought out of Assyria and settled in the country lying between Paphlagonia and Pontus, (south Russia near the Black Sea); the other out of Media, which they placed near the River Tanais, (Don), which people are called the Sauromatians, (Lituanian Balts)”...

.....F.C. Danvers, K.C.C., F.R.S.S., in his Israel Redivivus, 1905, (Redivivus=second hand), indicates that Diodorus also identified two colonies among the Scythians who were Israelites out of the Babylonian captivity; fascinating indeed that the Scythians came out of the very two locations of their captivity as described by Scripture and illustrated by History...

.....William Pascoe Goard, L.L.D., F.R.G.S., F.R.E.S., in his book, The Post-Captivity Names of Israel, (1934), as he quotes Rollins Ancient History, (Charles Rollins was a distinguished French Historian and the Rector of the University of Paris in 1694; the quote is from Book VI, Chapter I, Section III), “According to this author, (Justin), the Scythians lived in great innocence and simplicity... and ... they were... unacquainted with vice. They did not make any division of their lands among themselves... since they did not cultivate them. Horace, in one of his odes, tells us... they had no houses nor settled habitation; but wandered continually with their cattle and their flocks fom country to country... and made milk and honey their principle diet... This contempt of all conveniences of life, says Justin, was attended with such an honesty and unrightness of manners as hindered them from ever coveting their neighbors’ goods.”...

.....Colonel J. C. Gawler, (Keeper of the Crown Jewells in the Tower of London), in his book, Dan: The Pioneer of Israel, (1879) states, “Strabo likewise quotes several authors who speak of the excellent laws and habits of the Sakai, a tribe of Scythians who are called ‘a righteous race’, (emphasis mine, Patrick ), the laws, customs, and manners of the Scythia, (says Epiphanius), were received by the other nations as the standards of policy, civility, and polite learning”; (for the Scythians rapid growth and expansion, evidence of their excellent laws, great learning and abhorrance of swine, see Diodorus, Herodotus, Strabo, Aeschylus, and Epiphanius... Also, Ephorus quotes Choerilus, who called the Sakai of Asia “a colony of nomads, a righteous race”; Herodotus also records, (volumes IV, pp. 76), that the Scythians “studiously avoid the use of foreign customs”...

.....Colonel Gawler went on, stating, "the people, the Dacae called Polistoe, I do verily believe are the same with those which Strabo called Plistoe, and were the stock of the Abii, (a Scythian tribe whom Arrian calls “the justest people in the world”)”...

.....Frederick Haberman in his work, Tracing our White Ancestors, (1934), says, “Aeschylus, the Greek poet tells us, the Sacae were noted for their good laws, and were preeminently a righteous people”; further, “The Scythians told Herodotus that their nation had been in existence for a thousand years previous to the invasion of Darius. If we date, therefore, a thousand years back from the time of Darius, 515 B.C., we arrive at 1485 B.C., the date of the exodus, (from Egypt), when Israel was founded... these lived on the Gerrhus, a tributary of the present Dneister. Herodotus includes among the Scythian tribes, the Getae, who lived on the shores of the Danube, (i.e. the Arsareth of Esdras, mentioned above). Those Getae, as Herodotus tell us, believed in their immortality, going after their death to “Zalmoxis”, which means nothing less than the “God of Moses”. So also was the country where the Getae lived named Moesia, for in it lived a ‘people of Moses’.” (pp. 129)...

.....I wanted to interject this as a bonus, as I found it on one of my pasteboards while searching my files; may not fit chronologically at this point, but what the hey...

.....King James was known as “Jacobus”, (Jacob) and thus the flag got it’s name, the Union Jack. However, the symbology of the flag goes far deeper, not just back to the turn of the 17th century AD, at the beginning of the formation of the nation of Britain, (covenant nation), but all the way back to the ending of the 17th century BC at the beginning of the formation of the nation of Israel... I shouldn’t need to reiterate the story of Joseph’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, but the “cross” of the Union Jack is the result of those crossed arms...

.....The west window of Westminster Abbey, which is over the main door, has a row of panels... The three at the top contain the figures of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the next two rows of seven each contain figures of Rueben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulon, Issachar and Dan; Asher, Napthali, Joseph, Benjamin, Moses and Aaron, and the bottom row contains the emblem of Moses and the emblem of Aaron at each end, but at the center, the Lion of Judah, the Bull of Joseph, the Arms of Britain.

.....The coronation service throughout is an intensely interesting study... the by-far largest collection of evidence as to the whereabouts of the throne, (both figurative and literal), are detailed in a book called Jacob’s Pillar by E. Raymond Capt... and moreso in Conner’s Documents of Destiny...

Patrick

2005-07-17 15:50 | User Profile

.....Brigadier General W. H. Fasken, C.B., in his book Israel’s Racial Origins and Migrations, states, “It must be realized, as Dr. Goard has reminded us, that the History of Israel as given in the Bible is the History of Israel in Palestine. If any section of Israel, during Israel’s national sojourn in “the land”, left the geographical boundaries of that land, they ceased to find a place in it’s, (Biblical), History. They are not forgotten in the covenant or prophecy, but having marched out of the land they have, for that very reason, marched out of the, (Biblical), Historical record.”...

.....Colonel J. C. Gawler, again, from his book Dan: The Pioneer of Israel, (1879), states, “Sailman, a Jewish writer in 1818, in Researches in The East quotes Ortellius, ‘that the Kingdom of Arsareth, (2Esdras, 13:45), was where the ten tribes finally settled and took the name Gauthei.’”

.....The name Gauthei is of no small import; this distinguishes the Israelites as the Germanic tribes of Europe. In addition Colonel Gawler relates, “The Scythians were later known as Goths, or Gothi, possibly because Getae, an important branch of the Scythian nations, were most in contact with the Romans, with whom, therefore, all Scythians were called Gothi.”...

.....Dr. George Moore, in his work, British History Traced From Egypt to Palestine, (1927, London), states, “The name Goth, as already surmised, was probably transferred from Palestine to the neighborhood of the Caspian Sea, where the Getae and the Sacae, the Goths and the Saxons, are Historically found together.”...

.....Pliney the Elder, Roman Historian, (c.50 A.D.), states, “The name Scythian has extended in every directin, even to the Sarmatae and the Germans, beyond the Danube are the peoples of Scythia. The Persians have called them by the general name of Sacae. The more ancient writers give them the name Aramii. The multitude of these Scythians is quite innumerable, (Genesis, 13:16; 15:5; 17:4, 6, Patrick); in their life and habits they much resemble the people of Parthia. The tribes among them that are better known are the Sacae, the Massagetae, the Dahae.”...

.....Dr. Hans Gunther, Professor of Berlin University in the 1920’s, in his book, Racial Elements of European History, states, “Ancient writers, such as Polemon of Ilium, Galienos, Clement of Alexandria, and Adamantios, state that the Sacae, (Scythians), were like the Kelts and Germans, and describe them as ruddy-fair. The Scythian tribe of the Alans are also described as having Nordic appearance. Ammianus, (c. 350 A.D.), describes them as ‘almost all tall and handsome, with hair almost yellow, and a fierce look’.”...

.....J. Llewellyn Thomas, F.R.C.S., in his book The Assyrian Invasions and Deportations of Israel, states, “It is noteworthy that the tribe of Dan is not mentioned in these accounts, (of Assyrian deportations), whilst the other tribes are named. The northern Danites should have been the first to feel the Assyrian impact. They were not there, and are believed to have migrate by sea, (which I will soon prove, Patrick), to avoid the Assyrian menace.”...

.....Dr. J. Franklin Snook, in his book, To Heal The Nation, (1977), confirms what Mr. Thomas says when he states, “During the 38 years between the two censuses taken in the wilderness, the five tribes of Reuben, Gad, Ephraim, Naphtali and Simeon decreased in numbers by 61,080 men. During the same period the other seven tribes increased by 62,260 men. These figures can only be the result of the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s promise in Genesis, 28:14, wherein He told Jacob that he should spread abroad to the west, east, north, and the south.”, (pp.10), (see also Numbers, 1, 3:39, & 26)... Recall that an Israelite census counted only men of military age, (twenty-one and up), and that the numbers rendered were slightly more than 600,000. This would be about one-fifth of the total Israelite population; Rev. J.R. Dummelow, M.A., Queen’s College, Cambridge, (1954), editor of The One Volume Bible Commentary, indicated that the entire population of Israelites at that time was in the neighborhood of three million...

.....More evidence to the fact that the Scythian peoples who fathered the Germanic tribes, are, in fact the Israelites of Scripture, is found in the tombs of Scythia, which were discovered in the south eastern portion of Russia, (Scythia and Crimea); these tumuli, (tombs), date from 580 B.C. to the 1st century A.D. and had contained many of the symbols of the Israelites along with fine animal drawings, (as can be seen in the American Journal of Archeology, 1914, Volume 18, and the Illustrated London News, January 3rd and February 14th, 1914), along with a number of Hebrew manuscripts which were translated by Professor Hannay and included in the previously mentioned book by Frederick Haberman, wherein he documented the content of some, “I am Jehudi, the son of Moses, the son of Jehudi the Mighty, a man of the tribe of Naphtali, which was carried captive with the other tribes of Israel, by Prince Shalmaneser, from Samaria during the reign of Hoshea, King of Israel. They were carried to Halah, to Habor-which is Cabul- to Gozan and to Cheronesus-which is the Crimea.”, (Haberman, pp.129)...

.....In the Crimea, there were many thousands of tombstones found in Scythian graveyards that carried Hebrew-Phoenician inscriptions; Professor Chwolsen of Petrograd had translated some 700 of these, among which we read, “This is the tombstone of Buki, the son of Itchak the priest; may his rest be in Eden, at the time of the salvation of Israel. In the year 702 of the years of our exile.” Another reads, “To one of the faithful in Israel, Abraham ben Mar-Sinchah of Kertch, in the year of our exile 1682, when the envoys of the Rosh Meschek came from Kiou to our master. Prince David, Halmah, Habor and Gozan, to which place Tigleth Pilesar had exiled the sons of Reuben and Gad, and half have been scattered through the entire coast, even as far as China.”, (Haberman, pp. 130)...

.....E.P. Ingersoll, in his book, Lost Israel found in the Anglo-Saxon Race, (1886), states, “many of these tombstones were in St. Petersburg, and others of them read, ‘Moses Levi, a priest, died in the year 726 of our exile;’ and ‘Zadok the Levite; son of Moses, died 4,000 years after the creation, 785 of our exile.’”, (pp.34)...

On to the Greeks...

.....E. P. Ingersoll, (mentioned above), tells us that according to Oxonian, (in his Wanderings of Israel), Herodotus himself was an Israelite from the tribe of Dan; in the Book of Maccabees, (The Apocrypha), the author speaks to the Lacedaemonian Spartans were of Israelite heritage, which is confirmed by Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities, XII, IV, 10 & XIII, V, 8...

.....Brigadier General W. H. Fasken, C.B., (mentioned above), states, “it was Israel, and principally the tribe of Dan, which furnished the human element of classic Greece.”, (pp.64)...

.....Colonel Gawler, (mentioned above), quotes Latham, from Ethnology of Europe with the following words, “I think the eponympous, (for the unfamiliar, an eponymous is the name of a real or mythological person upon whom is presumed to be the origin of the name of a particular place or region), of the Argive Danai, (a region of ancient Greece), was no other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan, only, we are so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our consideration of the Israelites, that we treat them as if they were adscripti gleboe, (meaning, tied to the land), and ignore the share they may have taken in the ordinary History of the world. The sea ports between Trye and Ascalon, or Dan, Ephraim, and Ashur must have followed the History of sea ports in general, and not have stood on the coast for nothing. What a light would be thrown on the name of Peloponnesus and the History of the Pelopid family, if a bona fide nation of Pelopes, with unequivocal affinities and contempory annals, had existed on the coast of Asia! Who would have hesitated to connect the two? Yet with the Danai and the tribe of Dan this is the case, and no one connects them!”, (pp. 11, 12)...

.....Now; think of the good Colonel’s words for a moment... It would have to be either profound ignorance or a conspiracy to conceal these truths from the world that results in virtually the entire world remaining in the dark as to the identity of Israel in this day; did not YHVH declare that His people Israel had a very particular role which they were to fulfill, namely, to be through whom the world would be blessed? From Father Abraham forward, Israel was to be a light unto the world and the prophecy makes the inherent demand upon her to fulfill this role; in every century since, this people have been playing this role of distinction and it doesn’t require that close of an inspection by which to see... so far thrust into the forefront of History have these people been that it cannot be missed, (or dismissed); one people and one people alone have ever been able to step up to the plate and assume the role that has been given... yet, we see an ugly step-sister attempt to stuff her fat foot into the glass slipper of Israel’s Cinderella role, but it doesn’t come even remotely close to fitting inside; modern “scholars” seem to believe it impossible for our Israelite brethren to be in existence outside of the Scriptural parameters of the land of Israel of old, yet, all evidence declares, nay, proves, the facts are to the contrary...

.....E. P. Ingersoll, (mentioned above), unveils, “From Historic evidences that have come to light recently, it seems that Dan had been long familiar with the then-western world; that he had been accustomed to the performance of voyages with the Phoenicians all over the Mediterranean Sea, and beyond outside the Straits of Hercules; and that alone, unaccompanied by any of his neighbors, he had sailed to Egypt, and thence to Greece, taking with him a colony of his own people; and that these Danai are said to have been among the first settlers of Greece. It is further stated that Dan was engaged in the sacking of Troy; that afterwards he conquered Macedonia, and that Alexander, (the Great), seems to have descended from this very tribe of Israel. It is furthermore stated that Dan settled, after his sacking of Troy, in that very region, where he built twelve cities.”, (pp. 14)...

.....Colonel Gawler states, “Allatius supposes that the Israelites peopled the countries of Iberia, (modernday Spain; “Iberia” translates to “land of the Hebrews”), and Golchis, (modernday Greece); and he adduces the authority of Constantine Porphyrogenetes in support of the Israelitish origin of the inhabitants of Iberia. The name Iberia, as well as Bithynia-also on the south of the Black Sea-certainly strike one as of Hebrew origin”, (pp. 18)...

.....Keating in History of Ireland states, “The Dan-ans were a people of great learning and welth. They left Greece after a battle with the Assyrians and went to Ireland, and also to Denmark, and called it Danmares, Dan’s country.”

.....Herodotus, (mentioned above), states, “The most distinguished of the expelled foreigners, (from Egypt), followed Danus, (Dan), and Cadmus into Greece, but the greater number of them was led by Moses into Judah, (Canaan)”... Cadmus, should you know your Scripture, was the great-grandson of Chacol, as per 1Kings, 4:31 and 1 Chronicles, 3:6, who was the great-great-grandson of Judah. Cadmus and those with him entered Greece subsequent to those of Israel that had entered the promised soil; the ancient land of Greece, Colchia, had derived it’s name from Chacol...

.....Elizabeth C. Evans, in Physiognomics in the Ancient World, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, I, 1969, states, “The pure Greek is, according to Polemo, (considered the foremost ancient physiognomist), of the moderate and erect stature, of a fair face with light complection mixed with red; he is lean with hands and elbows of moderate size, watchful, quick to learn, with medium-sized head, with thickness and strength in the neck, soft reddish hair, not curly, but combed and straight, with a square contenance, thin lips, and a moderate straight nose, moist, shining eyes, which move quickly and contain much light.”...

.....Hans F.K. Gunther, in his book, The Racial Elements of European History, states, “whenever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, according to Adamantios, (Hebrew Sophist and Physician, 4th century A.D.), we see proper tall men of fairly broad and straight build, neatly made, of fairly light skin and blond; the flesh is rather firm, the limbs straight, the extremities well made, the eyes bright, piercing and full of light, for of all nations, the Greek has the fairest eyes.”...

.....I wanted to get in this last bit of the Greek connection before moving on; that, as well as pointing out that in places, such as John, 7:35, the bastard term of “gentiles” was substituted for “Helene”, (Strong’s #1672), so that the verse should have been translated thusly, “Will He go unto the dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?”, as opposed to the way the KJV reads and the Israelites being spoken to here knew the Greeks were of Israel... Above I had posted the “marks” of Israel, placed upon her by YHVH, by which we could identify them in the latter days; I think we should look at a few of them against the evidence of the world History related and perhaps compare and contrast the actual happenings of the people purported in this day to be Israel against those in whom the actual fulfillment has been found... Again, this will take a bit of time, as I have more to do than just post, but i will try to move in a timely fashion; thanks in advance for your patience...

.....Let’s look at a few of the marks that Scripture declares would be upon Israel and see if we can determine from the Scriptural proofs just who Israel is in the world today; the marks posted above tell quite a story and it is contrary to the “conventional wisdom” of “everybody knows” thus and so...

.....Israel to have multitudinous seed and number as the “sands of the sea” and the “stars of the heavens”. Genesis, 12:2,3; 13:16; 15:5; 17:4, 6, 16, 19, 21; 18:18, 19; 21:12; 22:17, 18; 24:60; 26:4, 24; 28:3, 14; 32:12; 35:11; Psalms, 89:29, 36; Isaiah, 65:15. Do the caucasian Israelites come closer to fitting this description than those in the ME? I believe they have never numbered more than 20 million and they actually have a regressive birthrate, which is why they have always had to mix with those among whom they have lived; the regressive birthrate is a Scriptural sign of a “curse”, as opposed to a blessing... YHVH declared through the blessing given by Jacob to Ephraim and Manasseh that they would grow into a multitude “in the midst of the earth”, (Genesis, 48:16), but the word “grow”, (Strong’s #1711), is used only one time in the Hebrew here; it means “to grow rapidly or spawn in great numbers as fish”... what was the symbol of the Christians very early on? Now? Coincidence? Hmmm...

.....Israel to be a great and mighty nation. Genesis, 12:2; 18:18; Deuteronmy, 4:7, 8, as well as Israel to become a company of nations. Genesis, 17:4-6, 15, 16; 35:11; 48:19; Ephesians, 2:12; and Israel to be the first among nations. Genesis, 27:29; 28:13; Jeremiah, 31:7... first, America is renowned as the greatest nation ever on the the planet... while itself, technically is a “company of nations”, this “company” status better applies to the collection of nations on the European continent; America would better fit the definition of “great nation”... The caucasians from the European continent are our brethren; when Scripture said that “brother would war against brother”, this has seen fulfillment many times over, (in the last 200 plus years, in particular)... Does the sandbox by the name of Israel in the ME qualify as either a “great nation” or a “company of nations”? Not hardly, much less both; still a shut-out so far...

.....As far as Israel’s prophesied power, Israel to have all the land needed, Deuteronomy, 32:8; Israel to be the first among nations, Genesis, 27:29; 28:13; Jeremiah, 31:7; Israel’s home to be invincible by outside forces, II Samual, 7:10; Isaiah, 41:11-14; Israel to be envied and feared by all nations. Deuteronomy, 2:25; 4:8; 28:10; Isaiah, 43:4; 60:10, 12; Micah, 7:16, 17; Jeremiah, 33:9; Israel to possess the gates of her enemies, Genesis, 22:17; Israel to have control of the seas, Deuteronomy, 33:19; Numbers, 24:7; Psalms, 89:25; Isaiah, 60:5. The very first of this list disqualifies the sandbox, does it not? Is the Israel-lie, (emphasis on the lie), first among the nations or does America better fit the bill? Does the Israel-lie control the gates of her enemies? In these latter days we have given away our Panama canal, and we can see the effects of the curses of Deuteronomy 28 becoming more evident with each passing day; even a blind man could see who these marks describe... Does the Israel-lie control the seas? Still pitching a no-hitter here; are any Christians coming out of their slumber yet?

.....YHVH also said Israel would be his “battle axe” by which He would conquer the nations, (Jeremiah, 51:20; Numbers, 24:8, 9; Psalms, 2:8, 9; Isaiah, 41:10, 16; Micah, 5:8; Malachai, 4:3); who was it that made such an instrument famous in battle? Scripture also said that Israel would conquer Rome, (Daniel, 2:34, 35, 44, 45); it was the Vandals and the Goths, (who we saw from Historical evidence to be Israel), that conquered Rome; their difficulties began under Decius around 255 A.D. during his reign of terror against Christians... The Goths were the first of those Germanic tribes to overpower the Roman empire; the Visigothic king named Alaric I conquered Romae in 410 A.D.... Did the “jews” fulfill these prophecies? This is becoming more ludicrous as an argument by the sentence, don’t you think? The irony lies in the fact that it was the “jews” that so infuriated Rome in 70 A.D. that they sent General Titus in to destroy Jerusalem; Ezra and Nehemiah both record that there were those that were rejected as a result of the geneological records being in the Temple to tell them who was who in the zoo... they planned the very destruction then bemoaned their poor persecuted status after-the-fact; go back and read some of the early portion of this thread and apply what you have since learned...

.....There are also the prophecies concerning Israel having a new name and being called through Isaac, (recall “Saxon”), (also, Christian, 2Chronicles, 7:14); having a new home, (north and west of Palestine), being a perpetual nation and the long and fascinating story, (which I may here tell), of how Israel would have a perpetual throne... the daughters of King Zedekiah and Jeremiah’s sojourn to Ireland; Jacob’s pillar as the very coronation stone... I could certainly go on, but should one not see it by now they will remain blind right up to the end of the age; so much of Our Father’s Living Letter to His children has been closed to Christian understanding by the erroneous assignation of YHVH’s chosen to those of the Israel-lie and this is the lie that needs to be exposed for what it is... the biggest lie of the big lie concept; Israel was never to return to the land until the Kingdom age, which does not begin until the return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords... Selah...

.....Do you not see, Christian, what Scripture has been declaring all along? There is no question as to the identity of Israel; notice, though, that those that decry these facts never refute this position with factual documentation from either History or Scripture? Their position is completely devoid of any factual documentation, instead relying upon emotional pleas, (as well as parsing of terminology), and shouts of “racist! racist!” while never noticing that holding to the erroneous position of the “jews” as YHVH’s chosen is of exactly the same bent! How could one position be racist and the other not?

.....To deal with the “racist” epiphet, I would only say that truth oftentimes seems to be severe when it really is not; one must shed many of the false teachings that have been perpetuated since the days of the Apostles... realize that in this world there are such things as learned folly that operates from a base of verbosity; midgets stand in stilts, obscured by the flowing skirts of skillful prose or the wayward usage of the powers of declamation, yet the stilts remain in existence... be not fooled, brethren, as they delight in your deception; deny them their hand-rubbing... do you wish to allow Scripture to declare the truth to you or will you allow the truth to be obscured by the sweet-sounding words of the nephinim in the pull pit? When The Christ declared in no uncertain terms that He came not to destroy The Law and The Prophets, but to fulfill, do you allow some whoring hired servant to tell you The Law was “nailed to the cross” in direct contradiction to the Words of The One you profess to serve? YHVH forbid...

Patrick

2005-07-17 16:24 | User Profile

The Perpetual Throne of Israel...

.....Above I posted the verses concerning Israel’s blindness to their own identity; He also declared that we would be without an “ephod or teraphim” for a time, (Hosea, 3:4), that is to say, without a vision from YHVH or a sign... without also true Priests ordained by YHVH to lead His people to Him; all these crazy people that run around saying “God told me to wear my blue suit today”, or “God told me to park in the shade today”, (or whatever nonsense they attempt to trot out for the foolish people that would sit in their pews), prove that they have not an inkling of Our Father’s Word and their own words are witness against them as being the aforementioned nephinim, or “hired servants”... Isaiah called them “dumb dogs that cannot bark”; I happen to have a few worse names for them...

.....Now, YHVH swore that the people of Israel would have over them forever a King, specifically, from the tribe of Judah, (Genesis, 49:8-10), and that there would never come a time when there would not be an heir of David to sit on the throne; YHVH made this solemn promise to David, (Numbers, 23:21; 2Samual, 7:13-16; 1Chronicles, 22:10; 2Chronicles, 13:5; Psalms, 89:1-6, 20, 27-29, 35-37; 132:10-14, 17; Jeremiah 33:17-26; Ezekiel, 37;24), and we know that YHVH cannot lie, so this was a vow that could not be broken...

.....At first blush, this would appear to be a contradiction, but only to the weaker student; this vow has never been broken, regardless the verse from Hosea... This, however is easily resolved when the context is properly considered; He declared that the House of Israel would be without a King for a short period... Hosea had prophesied against the northern tribes in their iniquity, and this was roughly 760 B.C.; this particular prophecy came to pass about forty years after the utterance when the House of Israel was carried into the Assyrian captivity... at that point in time, they had not a King; the House of Judah, (no, not the “jews”), however, still had King Jotham on the throne; YHVH had not forsaken His Promise here, or anywhere else... when the northern tribes, (House of Israel), were being taken, the southern tribes, (House of Judah), remained as a Kingdom, although there was a portion of the House of Judah that went into the Assyrian captivity with the northern Kingdom; by the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon had begun taking the House of Judah into the Babylonian captivity, (586-584 B.C.), some of those from the Assyrian captivity were already escaping into Europe, where they began to re-establish small Kingdoms; to add to this fact, even before the time of David, there were Israelites that had already left the main fold of the flock and had begun to establish Kingdoms that were growing into empires, (just as was Greece), and I would imagine the ruling Kings that were over them were of the tribe of Judah... “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor from between his feet”, (put for his posterity), recall?

.....Even beyond all of this, when the House of Judah was in the process of being taken captive to Babylon, YHVH, true to His Word as always, had provided for the displacement of the “seed of David”, so to speak, sort of a transplantation, from out of Judah proper; the last King of the House of Judah was Mattaniah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had later renamed Zedekiah, (recall the story above concerning his “never seeing Babylon”)... after taking Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar had his sons slain and Zedekiah’s eyes put out, which would “appear” to have ended the posterity of Zedekiah then and there; but Jeremiah informs us in 41:10 & 43:6 that he had also had daughters... Zedekiah’s daughters were taken by Jeremiah, in his Divine Mission, (Jeremiah, 1:10, “to plant”; 18:7, “to pluck up”; 31:31-37, see also Ezekiel, 17:1-6 for the clues to this mystery)...

.....Those daughters of King Zedekiah were taken to the British Isles and we have some Historical proof of such, which I will get to; there can be no excuse, save Divine Providence for the fact that Jeremiah had been given complete freedom of movement by the king of Babylon... he went so far as to give his own general to Jeremiah as a servant, as well as a sum of money to see to his needs, (Jeremiah, 39:11-14); were there other ensamples of any pagan kings so doing with the likes of a prophet from a conquered peoples? One would be hard-pressed to find one; some time later, Jeremiah had been taken into Egypt, (Jeremiah, 43), by the disobedient Judeans, where Jeremiah made his break, along with his scribe, Baruch, (Jeremiah, 36:4), and made his way to Spain with the daughters of Zedekiah, and later to the British Isles...

.....With the knowledge of the fact that the Grecian dynasties were of the Israelites, once Troy was founded, many of the Grecian Israelites had migrated into the British Isles as well and found their Israelite brethren already established; these included the Davidic descendents, including those through Nathan's, (David's son, who had already established a monarchy there), line... thus, we see that the continuum of the throne existing through the remarriage of Zedekiah's daughters into the Davidic line, and an heir to David reigning over true Israel; it matters not the "name" they were known by...

.....In Ezekiel, 21:25-27 we read of the throne being taken, in a sense; YHVH declared He would "overturn, overturn, overnturn", and give it to "Him to come"... three times would there be an "overturning", and from History, we document these three when Jacob's Pillar, representing the throne, was taken to Ireland by Jeremiah... By the Irish name of Lia-fail we recognize the sacred relic that was reported to have been there some five centuries before The Christ; it was upon this stone that all Kings and Queens of, not only Ireland, but England and Wales, were coronated... This was "overturned" in 498 A.D. by one Fergus the Great to Scotland; taking the name of the "Stone of Scone" by virtue of the fact that it was kept in the Abbey of Scone...

.....The Scottish hold was then "overturned" to England by Edward I in 1296 A.D. where it spent until recently, (if I am up to speed on the latest information), under the coronation throne in Westminster Abbey and referred to as the "coronation stone"; yes, there are extensive articles and studies that "debunk" the stone... just as my reading of Jeremiah 31 earlier is said to be in error as it could not mean as I say, but it refers to the millenial reign; this verse was saying "they shall teach no more" when we know they will teach in the millenium, just as Ezekiel 44 tells us... this is how the confusers work, you see? I had explained said verse and was ridiculed for "improper sentence structure" or some such nonsense, (they do well to keep one off balance); in retrospect, however, for their reading to have validity, they defy other witnesses within Scripture, when they assert that which is not in alignment with the whole of His Word... And they tell me, "context, context, context"...

.....The three "overturnings" are exactly as declared; our History is replete with prophetic fulfillment, thus validating, in no uncertain terms, that which Scripture declares... but we don't all do our homework, do we? We don't all study the reality of His Story and how perfect is the alignement when roles of the actors on the world scene are properly applied; too many of us listen to the fairy tale being craftily woven for us, thereby obscuring the reality behind a similar veil to the one hiding the midget's stilts... About the only observation I find more fascinating is to see how many buy the lie, and defend it with vigor; but then, that is just more validation of the prophetic utterance of Scripture... "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge" certainly comes to mind...

.....The original concept of the “Divine Right of King” was due to the fact that YHVH had established the monarchy in the throne spoken of herein, as opposed to mere man; the evidence surrounding the Stone, or Jacob’s Pillar, (for further information on the story of this stone, see The Stones Cry Out by Bonnie Gaunt, as well as Jacob’s Pillar, by E. Raymond Capt, M.A., A.I.A., F.S.A.), reveals that it came to Ireland, (Hibernia), from Spain, (Iberia), and that it had it’s early days in the Holy Land, (which today is profaned)... it is of no small import that the symbol for the nation of Ireland is the Harp of David; just as the symbols of the tribes are manifest throughout the Christian west...

.....Frederick Haberman, (mentioned above), in his book, Tracing Your White Ancestors, (1934), states, “Irish Historians are unanimous in agreement that about 580 B.C. there arrived in Ulster a notable man, a Patriarch, or Saint, accompanied by an eastern Princess, and a lesser person by the name of Simon Brach, or Berech, (Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch; ancient Irish records refer also to this particular arrival as a “Holy man from the east came to Dan, bringing with him a scribe, Brugsch, also a beautiful Princess, daughter of a King, (Ingersoll, pp. 20)). This party brought with them several remarkable things about which Ireland’s songs and legends reveal; those things were a harp, (David’s harp), and a wonderful stone--the Stone of Destiny-- the Lia Phail. According to many traditions, Jeremiah took the princesses to Spain, where one of them married a Prince of Zarragossa, (from the lineage of Zarah/Judah). With the other Princess he arrived in Ulster sometime later. Irish tradition tells us that Jeremiah married Princess Tamar Telphi, (also referred to as Tea Telphi; she was likely named after her ancestor Tamar, the wife of Judah, who was the mother of Zarah and Pharez), to Eochaidh, the Heremon, or head King of Ireland, after the latter had embraced the worship of the true Jehovah, (YHVH).”...

.....Jeremiah himself died and was buried in Ireland; his grave can still be seen today... Jeremiah was a true Levitical Priest from the tribe of Levi; the true High Priest of Israel wore a breastplate which contained a series of twelve precious stones, one symbolizing each of the twelve tribes of Israel... The stone representing Levi was the Emerald; Jeremiah, of the Emerald tribe of Levi, was the Patron Saint of Ireland, (the first Saint Patrick; care to guess what manner of “snake” he ran out of Ireland?), which is even today recognized as the “Emerald Isle”... Coincidental? Hmmm...

.....Recall above that the House of Israel and the House of Judah had split, one from another; this occurred around 945 B.C., enduring until a reunification under Alfred the great, around 850 A.D.... This was the very beginning of the two sticks of Ezekiel’s prophecy becoming fulfilled in a reunification of the House of Israel with the House of Judah, (see also Jeremiah, 3:18 and Hosea, 1:11); the tribe of Judah was divided also between Judah’s two sons, Zarah and Pharez, (Genesis, 38:27-30), and Zarah’s tribe itself was divided between Zarah’s own two sons, Darda and Calcol, (1Chronicles, 2:6)... Tea Telphi was, herself, of the Pharez lineage, who then married King Eochaidh, (the ancestor of all the Kings and Queens of Scotland); Eochaidh was of the Calcol, Zarah, Judah line, and this marriage reunited the first half of Zarah and Pharez... It was with the marriage of Queen Victoria, (possessor of ancestry back to King David), and Prince Albert that the entire Royal lineage of Judah became reunited with the Darda, Zarah, Judah line; thus, were all of the Kings and Queens of Europe, through Prince Albert, (of the Darda, Judah lineage), fully reunited with the Kings and Queens of Scotland and Ireland through Queen Victoria, (Calcol, Judah lineage), and all of Israel was reunited to the current United Kingdom... these Historical names were not pulled out of thin air, Christian; there was great purpose and Historic significance to the usage of words and names in our past and it is of great edification to learn the translational meanings behind the names given in the Scripture, as it adds a second dimension and emphasis to any given story being brought forth within...

.....This is not to say that this will not find secondary fulfillment at some future date, wherein Israel, with her blindness finally lifted, will fully recognize the prophecy being fulfilled even before her once blind eyes; recall that the greater portion of Israel went from approximately 781 to 712 B.C. without an official King or sanctioned Priest, due to the captivity in Assyria... It was not until the reign of Alfred the Great, approximately 850-900 A.D., the first King of all of England, who wa known as a Godly King, who had established the laws of England upon the predication of The Law of YHVH from Scripture; Alfred had also been responsible for the translation of the Scripture into Anglo-Saxon, (the King’s English), as he had fully recognized that the Anglo-Saxon peoples were the true Israelites of Scripture, just as those with eyes to see and ears to hear are learning right here... I have said repeatedly that the evidence was overwhelming and the scholarship beyond reproach; the Israel of the time period just before Alfred’s day were in their punishment period, where they were appolumi, or, "lost", (if I recall that spelling correctly), which means “put away, as for punishment”, wherein they had no King to reign,and were blinded to their identity as YHVH’s people... this is another reason for the distinction of this particular time period being known to History as the “dark ages”, indeed, Haberman holds that Latin word Cimmerians, actually means “those in darkness”, due to their “lost tribe” nature...

.....Now; having expounded upon the solemn promise made by YHVH to the people of Israel to have a perpetual King from the tribe of Judah, more specifically, of the Davidic line, to sit on the throne of Israel, can anyone honestly say that the “jews”, who have no King or Queen, (“We have no king but Ceasar!!”), are of the true Scriptural Israel? The Europeans have had the monarchy in perpetuity, always declaring their lineage from King David; indeed, the Scottish Declaration of Indepence itself mentions this lineage... It is no coincidence that Queen Victoria has traced her lineage directly to King David; her very name translates to “oath of YHVH”, (which is a direct reference to the solemn vow from YHVH concerning this throne)... How’s that for some alignment between Scripture and History, (read: His Story), of such profound perfection? I see not how a soul would find this anything less than fascinating to the nth degree; this is how I was drawn into these studies as a result of Historical study... this, inspite of extreme discomfort some years back every time I had stumbled across a reference to the devout nature of the founding fathers of this country; my, how far knowledge can deliver us out of darkness...

.....There has existed a strong rivalry between the House of Judah and the House of Israel that persists to this day; this rivalry had manifested itself yet again in the break of our forebears from the English monarchy in the establishment of this land... even though the two Houses have been since united; another fascinating prophetic utterance is given in Isaiah, 9:21... here we read that Ephraim Israel, (Britain) and Mannaseh Israel, (America), would unite, one to the other for the purpose of fighting Judah Israel, (Germany); sound at all familiar to anyone reading?

.....With the vast amount of information on this subject, I am constantly amazed that, not only is this not widely known at this point, but that people, so conditioned have they become, that they immediately assail the messenger as some manner of vile creature, (I had done so myself in the past), never realizing that by so doing, they are in actual, open, rebellion to The Living God of Israel, YHVH, Father of the Sons of The Living God and Our King and Saviour, Christ Jesus, the Very Lamb of YHVH; let the blindness of my Israel brethren continue to lift that they may realize the wonderful heritage left them by their forebears and throw off the yoke of the antiChrist element that has assaulted our people and left them laden with the false guilt of the lies of them as oppressors, when they have built the civilized world, thereby raising up the standards of the entire world... Yes, we’ve had our share of sinful wicked Kings in our History and yes our people have been as wicked as wicked gets, but that is merely the result of our disobedience and foolish decision to want to have a King reign over us, as the other peoples had; foolishness on steroids when see in retrospect...

.....May as well add this to the mix; within Scripture, one will find many differing methods of prophetic “times”, or, better said, “schedules of events”... one in particular has importance for national Israel; specifically, Israel’s punishment for her national disobedience...

.....In Leviticus, 6:18-28, YHVH pronounced His promise of punishment upon His people for a period of “seven times”; it is significant that seven is the number of “spiritual perfection”, or “completeness” and the astute student will always perk up his ears when encountering this number, (as well as many others that lend emphasis and deeper meaning to any given prophetic utterance)... To determine the length of time this “seven times” period encompasses, one need only allow the Scripture to interpret itself, thereby explaining the terminology used within; in the Book of Revelation, (12:14), the phrase, “a time, times, and half a time” is used... Think of this in terms of “one plus two, plus one-half”, or “three and one-half”; another reference in this same chapter is verse six, which speaks to “one thousand, two hundred and threescore days”, (1,260 days)... yet another in chapter eleven, verse two, wherein we read, “forty and two months”; so how does this all figure?

.....In the Book of Ezekiel, chapter four, verse six, Scripture declares YHVH’s prophetic scale of “one day for one year”; with the figures in mind of “three and one-half times”, “1260 days” and “42 months”, and realizing that the Israel month was thirty days, so forty-two months would equal 1260 days... which, coincidentally is equal to three and one-half years, (three and one-half “times”), so “seven times” would equal 2520 years, or twice that of the “three and one-half times”...

.....Now, above, I had the date of 722 B.C. for the captivity of the northern tribes, which is, essentially, closer to the completion of the captivity; the first campaign against Israel, which led to the Assyrian captivity was approximately 745 B.C.... The punishment pronounced upon Israel was to “cause to cease the Kingdom of the House of Israel”, as demonstrated above from Hosea, 1:4; the destruction of this Kingdom and the deportation of Israel from Canaanland is brought forth in 2Kings, 16-18, (chapters)... 2Kings, 17:6 relates that Shalamaneser, king of Assyria, “took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes”; verse eighteen tells us that the conquest was so complete that “there was none left but the tribe of Judah only”, (the House of Judah)...

.....This complete conquest of the House of Israel took nigh on 25 years to fulfill; so, from 745 B.C., to determine the 2520 years, (days), first allow for the negative 745 years for the B.C. period, which would bring us to 1775... there was no “year zero”, so we would be up to 1776; was there anything eventful that one may recall concerning the year 1776? Hmmm... Let’s then look at Isaiah, 66:7-9; “Before she travailed she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a manchild. Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children, (daughter of Zion). Shall I bring to birth and not cause to bring forth? Saith the Lord: Shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? Saith thy God.”

.....A nation was born in one day; with the Declaration of Independence, we became America... an Israelite nation, regathered, as prophesied, whose very name reveals her Providencial identity... “Amer”, (“amel”), meaning “heaven”, and “Rica”, (reich), meaning “kingdom” or “dominion”; America, or, better said, “Heavenly Kingdom”...

Ponce

2005-07-17 17:01 | User Profile

I am not worried about the "then" Jews but about the "now" Jews who are a danger to you and me in more ways than one.

wild_bill

2005-07-17 19:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]Come now, Bill...

.....Did you bother to look into the "Marks of Israel" I posted? Was not one of those very "marks" the fact that Israel would lose her identity? [/QUOTE]

Just show me some theologian of the early Church that clearly says white people, genetically speaking, are the Isrealites of the O.T.

A bunch of quotes from politicians, self-proclaimed experts, military people, etc. are all meaningless. So you can forego all that, since I'm already familiar with all the Identity diversions, innovative and heretical interpretations, and twisting of Scripture with Strong's Concordance.

What you advocate contradicts 2,000 years of Christian teaching. That fact alone proves you have no case.

Angler

2005-07-18 05:24 | User Profile

I don't see why it matters what any book or teaching of any human being says. Anyone can write a book, but only God can appear in the sky and tell the world the identity of His "chosen people." So, if God has a "chosen people," let Him appear in the sky and tell everyone about it. That would settle the matter once and for all and allow human beings to do His will with confidence, rather than relying on ancient writings that any schmuck could have coughed up millennia ago.

wild_bill

2005-07-18 06:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I don't see why it matters what any book or teaching of any human being says. Anyone can write a book, but only God can appear in the sky and tell the world the identity of His "chosen people." [/QUOTE]

It matters to people who think of themselves as Christians because there are the true teachings as contained in the Scriptures and handed down by the Apostles, and then there's a million false teachings and heresies being concocted and spread by people for all kinds of dubious reasons.

Patrick

2005-07-18 14:49 | User Profile

”Just show me some theologian of the early Church that clearly says white people, genetically speaking, are the Isrealites of the O.T.”

.....If you can read the vast amount of evidence above, and dismissingly wave your hand, you’re welcome to remain decevied, Sir; if you likewise fail to understand the profound state of apostacy that Christianity has been in for most of the last millenium, you will insist that they were correct all along, disregarding the fact that we were, indeed, told that portions were to be sealed...

”A bunch of quotes from politicians, self-proclaimed experts, military people, etc. are all meaningless.”

.....Most of the above quotes are from recognized Historians; if Historical evidence means nothing in regard to Scripture, which is worthless without the History of this world to which it applies, I know not what to tell you...

”So you can forego all that, since I’m already familiar with all the Identity diversions, innovative and heretical interpretations, and twisting of Scripture with Strong’s Concordance.”

.....Perhaps you’d be kind enough to point out just one “diversion” from my posting above; also, I have twisted nothing, but I’m certainly familiar with those of your ilk that claim such, (typically offering no counterpoint), and the diversionary tactics you use, while accusing me of such... pretty transparent, don’t you think? So show me my error, if you think you can...

”What you advocate contradicts 2,000 years of Christian teaching. That fact alone proves you have no case.”

.....Again, that means nothing; Paul spoke of those “according to the flesh”, and in 1Peter, 2:9, we are told we are a chosen race, (But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light::), although, “generations” is used in the English rendering; I suppose to you, this is just “twisting” Scripture, but you can’t be a serious Scriptural student without the aforementioned concordance... if you scoff at such notions, you are merely fulfilling more prophecy; there were far too many words improperly rendered for studying in “English only” to be worth anything at all... in fact, I can assure you, those who so do are going to be deceived...

”I don’t see why it matters what any book or teaching of any human being says. Anyone can write a book, but only God can appear in the sky and tell the world the identity of His “chosen people.” So, if God has a “chosen people,” let Him appear in the sky and tell everyone about it. That would settle the matter once and for all and allow human beings to do His will with confidence, rather than relying on ancient writings that any schmuck could have coughed up millennia ago.”

.....He has already done so; in His Living Letter to His children, He left the marks of identification which clearly point solely to the caucasian race, as I have demonstrated above... no other people have fulfilled them, yet the caucasians have fulfilled every one of them to the letter; only the blind cannot see it...

Angeleyes

2005-07-18 16:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill] If whites were actually the physical descendants of the Israelites, this would have certainly been taught from the beginning, but it never was because its simply not true.[/QUOTE] Good point. The evidence of Caucasian, Celtic, Aryan, etc migrations is pretty well organized by research.

This just occurs to me: Are the Celts and Aryans the same people, or are the Celts a sub set of proto Aryans? From what I have read, Celts moved west from Central Eurasia, which puts them near the original homelands of the Aryans.

Or is the difference mostly semantic?

Patrick

2005-07-18 16:14 | User Profile

"If whites were actually the physical descendants of the Israelites, this would have certainly been taught from the beginning, but it never was because its simply not true."

.....You've skipped over tons of Scripture, Bill; what of esau's theft of the birthright? All of this adds up, wherein that which is taught by the whoring "church" is, as was prophesied, "jewish" fables... you were warned, but you love not the truth enough to find it...

Ponce

2005-07-18 22:29 | User Profile

"Whites descendants from Jews"????????? :wub:

I'd better say nothing. :disgust:

Angeleyes

2005-07-18 22:59 | User Profile

Patrick.

I don't like to make light of another's faith in Jesus, so please don't take it that way when I point out that your War and Peace style cut and paste posts could "make Baby Jesus cry." :blink: I realize such a discussion, in the depth you and Wild Bill were taking it, will reach out and pull in much supporting documentation. That is a given.

In the interest of defeating your opponent in a battle of argument, however, you successfully lost some of your audience with a volume of undirected fire. I tried to dig through your three post encyclopedia reply a few posts down, and it could not hold my attention -- this from a guy who read Hegel and some Fichte to better understand Clausewitz! :shocking: (Drier than the Sahara -- for a metaphor, picture mentally sticking your hand into a blender set to *Puree.) *

Meant as constructive feedback from part of your vast reading public. :dry:

[QUOTE=Patrick]”Just show me some theologian of the early Church that clearly says white people, genetically speaking, are the Isrealites of the O.T.”

.....If you can read the vast amount of evidence above, and dismissingly wave your hand, you’re welcome to remain decevied, Sir; if you likewise fail to understand the profound state of apostacy that Christianity has been in for most of the last millenium, you will insist that they were correct all along, disregarding the fact that we were, indeed, told that portions were to be sealed... [/QUOTE]

wild_bill

2005-07-19 13:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]"If whites were actually the physical descendants of the Israelites, this would have certainly been taught from the beginning, but it never was because its simply not true."

.....You've skipped over tons of Scripture, Bill; what of esau's theft of the birthright? All of this adds up, wherein that which is taught by the whoring "church" is, as was prophesied, "jewish" fables... you were warned, but you love not the truth enough to find it...[/QUOTE]

I'm not skipping over any Scripture. I am skipping false interpretations of Scripture. Look, if what you guys claim is true, then certainly someone like, say, St. Polycarp would have known and written about it. After all, he was the personal student of St. John, you know, the fellow who wrote several books in the New Testament? Do you think St. Polycarp didn't understand the Scriptures? Do you think he and all the other early leaders would have forgotten to mention such a fundamental doctrine if it actually existed? Hardly.

The fact remains that you folks have no support amongst the earliest writers of Christianity and the Identity theories flatly contradict basic traditional Christian teachings, therefore you are obviously trafficking in false teachings and heresies. You cannot cite any authoritative writings to support your theories.

Believe me, if any such writings existed, they'd be plastered on every Identity website on the net. Sorry, guys, they're not there because none ever existed. That's the bottomline.

Patrick

2005-07-19 13:24 | User Profile

*“Whites descendants from Jews”?????????”

I’d better say nothing.”*

.....That is hardly what I’m saying...

*”I don’t like to make light of another’s faith in Jesus, so please don’t take it that way when I point out that your War and Peace style cut and paste posts could “make Baby Jesus cry.” I realize such a discussion, in the depth you and Wild Bill were taking it, will reach out and pull in much supporting documentation. That is a given.

In the interest of defeating your opponent in a battle of argument, however, you successfully lost some of your audience with a volume of undirected fire. I tried to dig through your three post encyclopedia reply a few posts down, and it could not hold my attention — this from a guy who read Hegel and some Fichte to better understand Clausewitz! (Drier than the Sahara — for a metaphor, picture mentally sticking your hand into a blender set to Puree.)

Meant as constructive feedback from part of your vast reading public.”*

.....I would imagine that if it is “too dry” for you, you simply aren’t meant to know such things...

.....Incidentally, I may well have copied and pasted the above posting, but I had so done from posts I had typed for a similar discussion from several years ago; I find it all very fascinating, particularly in light of the lies to the contrary we’ve all been saturated with since birth... are you familiar with the term “Zerubbabel”?

Patrick

2005-07-19 15:00 | User Profile

”Secular historians have no authority on this issue, especially if they contradict basic Christian teaching as they have existed down through 20 centuries.”

.....I beg to differ; Scripture itself is an History Book, Bill... and frankly, the Christian teaching from the babylonian ba’al boxes of this day is hardly the selfsame Doctrine from the first century Church, at any rate; are you at all familiar with Marcion? He studied directly under the Apostles, and when his son, (his most astute student), had seen the first revisions to the NT, he was so appalled by the content due to the destruction from the “jewish” scribes, that he made it his life’s work to revise it to its orignal message... are you aware the Dead Sea scrolls affirm the two-seedline Doctrine? Not that it needs reaffirmation, mind you, since it is plainly stated in Genesis, 3:15, which is the very key required for unlocking one’s understanding of Scripture, without which, the entire Book becomes a mishmash of misunderstood fables such as we see coming out of the apostate “churches” of today...

”Why rely on them when all you have to do is produce some supporting writings from the first couple generations of Christian scholars. Or would you have me believe that some person 2,000 years later knows better than the men who were students of the Apostles and authors of the Bible? Think about that for a minute.”

.....Why? That’s fairly simple; Scripture must be applied; it applies to the events in this world, which one learns only from a study of the true History thereof... further, many of the above Historians could hardly be considered “secular”; also, you are ignoring the fact that the Israelites were to be “blinded in part” per Romans eleven... this blindenss accounts for much of what you categorize as a lack of teaching through the centuries; these Israelites hardly had to speak of their own identity to one another when all that was required was to utilize one’s eyesight... perhaps they didn’t have such a need to relate the fact that the caucasians were the Israelites, since it was a given; I doubt they had to continually reaffirm their own identity to each other at the time, as the birthright had yet to be stolen at any rate... was not Adam “ruddy”? What is said of David being “fair”, with skin as milk? This is straight out of the Scripture as it has been brought forth, indeed, declaring all along! Are you at all familiar with the various Hebrew terms all rendered into the English term “man”? There were four, Bill, each with a differing meaning, and a comparable case in the Greek; this universalism is the heretical nonsense of our day... there is also a language link, as demonstrated in the following portion, (I apologize for the voluminous nature, but there are literally volumes of evidence of these facts...

From E. Raymond Capt’s book “Missing Links Discovered”, pgs. 187-198:

.....All etymologists know that the Greek, Latin, German, Icelandic, Norse, Danish, Dutch and several other languages figure in the structure and vocabulary of the present Anglo-Saxon (English) language. While Greek and Latin words have contributed to the English language, over 75 per cent of English words come direct from Hebrew words or their roots. Of course, many of these old British words are used in modern dress; their spelling, and even the pronunciations, have been varied as time has passed.

.....In 1916 A.D., Professor Edward Odlum, M.A., B.Sc., F.R.C. Inst., published the results of his years of research on the relationship of the Anglo-Saxon people with the ancient Ten-tribed House of Israel. His studies covered the relationship between Hebrew and the present Anglo-Saxon language. . . . (Taken from ‘God’s Covenant Man’ – Professor Edward Odlum, 1916). . . .

.....Several other scholars have noted the extraordinary affinity between the Hebrew and the Welsh languages. Dr. Davies, in his ‘Welsh Grammar’ tells us that almost every page of the Welsh translation of the Bible is replete with Hebraisms, in the time, sense and spirit of the original. Another authority, Dr. Duncan M’Dougall, writing in the Evangelical Christian, says: “You can take any sentence in Hebrew and change it into Gaelic, word for word, without altering the order of a single word or particle, and you will have the correct Gaelic idiom in every case. You cannot do that with any other language in Europe.” (Quoted by Colquhous in ‘Our Descent from Israel’, 1931)

.....Rev. Eliezer Williams, (born 1754) Vicar of Lampeter, Britain, and a chaplain in Britain’s Royal Navy, is noted as a researcher and prolific writer on ancient Celtic tribes. He wrote the following: “Scarcely a Hebrew root can be discovered that has not its corresponding derivation in the ancient British language . . . In Richard’s Welsh and English Dictionary, (published in Bristol in 1750) and in several other philological works, the affinity the Welsh bears to the Hebrew language is strenuously maintained. But not only do the words themselves indicate that similarity between the two; their variations and inflexions afford a much stronger proof of affinity.”

.....Welsh scholars and writers of early days also noticed a remarkably close resemblance and connection between the ancient British (Welsh) and the Hebrew language. In some unaccountable way, these early studies received little attention by modern Bible scholars. We will examine a few words to show how closely the Hebrew and the Welsh languages resemble each other, both in sound and sense, leaving no doubt to the Eastern descent of the Celts. Many of the words, it will be seen, have been transmitted into our modern English. (Taken from ‘British History Traced from Egypt and Palestine’ – Rev. L.G.A. Roberts, Com. R.N., 1927) . . .

.....But it is not in single, isolated words only that this resemblance strikes us; the conformity is equally remarkable in the idiomatic phrases of both languages, and in the formation of entire sentences, as can be seen. (Taken from ‘Hanes y Fydd,’ – Charles Edwards, a Welsh writer of the 16th [my note: should read 17th I think] century, printed in 1675)

.....It is evident that the Hebrew formed a very important part of the language of Britain. If so, how did the early inhabitants of Britain come to use that language? The only logical answer is that they were Hebrews. The first arrivals to the “Tin Islands,” the Tyrians and Phoenicians, who came seeking tin, lead, silver and iron, spoke an early form of Hebrew. The Milesians and Dannans (Danaan, Danai [My note: of the Tribe of Dan]) spoke Hebrew. The latest arrivals who came from the headwaters of the Euphrates (where the Assyrians had placed their ancestors around 721 B.C.) certainly carried with them some form of their native tongue.

.....There are those who raise an objection to the idea that Hebrews carried the Hebrew language into Britain, to an extent so vast as to form the foundation of the ancient British tongue, as well as to furnish an immense number of words to the modern English. The objection is that Israel was carried into Assyrian captivity over 700 years before Christ, and therefore in the hundreds of years of exile they would lose their own language. And if they ever did migrate to Europe and Britain they would have little of the Hebrew tongue, but would rather have the language of their conquerors or that of the people with whom they mixed for long ages. The result would give them a new or mongrel language.

.....It is reasonable to assume that in their exile and long migrations afterwards they would change their tongue to some extent. The “extent” would depend largely on the differences of the Hebrew, the Assyrian and European languages with which they would be forced to come in contact. A study of the languages of the various people the Israelites would have had contact with answers the objections.

.....We know that Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldea, and therefore his tongue would have been of that people of that country. He was a Chaldean of the line traced down from Heber, the father of the Hebrews. From Heber and his kinsman, Lot, came Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, Midian, Edom, Ishmael and other Hebrews who spoke Chaldean, Babylonian or Assyrian. Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Terah, Nahor and all their people doubtless spoke the same language which was common to the Assyrian and the mixed and adjoining nations, tribes and communities.

.....When the Israelites went into exile among the Assyrians (who were also of the same racial roots as Abraham), they would have found so much still in common to both languages that they could readily converse. The Scriptures relate how they were able to talk in a common tongue before the besieged walls of Jerusalem. Later, when the Israelites escaped from exile, they must have had the old foundation language, which we call “Hebrew.”

.....Evidence of the close connection and a great similarity existing between the Hebrew and Assyrian languages can be seen . . . (Taken from ‘God’s Covenant Man’ – Professor Edward Odlum, 1926)

.....Beale Poste, in his ‘Celtic Inscriptions on Gaulish and British Coins (p. 148) says: “With respect to the derivation of the Welsh language from Oriental sources, there is so much admixture of the Hebrew in several ancient languages that Rowlands, in his ‘Mona Antiqua’ pp. 316 and 317, with somewhat too great a dilation of his views, it must be confessed, might almost be said to regard it as his mother tongue, and the Welsh to be an immediate derivation from it . . . A foreign savant pronounced some years ago that it, (the English), comprised within its compass six thousand pure Hebrew words.”

.....As the Israelites migrated westward from the lands of their captivities, there is no doubt they passed through and somewhat mixed with other peoples from whom they would have added considerably to their vocabulary, sometimes pushing out old words to make room for new words added. Hence, we would expect some changes to take place while the old mother-tongue remained as the prime foundation. However, let us consider the people with whom the migrating Israelites would have come into contact.

.....The Greeks and the Trojans were both of Hebrew descent. Likewise, the Ionians, Dorians, Attics, Lacedaemoneans and Macedonians were either Israelites or intimately connected with them. Therefore, as the Israelites were among kindred people or blood brethren, their languages would have much in common. Any changes or basic modifications would be slight, and must have been brought about very slowly and imperceptibly. They would, however, have added a larger list of foreign words (foreign to Hebrew) than their predecessors who went direct from Palestine to the British Isles by ships.

.....These earlier Hebrews in Britain settled in Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Isle of Manx and the south-west coasts of Scotland, beginning about the days of King Solomon. Before the Assyrian captivity of Israel, other Israelites followed direct by ships and joined their brethren in the British Isles. This second wave of immigrants carried with them their own Hebrew tongue, and, of course, they found it [My note: to be] the language of those who had preceded them. Thus we naturally find where the earlier immigrants settled (Cornwall, Wales, etc.) the ancient languages are more closely related to Hebrew.

.....Admittedly, the “link” of language is only collaborating evidence of the connection between the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and kindred peoples, to the Israelite or Hebrew people of the Old Testament. Since the Assyrians, Babylonians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Ishmaelites and Midianites had languages very similar to the Hebrew, one might postulate their presence in Britain as explanatory of the Hebrew words found in the English language. Regardless of this possibility, it is soon eliminated by a study of the Bible prophecies concerning Israel fulfilled only in the western European and British peoples and their kinsmen. . . .

.....It was in God’s great plan that Israel was to lose the knowledge of their origin. This could not have taken place had Israel retained their language. ”For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to his people.”, (Isaiah, 28:11)... Therefore, their Hebrew language had to be replaced with other tongues. But, according to the findings of modern ethnologists there is not that great difference between the Hebrew and Saxon tongue as is generally supposed. These findings are helping to remove the veil of mystery surrounding the fate of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

”Basically, you have appropriated the Scriptures and are abusing them by false interpretations and concocting heretical theologies. This is really no different than what the Moonies, Mormons, and other cults do. Don’t get me wrong, there’s no law to stop people from creating groups based on Scriptural distortions - it happens everyday. If you choose to believe in such things, then I can only pray for you.”

.....Should you be as unfamiliar with these facts as you portend, I’ll kindly ask that you refrain from praying for me, as it seems you know not in which spirit you pray; you’re welcome to erroneously consider me a cultist, but the operative word here is “erroneously”...

”There’s no need to create false alternatives to traditional Christianity.”

.....The very term “traditional” should set off alarm bells for you...

.....Nice new title to the thread, btw; let's just see whom it is that becomes "exposed" herein... it seems the only thing exposed so far is the fact that my opposition has no case, save saying there is a dearth of teaching on that which was foretold to be hidden for a time... :)

6KILLER

2005-07-19 17:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][color=darkgreen][FONT=Arial].....You merely need more study; it isn't a matter of "belief", be it your's or my own, but the documented record from both Scripture and History...[/FONT[/color]]

On the issue of the "Christian Identity" cult, I think that this (un-PC) net writer expressed it nicely:

[color=blue]"Bible-believing Christians know any person who accepts CI over true Bible doctrine will burn forever in the Lake of Fire, along with all other infidels, for as Paul stated "but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:7 - 8).

...

"The "Christian" in Christian Identity is an offense to the Lord Jesus Christ, and we pray that all who are involved with this foolishness repent before it is too late.[/color]

[url="http://hometown.aol.com/thejman99/book3.html"]http://hometown.aol.com/thejman99/book3.html[/url]

Petr[/QUOTE][url="http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=663&highlight=petr"]http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=663&highlight=petr[/url]

**[size=6]Pagan Gods Called "Peters"[/size] **

**Surprising as it may sound, it is a well-known fact among students of ancient religion, that the chief pagan gods worshipped in the early civilizations were generally known by the name PETER. It is also known that the priests of those heathen gods were also called PETERS. That same name in one form or another, was even applied to the pagan TEMPLES consecrated to those gods. **

**Notice what Bryant, in his work Ancient Mythology says: "Not only the gods, but the Hierophantae [special priests], in most temples; and those priests in particular, who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries, were styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354). **

**According to Ronald R. Wlodyga in The Ultimate Source of All Super Natural Phenomena -- **

**Ancient history reveals that the pagan deities worshipped by the Babylonians and the Greeks were known as PETERS. "Not only the gods but the Hierophantae (special gods), in most temples, and those priests in particular who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries, were styled PATRES" (Bryant, Ancient Mythology, Vol. 1, p. 354). Davidson's Hebrew Lexicon shows that the consonantal word P-T-R (PETER) means "TO INTERPRET." **

**The priests of the Babylonian and other mystery religions claimed to have the power to INTERPRET THE PAGAN MYSTERIES. **

**In the Luceii Fragments we find that ancient Romans regarded Neptune, Saturn, Mars and Liber as "gods" of PETER-RAND -- i.e. CHIEF GODS. In the first century Rome was known as "THE CITY OF THE GODS." All the "gods" of paganism were strongly represented there. **

**When SIMON MAGUS went to Rome he bewitched the inhabitants with his "magical" (demoniac) powers and soon became known as SIMON PETER -- SIMON THE INTERPRETER (of the BABYLONIAN MYSTERIES). **

**Simon...had taken the name of Jesus Christ and much of the terminology of Christianity and was using these tools to expand his own sphere of influence (Triumph Publishing Co., Altadena, CA. 1981. P. 66). **

**This is significant! The word PATRE is the same as PATOR or PETER in meaning and pronunciation. **

**Bryant continues: "PATRE was undoubtedly a religious term . . . . the same as PATOR and PATORA." **

**The ancient pagan gods, the priests who were their ministers, and their sacred sanctuaries -- their temples -- were ALL called PETORS or PETERS (either spelling is acceptable since vowels are fluid in all languages -- especially the Semitic). **

**The Meaning of "Peter" **

**What did the word PATOR or PETER really mean to the ancients? Surprisingly enough, the word is in the Bible. When Moses wrote about the Egyptian priests, he shows they were called PETERS or "interpreters" – interpreters of the ancient Egyptian mysteries. **

**Notice Genesis 41:8. Davidson shows in his Hebrew Lexicon that the consonantal word P-T-R (PETER) signifies "to interpret" or "interpretation" (p. 638; of Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 837; and Gesenius, p. 877 and p. 843). Bryant points out that "the term always related to oracle interpretation" (p. 308). **

**The pagan priests of the mystery religions were called PATORS or PETERS. They had the power to interpret the heathen mysteries. This is further brought out by Bunson in his Hieroglyph, page 545, where he shows that the Egyptians -- as the Bible also indicates -- called their "interpreters" or priests: [color=#ffa34f]PETR[/color], that is, PETER. **

**The term PETER was one of the earliest names for the pagan gods. It lasted as late as Greek and Roman times. But by that time the term also took on a widespread secular meaning. It came generally to mean "father" or "parent." But this was not its primary meaning at all. Bryant continues: "The word PATER, when used in the religious addresses of the Greeks and Romans, meant NOT, as is supposed, a father or parent; but related to the divine influence of the Deity, called by the people of the East, PATOR" (Ibid., p. 353). **

**In many ancient religions the father was the chief priest of the family. That is the reason the head of the family became known as PATOR or "father." **

**The father, because of his priestly position, became known as the ARCHPATOR, or, as it is commonly rendered, PATRIARCH. This is how the term PATOR came to signify, in a secular sense, "a father." But originally, it always meant, "interpreter" -- especially one of the mystery religions. **

**We have clear evidence showing that the ancient Romans called their chief gods PETERS -- the divine interpreters. The early Roman writer Lucilius, mentions Neptune, Liber, Saturn, Mars, Janus and Quirnus -- all were PATERS. (See the Lucilii Fragments.) He did not mean they were "father-gods." He meant they were gods of PETER-rank -- the chief gods. **

**Lucilius doesn’t exhaust the list. In fact, he leaves out JUPITER, the "Father" of the Roman gods. But it was unnecessary to mention him as a "PETER-god." Due to his high rank, the title PETER was actually incorporated as a part of his name. He was called JU-PETER. **

**Gladstone in his work on the antiquities of Greece, shows that Jupiter and the Greek god ZEUS were one and the same, JU-PETER was the Roman way of saying ZEUS-PETER, the chief god of the Greeks (Homer and the Homeric Age, vol. I, p. 287), PETER was the name that came to signify high rank among the gods -- and among their priests. **

**Greeks Used Term "Peter" **

**The Romans were not the only ones who called their gods PETERS, the Classical Manual reveals that the Greeks used the term PETER (or its variants) as often as did the Romans. For example, Apollo was called PATRIUS and his followers APOLLO PATRIUS (p. 23). Pausanius tells us that Artemis and Bacchus were called PATORA, that is PETER-gods (Books 1, 2). Pindar speaks of Poseidon Petraios. He says the Thessalonians worshipped Neptune under this title (Pyth. Ode 4). **

**In Egypt, the Ammonian priests -- who headed one of the chief pagan oracles of ancient Egypt -- were called Petors, as Bryant also says: "The chief instrument (idol) in their hands was styled PIETAURUM" (Ibid., p. 356). **

**This idol on many occasions took the form of a pole or upright stake (Ibid., p. 358). The pagan god Artemis is often pictured standing by a stone pillar which is called PATROA or PETER (Pausanius, Bk. 1). These pillars, and all the phallic symbols like them, came to be known as PETRAS -- the sacred PETERS. (It is still common among the vulgar to refer to the male member by its original religious name -- PETER.) These phallic Peter-stones can be found all over the ancient world. In fact, there is not a mention of an ancient pagan oracle temple without some notice being given to a PETER emblem -- the sacred stone. **

**Like the word PATOR -- which came to indicate simply a "father" or "parent" -- the word PETRA came to mean any large stone. But in the earliest times, it conveyed only the original religious meaning. **

**"The term PETRA came at length to signify any rock or stone and to be in a manner confined to that meaning. But in the first ages it was ALWAYS TAKEN IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE; and related to the shrines of Osiris, or the Sun (Baal), and to other oracles which were supposed to be exhibited" (Bryant, p. 359). In other words, the term PETRA meant the sacred PETER-stone – a stone usually phallic in design. **

**"Petras" in Pagan World **

**Notice some references to these sacred PETRAS found throughout the pagan world. **

**At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual was the PETRA (Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells us, the niches which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935). It is well-known that even the sacred book which was used in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA -- PETER’S BOOK (see Potter’s Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356). **

**In Alexander Hislop's pioneering work on the Babylonian Mystery Religions and the Catholic Church, we find further details -- **

**In the Eleusinian Mysteries at Athens, when the candidates for initiation were instructed in the secret doctrine of Paganism, the explanation of that doctrine was read to them out of a book called by ordinary writers the "BOOK PETROMA;" that is, as we are told, a book formed of stone. But this is evidently just a play upon words, according to the usual spirit of Paganism, intended to amuse the vulgar. The nature of the case, and the history of the mysteries, alike show that this book could be none other than the "BOOK PET-ROMA;" that is, the "BOOK OF THE GRAND INTERPRETER," in other words, of HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, the great "INTERPRETER OF THE GODS." In Egypt, from which Athens derived its religion, the books of Hermes were regarded as the divine fountain of all true knowledge of THE MYSTERIES. In Egypt, therefore, Hermes was looked up to in this very character of GRAND INTERPRETER, or "PETER-ROMA" (The Two Babylons. Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, NJ. 1959. Pp. 208-209). **

**Remember that the pagan temples were also called after the PETERS. The temple at Elis in Greece was called PETRON (Lycophron, verse 159). Pytho at Delphi was called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle temple dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor was called the PATARA and the oracle there was called PATAReus ("Eus" means "person who, one") -- (Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary, p. 438). **

**Also PATRAE -- an ancient town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the oracle in Achaia was called PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296). **

**Examples are too numerous to mention, but this should be enough to show that the name PETER, or its variants, figured very high in every phase of pagan worship. These PETER stones and temples were found all over the ancient world. **

**"There is in the history of every oracular temple some legend about a stone; some reference to the word PETRA" (Bryant, p. 362). **

**Balaam and the Origin of An **

kane123123

2005-07-19 20:46 | User Profile

I'll say it right now that the Christian Identity reminds me A LOT of Judaism. It is an agressivesive cult which segregates itself from others (other pro-white people) and claims to be Israel. I'll flat out say that I don't see an Identity Christian as being ideologically any different than Jews for Jesus, only racially. The worst part is they can't keep it to their selves. They can't freakin' just say I have my religion and you have yours. They think they are true Christians but they are a bunch of jack*sses that hurt racially conscience Whites by lowering their image, hurt them just as much as any Jew does.

Angeleyes

2005-07-19 20:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick] .....I would imagine that if it is “too dry” for you, you simply aren’t meant to know such things... [/QUOTE] Aw nuts, is this forbidden knowledge for anyone with the ability to edit and summarize a series of thoughts into something less than a Monograph?

You can drop the holier than thou crap, Patrick.

To be fair to you, not everyone appreciates unsolicited advice or feedback, so I accept your rebuff as par for the course.

kane123123

2005-07-19 20:58 | User Profile

One major issue with the Bible is that it can be interpreted many different ways because the writing is quiet vague and inconsistant, unlike the Koran, where it is quite straitfoward (of course I'm not a Muslim but I am a theologian and this is how I know this). The Identity Christians are taking advantage of this but everyone can see through it.

For example, you can purposely ignore the fact that Jesus said to turn the other cheque and play up the earlier part which says Eye for an Eye. You can do this with anything you want and you can interpret the Bible to make it mean any different message. But it takes an idiot to fall for these things. Only an idiot would believe the Identity.

Patrick

2005-07-19 21:22 | User Profile

”I’ll say it right now that the Christian Identity reminds me A LOT of Judaism.”

Nonsense...

.....They are diametrically opposed; I’d be interested in seeing you elaborate upon which way, exactly, one reminds you of the other...

”It is an agressivesive cult which segregates itself from others (other pro-white people) and claims to be Israel. I’ll flat out say that I don’t see an Identity Christian as being ideologically any different than Jews for Jesus, only racially.”

.....By the criteria used to determine the status of “cult”, Identity falls short on each one; there is no central leader, there is tremendous difference in opinion on less-than-crucial Doctrinal points, and there is no excommunication for differing opinions... are you folks even sure what a “cult” is? To me, it seems most of the ba’al box “churches” qualify far more readily than do those that call themselves “identity”, (for the record, I simply consider myself Christian, but I am always accused of being identity; I am a dual-seedliner, but the irony here is that the worst enemy of “Identity” is the antiChrist “jew”, who the opponents of identity side with by default)...

”The worst part is they can’t keep it to their selves. They can’t freakin’ just say I have my religion and you have yours.”

.....I have no “religion”; what I gather from our Scripture is that Our Father finds such abominable...

”They think they are true Christians but they are a bunch of jacksses that hurt racially conscience Whites by lowering their image, hurt them just as much as any Jew does.”*

.....I find this statement quite ridiculous...

”Aw nuts, is this forbidden knowledge for anyone with the ability to edit and summarize a series of thoughts into something less than a Monograph?”

.....Nothing “hidden” about it; you just sounded as though it were too tedious for you...

”You can drop the holier than thou crap, Patrick.”

.....Never picked it up, my Friend...

”To be fair to you, not everyone appreciates unsolicited advice or feedback, so I accept your rebuff as par for the course.”

.....To be fair to you, not everyone, myself in particular, can stand idly by and watch “judeo”-Christianity, (no such thing), in action; it is an oxymorn, at best, as the two are antithetical, one to another... it’s tantamount to saying a “virgin whore”...

”One major issue with the Bible is that it can be interpreted many different ways because the writing is quiet vague and inconsistant, unlike the Koran, where it is quite straitfoward (of course I’m not a Muslim but I am a theologian and this is how I know this). The Identity Christians are taking advantage of this but everyone can see through it.”

.....You’re a theologian, yet you make a statement that Scripture is open to “interpretation”?!?! The Scripture will always interpret itself, and in no wise lends itself to human interpretation; the moment that enters the picture, you err...

"For example, you can purposely ignore the fact that Jesus said to turn the other cheque and play up the earlier part which says Eye for an Eye."

.....Nonsense; context solves this apparent contradiction... when Our Christ said to turn the other cheek, He was speaking of brethren to brethren relations, as opposed to dealing with the vermin of the world...

"You can do this with anything you want and you can interpret the Bible to make it mean any different message. But it takes an idiot to fall for these things. Only an idiot would believe the Identity."

.....Personally, I believe only an idiot could be steered away from the Anglo-Israel truth; I find it rather amusing, thus far, that all I am countered with is wayward opinion void of any actual Scriptural or Historic citings... it tends to make me believe I am arguing with knee-jerk females, sans logic of even modest ability... do you really even know wherein your "esteemed" opinions are derived?

kane123123

2005-07-19 21:29 | User Profile

Nonsense; context solves this apparent contradiction... when Our Christ said to turn the other cheek, He was speaking of brethren to brethren relations, as opposed to dealing with the vermin of the world. See that wasn't the Scripture interpreting itself. It was your interpretation. It will be different from someone else's interpretation.

My oppinion is that you punish, then forgive, all the while remaining synacle to not allow it to happen again.

Patrick

2005-07-19 21:33 | User Profile

*"See that wasn't the Scripture interpreting itself. It was your interpretation. It will be different from someone else's interpretation.

My oppinion is that you punish, then forgive, all the while remaining synacle to not allow it to happen again."*

.....How about that? A "theologian" that can't even spell "cynical"... you are wrong, theologian; read more carefully...

6KILLER

2005-07-19 22:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=kane123123] Only an idiot would believe the Identity.[/QUOTE]Here we go with the name calling. Why is it that you jewDay-O's are the first to resort to this?:caiphas:

6KILLER

2005-07-19 22:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill][color=red]You cannot cite any authoritative writings to support your theories. [/color]

Believe me, if any such writings existed, they'd be plastered on every Identity website on the net. Sorry, guys, they're not there because none ever existed. That's the bottomline.[/QUOTE] How about 'The Aeneid' by Virgil, Julius Caesar's ' The Gallic War', 'The Trojan Cycle' by Proclus, 'Historia Regnum Britanniae' by Gaufridus Monemutensis, 'De Excidio Britanniae' by Gildas, 'Historia Brittonum' by Nennius, not to mention 'The Book of Maccabees' and 'The Dead Sea Scrolls' as Patrick already mentioned.**

Patrick

2005-07-20 03:23 | User Profile

.....Where are those that wish to "expose" this alleged cult? It's one thing to name the thread as it was, but let's see some of those heavy hitters that believe they can hold their own with me in the Scriptures and History; I'll remain most polite as I demonstrate the profound nature of your error... ;)

wild_bill

2005-07-20 15:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]”Secular historians have no authority on this issue, especially if they contradict basic Christian teaching as they have existed down through 20 centuries.”

.....I beg to differ; Scripture itself is an History Book, Bill... and frankly, the Christian teaching from the babylonian ba’al boxes of this day is hardly the selfsame Doctrine from the first century Church, at any rate; are you at all familiar with Marcion? [/QUOTE]

Yes, Marcion was a heretic. Actually, I think St. Polycarp himself referred to him as an agent of satan. IOW, not the kind of person a Christian should place any stock in.

There have been men, some who were at one time prominent in the Church, but for whatever reasons became heretical. Former membership carries no authority.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 15:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]How about 'The Aeneid' by Virgil, Julius Caesar's ' The Gallic War', 'The Trojan Cycle' by Proclus, 'Historia Regnum Britanniae' by Gaufridus Monemutensis, 'De Excidio Britanniae' by Gildas, 'Historia Brittonum' by Nennius, not to mention 'The Book of Maccabees' and 'The Dead Sea Scrolls' as Patrick already mentioned.**[/QUOTE]

Come on, I'm talking about CHRISTIAN writings - those of the Church. Those are the only authoritative writings in regard to Christian theology.

The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't canonical writings. Any presumed Scriptures that contradict the ones approved by the Ecumenical Councils have no authority.

So what about Maccabees? What verses in Maccabees say that white Europeans are the Israelites of the OT?

wild_bill

2005-07-20 15:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=kane123123]One major issue with the Bible is that it can be interpreted many different ways because the writing is quiet vague and inconsistant, unlike the Koran, where it is quite straitfoward (of course I'm not a Muslim but I am a theologian and this is how I know this). The Identity Christians are taking advantage of this but everyone can see through it. [/QUOTE]

Certain parts of the Bible can have various understandings, but basic theology is not subject to private interpretation. Anyone who contradicts the basic teachings as determined by the Ecumenical Councils isn't a Christian. For example, those who deny the Trinity or the divinity of Christ are not Christians.

6KILLER

2005-07-20 15:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Come on, I'm talking about CHRISTIAN writings - those of the Church. Those are the only authoritative writings in regard to Christian theology.

The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't canonical writings. Any presumed Scriptures that contradict the ones approved by the Ecumenical Councils have no authority.

So what about Maccabees? What verses in Maccabees say that white Europeans are the Israelites of the OT?[/QUOTE] As far as I'm concerned the Catholic Church has no authority and is not only a heretical organization but an evil entity as well. FOR ME IT IS NOT THE CHURCH and never was THE FIRST CHURCH EVEN. Such arguments as you present are typical of jewday-O xtians. And many of these writers mention were in fact Christian i.e. Gildas, Nennius, and Monemutensis.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 15:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick] From E. Raymond Capt’s book “Missing Links Discovered”, pgs. 187-198: [/QUOTE]

Come on, is that the best you can do? You quote statements of an Identity adherent as if these are unquestionable facts. BTW, I've read the book. Its not convincing. Capt's theories are based on almost endless speculations and selective interpretations of obscure bits of information.

Try some writings from, say, the fourth century. Surely if white Europeans were really the tribes of Israel, someone in the Church would have mentioned it somewhere.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 15:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]As far as I'm concerned the Catholic Church has no authority and is not only a heretical organization but an evil entity as well. FOR ME IT IS NOT THE CHURCH and never was THE FIRST CHURCH EVEN. Such arguments as you present are typical of jewday-O xtians. And many of these writers mention were in fact Christian i.e. Gildas, Nennius, and Monemutensis.[/QUOTE]

Where did I mention the Catholic Church? I didn't mention it. I'm talking about the original Church, from which the RCC split away from in 1054 AD. The context of my comments is the early Church before any of the major splits occurred.

Every Identity person claims to believe in the original version Christianity, but they cannot ever credibly establish that these Identity doctrines were EVER accepted by Christians, even those of the first couple centuries.

I present arguments that you obviously cannot refute and very basic questions you cannot answer, so you have to call me a name. Ok, call me whatever names you choose, but that doesn't change the fact that Identity is as false as Adventism, Mormonism, "Christian Science", or any cult one can name.

Just because some Christian happened to write something doesn't mean it has any authority. I'm looking for writings that express the teachings of Christianity, not someone's mere opinion or heretical ideas.

All you have to do to establish some kind of credibility is cite just one writer of some authority in the early Church that taught these Identity doctrines. There have been many heretical movements in the first few centuries of the Church and these are documented, but I've never found one that taught anything like Christian Identity, or specifically, that white Europeans were the actual Israelites of the OT.

6KILLER

2005-07-20 16:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=crazy_bill]Try some writings from, say, the fourth century.[/QUOTE]Gildas was from the fourth century, and he gave the geneology of British Kings back to Judah through Priam and Darda.

[QUOTE=crazy_bill]Surely if white Europeans were really the tribes of Israel, someone in the Church would have mentioned it somewhere.[/QUOTE]The so called Church has done everything to extricate this information, starting with ordering the massacre of the monks at Bangor Abbey and destruction of The British Church (which was the first Church). It chose books to canonize based on it, anything that bore this information was not canonized or was changed from it's original. As a descendant of men (Lutheran Swedes) who waged one of the most savage wars known to man against the Catholic Church i.e. The Thirty Years War, I despise the Catholic Church.

6KILLER

2005-07-20 16:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=crazy_bill]So what about Maccabees? What verses in Maccabees say that white Europeans are the Israelites of the OT?[/QUOTE] If you're looking for verses that directly say that Europeans are the Israelites, you won't find them. However, there is a letter mentioned, sent from Onias the high priest to the king of Sparta, that acknowledges them to be the same people.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 16:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]Gildas was from the fourth century, and he gave the geneology of British Kings back to Judah through Priam and Darda.

And who was this Gildas?

The so called Church has done everything to extricate this information, starting with ordering the massacre of the monks at Bangor Abbey and destruction of The British Church (which was the first Church). It chose books to canonize based on it, anything that bore this information was not canonized or was changed from it's original. As a descendant of men (Lutheran Swedes) who waged one of the most savage wars known to man against the Catholic Church i.e. The Thirty Years War, I despise the Catholic Church.[/QUOTE]

According to one tradition, Glastonbury was an early church, but not the first. In any case, Glastonbury, by itself, had no authority to canonize any books. This was done only by the Ecumenical Councils, which were the bishops of the various jurisdictions in the Church who met together to decide such important issues. This is the only Church body that had the authority to determine whether books were canonical or not.

For the second time, I'm not defending or even talking about the Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism, per se, didn't come into existance until 1054, when the bishop of Rome was excommunicated by the other bishops.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 16:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]If you're looking for verses that directly say that Europeans are the Israelites, you won't find them. However, there is a letter mentioned, sent from Onias the high priest to the king of Sparta, that acknowledges them to be the same people.[/QUOTE]

Can you quote that verse?

6KILLER

2005-07-20 16:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=crazy_bill]And who was this Gildas?[/QUOTE] Gildas Albanactus a 4th century British monk, the son of the king of Strathclyde, wrote the book **'De Excidio Britanniae' **

[QUOTE=crazy_bill]According to one tradition, Glastonbury was an early church, but not the first. In any case, Glastonbury, by itself, had no authority to canonize any books. This was done only by the Ecumenical Councils, which were the bishops of the various jurisdictions in the Church who met together to decide such important issues. This is the only Church body that had the authority to determine whether books were canonical or not.

For the second time, I'm not defending or even talking about the Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism, per se, didn't come into existance until 1054, when the bishop of Rome was excommunicated by the other bishops.[/QUOTE] Glastonbury was the site of the first known above ground Church [url="http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/history/joseph.html"]http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/history/joseph.html[/url]

6KILLER

2005-07-20 16:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Can you quote that verse?[/QUOTE] Not off-hand, as I'm not as familiar with The Book of Maccabees as I ought to be, but if you allow me some time I will find it.

Patrick

2005-07-20 17:49 | User Profile

”Yes, Marcion was a heretic. Actually, I think St. Polycarp himself referred to him as an agent of satan. IOW, not the kind of person a Christian should place any stock in.”

.....Again, I disagree; what was Marcion against that they attempted to label him an heretic? He saw that the antiChrist “jewish” scribes were destroying Scripture, but instead of being held up as a Christian hero for his efforts to reverse such, the scribes already held enough sway within the whoring “church”, (which it is not), to have dissention quashed; sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

.....So you believe that the RCC holds all authority? Are you aware that the antiChrist “jews” bragged about having complete control of said institution by 1530? Nor do they have the much-vaunted Apotlic succession fro Peter that’s falsely been claimed all this time; in the wake of Luther’s 95 theses, there was no longer opposition within the “church” to stand against antiChrist... further, the antiChrist “jews” infiltered Calvin, (cohen), into the reformation; what was his great contribution? He made it possible for usury to again be practiced with the sanction of the dead-heads who were dumb enough to believe his lies...

*”Come on, I’m talking about CHRISTIAN writings - those of the Church. Those are the only authoritative writings in regard to Christian theology.

The Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t canonical writings. Any presumed Scriptures that contradict the ones approved by the Ecumenical Councils have no authority.”*

.....Being as Scripture applies to this world, one must understand the secular writings of the History of this planet over the last six thousand years, nay, longer, to have something to which to apply that which is brought forth in Scripture; this fact makes the “sola Scriptura” people loonies... they claim they need nothing but the Scripture, and they can’t even develop a proper understanding of it...

”Certain parts of the Bible can have various understandings, but basic theology is not subject to private interpretation. Anyone who contradicts the basic teachings as determined by the Ecumenical Councils isn’t a Christian. For example, those who deny the Trinity or the divinity of Christ are not Christians.”

.....I have a bit of news for you, Bill; the teaching of the trinity is straight out of Babylon... it is no more valid than the concept of buying one’s way into Heaven...

”Come on, I’m talking about CHRISTIAN writings - those of the Church. Those are the only authoritative writings in regard to Christian theology.”

.....Hardly; the “church” is more often than not attempting to obscure the knowledge of Our Father...

”The Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t canonical writings. Any presumed Scriptures that contradict the ones approved by the Ecumenical Councils have no authority.”

.....They could well yet be; further, they do not contradict Scripture, only the tortured reading thereof you’ve learned from the whoring “church”...

As far as I’m concerned the Catholic Church has no authority and is not only a heretical organization but an evil entity as well. FOR ME IT IS NOT THE CHURCH and never was THE FIRST CHURCH EVEN. Such arguments as you present are typical of jewday-O xtians. And many of these writers mention were in fact Christian i.e. Gildas, Nennius, and Monemutensis.

”Come on, is that the best you can do? You quote statements of an Identity adherent as if these are unquestionable facts. BTW, I’ve read the book. Its not convincing. Capt’s theories are based on almost endless speculations and selective interpretations of obscure bits of information.”

.....Horsespit, youngster; you sound like a classic disinfo agent with this sentence...

”Every Identity person claims to believe in the original version Christianity, but they cannot ever credibly establish that these Identity doctrines were EVER accepted by Christians, even those of the first couple centuries.”

.....As I had said, there was no need to state the obvious; our Scriptures were not meant to civilize the barbarians, as we were told to “come out from among them and be ye separate

”I present arguments that you obviously cannot refute and very basic questions you cannot answer, so you have to call me a name. Ok, call me whatever names you choose, but that doesn’t change the fact that Identity is as false as Adventism, Mormonism, “Christian Science”, or any cult one can name.”

.....You’re relying upon reductio ad absurdum; your “argument” is a non-starter, at best... if you read Scripture carefully, as I’ve already pointed out, Adam was ruddy, meaning “able to show blood in the cheeks”; David was very “fair”... the Archo Volume describes Our Christ as blonde and blue; do a word study on the term “fair” and see what you discover...

”Just because some Christian happened to write something doesn’t mean it has any authority. I’m looking for writings that express the teachings of Christianity, not someone’s mere opinion or heretical ideas.”

.....If it is Scripturally valid it has authority far more than that which is accepted by self-proclaimed authority that might be accepted by the “church”; there has been little to no true Christianity taught in the last two thousand years...

”All you have to do to establish some kind of credibility is cite just one writer of some authority in the early Church that taught these Identity doctrines.”

.....I also told you that some things were to be sealed; do you think you can truly dismiss all that I had posted above and just hand-wavingly ignore evry query put before you? You act as if you had the direct stamp of approval from YHVH Himself, yet you offer nothing more than saying a dearth of early teaching proves your wayward assumptions; you’ve proven nothing, Sir...

”There have been many heretical movements in the first few centuries of the Church and these are documented, but I’ve never found one that taught anything like Christian Identity, or specifically, that white Europeans were the actual Israelites of the OT.”

.....The main one being, of course, pharisaism; ancient pharisaim became modren rabbinism, (read: talmudism), which, in turn, gave us the myth of “judeo”-Christianity, from which bastardized standpoint you argue... Christianity had no “judaic” roots, and Our Christ said they taught for Doctrines the “traditions of men” by which, they made The Word of YHVH of none effect, much as you do herein with your wayward position...

Petr

2005-07-20 18:27 | User Profile

I knew you were a cultist, Patrick - extolling Marcion (who savagely mutilated New Testament as well according to his whim) as a [I]Christian hero[/I]...

Petr

6KILLER

2005-07-20 18:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=kane123123]I'll say it right now that the Christian Identity reminds me A LOT of Judaism. It is an agressivesive cult which segregates itself from others (other pro-white people) and claims to be Israel. I'll flat out say that I don't see an Identity Christian as being ideologically any different than Jews for Jesus, only racially. The worst part is they can't keep it to their selves. They can't freakin' just say I have my religion and you have yours. They think they are true Christians but they are a bunch of jacksses that hurt racially conscience Whites by lowering their image, hurt them just as much as any Jew does.[/QUOTE] Aren't you the same jackss, that babeled something about Adam knowing his wife and conceiving Cain?

[color=red]Here's a couple for you:[/color] "And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the LORD*.’" Aramaic Targum rendition of Genesis* 4:1

[font=Times New Roman]"And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ..." [/font][font=Verdana]The Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1[/font]

[color=red]It would appear from these references that the problem with Genesis 4:1 is an omission of some of the words of the Hebrew text.[/color] I will now quote Genesis 4:1 from the King James Version and I will add the potentially needed words in italics from the Targum of Jonathan so it will make some sense:

"And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."

Patrick

2005-07-20 18:39 | User Profile

"I knew you were a cultist, Patrick - extolling Marcion (who savagely mutilated New Testament as well according to his whim) as a Christian hero..."

.....You obviously know nothing of the first century intrigue that Marcion battled; you are welcome to remain ignorant of these matters and consider me as you will...

Petr

2005-07-20 18:55 | User Profile

Here are few choice words from Tertullian on your hero, Patrick:

[COLOR=Indigo][I]The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. As you would not account it hospitable from its situation, so is it severed from our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilization; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked. Moreover, when they gratify secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes, to warn off the curious and rash observer. Thus without a blush do they prostitute their weapons of war. The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. They who have not died so as to become food for others, are thought to have died an accursed death. Their women are not by their sex softened to modesty. They uncover the breast, from which they suspend their battle-axes, and prefer warfare to marriage. In their climate, too, there is the same rude nature. The day-time is never clear, the sun never cheerful; the sky is uniformly cloudy; the whole year is wintry; the only wind that blows is the angry North. Waters melt only by fires; their rivers flow not by reason of the ice; their mountains are covered with heaps of snow. All things are torpid, all stiff with cold. Nothing there has the glow of life, but that ferocity which has given to scenic plays their stories of the sacrifices of the Taurians, and the loves of the Colchians, and the torments of the Caucasus. [B]Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus.[/B] Nay more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? [B]What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces?[/B] Verily, O Euxine, thou hast produced a monster more credible to philosophers than to Christians. For the cynic Diogenes used to go about, lantern in hand, at mid-day to find a man; whereas Marcion has quenched the light of his faith, and so lost the God whom he had found. [/I]

(Ag. Marc. 1:1)[/COLOR]

6KILLER

2005-07-20 19:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Can you quote that verse?[/QUOTE] The First Book Of The Maccabees, 12: 20-22, mentions a letter received by The High Priest Onias, approximately 300 B.C. The passage reads "Arius, king of the Spartans, to Onias, the chief Priest, greetings: It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Israelites, that they are brethren and that they are of the stock of Abraham; to our knowledge ye shall do well to write into us of your prosperity."

wild_bill

2005-07-20 20:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]Gildas Albanactus a 4th century British monk, the son of the king of Strathclyde, wrote the book **'De Excidio Britanniae' **

Who has verified this monk's claims? A monk can write anything. For example, Fr. Lacunza, a Jew convert to Roman Catholicism, concocted a version of dispensationalism that was eventually picked up by John Darby, but the Roman Catholic Church rejected Lacunza's theories. Just because one monk writes something doesn't mean its true.

Glastonbury was the site of the first known above ground Church [url="http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/history/joseph.html"]http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/history/joseph.html[/url][/QUOTE]

That's according to one source. It may have been the first, but this is obviously a disputed claim. How could that ever be verified? But in any event, Glastonbury, would have had no authority beyond that of any other local church. It couldn't determine canon. For that matter, there were no NT books written for some decades after Christ. The canonical books weren't determined until the fourth century.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 20:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]”Yes, Marcion was a heretic. Actually, I think St. Polycarp himself referred to him as an agent of satan. IOW, not the kind of person a Christian should place any stock in.”

.....Again, I disagree; what was Marcion against that they attempted to label him an heretic? He saw that the antiChrist “jewish” scribes were destroying Scripture, but instead of being held up as a Christian hero for his efforts to reverse such, the scribes already held enough sway within the whoring “church”, (which it is not), to have dissention quashed; sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

As I recall, he advocated versions of both "sola Scriptura" and dispensationalism. Both are rejected false teachings. I'm not an expert on Marcion, but I know he was condemned as a heretic by St. Polycarp and probably others.

.....So you believe that the RCC holds all authority? Are you aware that the antiChrist “jews” bragged about having complete control of said institution by 1530? Nor do they have the much-vaunted Apotlic succession fro Peter that’s falsely been claimed all this time; in the wake of Luther’s 95 theses, there was no longer opposition within the “church” to stand against antiChrist... further, the antiChrist “jews” infiltered Calvin, (cohen), into the reformation; what was his great contribution? He made it possible for usury to again be practiced with the sanction of the dead-heads who were dumb enough to believe his lies...

You must have dyslexia. I have said repeatedly that I'm not talking about Roman Catholicism. The issues we're discussing pre-date Roman Catholicism.

I'm certainly not a Calvinist. I don't know what he has to do with this discussion.

Are you aware that Eastern Christianity is not part of either Catholicism or Protestantism? It has a continuous existance since the days of Christ.

.....Being as Scripture applies to this world, one must understand the secular writings of the History of this planet over the last six thousand years, nay, longer, to have something to which to apply that which is brought forth in Scripture; this fact makes the “sola Scriptura” people loonies... they claim they need nothing but the Scripture, and they can’t even develop a proper understanding of it...

Sola Scriptura is a false and self-contradicting doctrine. The Church came before the books of the New Testament even existed.

Ok, secular writings can be used as long as they don't contradict Christian teachings. One doesn't revise fundamental teachings to fit secular writings.

.....I have a bit of news for you, Bill; the teaching of the trinity is straight out of Babylon... it is no more valid than the concept of buying one’s way into Heaven...

That's your opinion, but its a very basic Christian doctrine. Its part of the Nicene Creed which is not negotiable. Anyone who rejects it, is not a Christian.

.....Hardly; the “church” is more often than not attempting to obscure the knowledge of Our Father...

All splinter sects and cults begin by declaring the Church as having no authority or being corrupt, but that premise contradicts Scripture, since Christ, Himself, said the Church will not be destroyed. According to your presumption, it was.

.....They could well yet be; further, they do not contradict Scripture, only the tortured reading thereof you’ve learned from the whoring “church”...

What tortured reading? I only advocate the basic teachings of 2,000 years. Its the Identity people who reject that, because they want to create a white power version of Christianity.

As far as I’m concerned the Catholic Church has no authority and is not only a heretical organization but an evil entity as well. FOR ME IT IS NOT THE CHURCH and never was THE FIRST CHURCH EVEN. [/QUOTE]

Well, I suppose this makes it five times that I have stated that I'm not advocating for the Roman Catholic Church! Oh well.

6KILLER

2005-07-20 21:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Who has verified this monk's claims?[/QUOTE] How could anything that occurred in the 4th century be verified, Bill? However, many other writers corroborate Gildas' claims i.e. Virgil (who wasn't Christian, probably because he came before the time of Christ), Maelgwyn of Avalon A.D. 450, Archbishop Ussher 1345 A.D., Melchin 560 A.D. Do you reject the existence of Troy and the Trojan War as written in 'The Iliad' by Homer? Until the time of Schliemann, Troy's existence could have been considered fable.

[QUOTE=wild_bill]A monk can write anything. For example, Fr. Lacunza, a Jew convert to Roman Catholicism, concocted a version of dispensationalism that was eventually picked up by John Darby, but the Roman Catholic Church rejected Lacunza's theories. Just because one monk writes something doesn't mean its true.[/QUOTE] LaCunza was a marrono converso (jew) as was Loyola. And yes the rapture is another falsehood, The Lords Prayer bears witness to that. For someone that doesn't endorse the Catholic Church you sure like to make reference to them. Bill, just because the Catholic Church chose to canonize certain books doesn't mean they had the authority to do so.

[QUOTE=wild_bill]That's according to one source. It may have been the first, but this is obviously a disputed claim. How could that ever be verified? But in any event, Glastonbury, would have had no authority beyond that of any other local church. It couldn't determine canon. For that matter, there were no NT books written for some decades after Christ. The canonical books weren't determined until the fourth century.[/QUOTE] Actually it's according to many sources, if one chooses to do a little research. By what authority did these scoundrels canonize said books in 4th century, Bill? Whose Church were the authorities? The Church of Simon Magus?

6KILLER

2005-07-20 21:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill][color=darkred]That's according to one source.[/color] It may have been the first, but this is obviously a disputed claim. How could that ever be verified? But in any event, Glastonbury, would have had no authority beyond that of any other local church.[/QUOTE]In the year of our Lord, 63 [actually, it was earlier], twelve holy missionaries, with Joseph of Arimathea (who had buried the Lord) at their head, came over to Britain, preaching the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. THE KING OF THE COUNTRY AND HIS SUBJECTS REFUSED TO BECOME PROSELYTES TO THEIR TEACHING, but in consideration that they had come a long journey, and being somewhat pleased with their soberness of life and unexceptional behaviour, the king, at their petition, gave them for their habitation a certain island bordering on this region, covered with trees and bramble bushes and surrounded by marshes, called Ynis-wytrin. -- Written 1126 A.D. by William of Malmsebury from "the writings of the ancients" which he found at Glastonbury Abbey.

King Arviragus is recorded as having granted to Joseph and his followers, "twelve hides" of land, tax free, in "Yniswitrin," described as a marshy tract -- afterwards called the "Isle of Avalon." Confirmation of this Royal Charter is found in the official DOMESDAY BOOK of Britain (A.D. 1086) which states: "The Domus Dei, in the great monastery of Glastonbury, called the Secret of the Lord. This Glastonbury Church possesses, in its own villa XII hides of land which have never paid tax." (Domesday Survey folio p.249b.)

Bill the DOMESDAY BOOK is actually a legal document.

wild_bill

2005-07-20 23:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]How could anything that occurred in the 4th century be verified, Bill? However, many other writers corroborate Gildas' claims i.e. Virgil (who wasn't Christian, probably because he came before the time of Christ), Maelgwyn of Avalon A.D. 450, Archbishop Ussher 1345 A.D., Melchin 560 A.D. Do you reject the existence of Troy and the Trojan War as written in 'The Iliad' by Homer? Until the time of Schliemann, Troy's existence could have been considered fable.

You're referring to various writers, but not actually telling me what they wrote, so it hard for me to discuss the veracity and context of anything.

LaCunza was a marrono converso (jew) as was Loyola. And yes the rapture is another falsehood, The Lords Prayer bears witness to that. For someone that doesn't endorse the Catholic Church you sure like to make reference to them. Bill, just because the Catholic Church chose to canonize certain books doesn't mean they had the authority to do so.

I have yet to reference the Roman Church as the basis of my comments! You keep assuming that.

If you know even basic history of Christianity, you must be aware that Rome was only one of several jurisdictions that made up the Christian Church prior to 1054. When the Bishop of Rome (Pope) attempted to assume dictatorial power of the whole church in the 11th century, the other bishops representing all the other jurisdictions excommunicated him for breaking the tradition of authority established by the Apostles. After all, there's no example of St. Peter ordering the other apostles around or claiming infallibility which is what the Bishop of Rome attempted.

Actually it's according to many sources, if one chooses to do a little research. By what authority did these scoundrels canonize said books in 4th century, Bill? Whose Church were the authorities? The Church of Simon Magus?[/QUOTE]

Scoundrels? You call the bishops of the early Church scoundrels and still call yourself a Christian? You presumably accept their authority in establishing at least part of the Canon and several basic doctrines.

These bishops had their authority passed down from the Apostles and this has continued till today. If not for them, you'd have nothing.

Tell me, who was the bishop of Christian Identity in the fourth century? In the fifth century? In the eighth century? Can you give me your unbroken line of apostolic procession?

wild_bill

2005-07-20 23:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]In the year of our Lord, 63 [actually, it was earlier], twelve holy missionaries, with Joseph of Arimathea (who had buried the Lord) at their head, came over to Britain, preaching the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. THE KING OF THE COUNTRY AND HIS SUBJECTS REFUSED TO BECOME PROSELYTES TO THEIR TEACHING, but in consideration that they had come a long journey, and being somewhat pleased with their soberness of life and unexceptional behaviour, the king, at their petition, gave them for their habitation a certain island bordering on this region, covered with trees and bramble bushes and surrounded by marshes, called Ynis-wytrin. -- Written 1126 A.D. by William of Malmsebury from "the writings of the ancients" which he found at Glastonbury Abbey.

King Arviragus is recorded as having granted to Joseph and his followers, "twelve hides" of land, tax free, in "Yniswitrin," described as a marshy tract -- afterwards called the "Isle of Avalon." Confirmation of this Royal Charter is found in the official DOMESDAY BOOK of Britain (A.D. 1086) which states: "The Domus Dei, in the great monastery of Glastonbury, called the Secret of the Lord. This Glastonbury Church possesses, in its own villa XII hides of land which have never paid tax." (Domesday Survey folio p.249b.)

Bill the DOMESDAY BOOK is actually a legal document.[/QUOTE]

Its not a religious document and it cannot be verified. It may be true that Glastonbury was the first church, but this is accepted as tradition not historical fact.

BTW, here's a website that might be of interest to you. It has a lot of historical info on early Christianity in England:

[url]http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/[/url]

kane123123

2005-07-20 23:49 | User Profile

So you believe that Jesus advocted race-mixing and immigration? That is what God advocated if you believe he came down as a white man in a non-white town. This is a fact that if you accept the Identity, and follow the chain of dominos which it leads to, the logical pattern of thought leads to that!

Whereas as a Traditional Christian I have the right to believe that Jesus supported segregation because he lived among his own kind.

 It seems Patrick doesn't know the difference between an English teacher and a Theologian.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 00:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]You're referring to various writers, but not actually telling me what they wrote, so it hard for me to discuss the veracity and context of anything.

I have yet to reference the Roman Church as the basis of my comments! You keep assuming that.

If you know even basic history of Christianity, you must be aware that Rome was only one of several jurisdictions that made up the Christian Church prior to 1054. When the Bishop of Rome (Pope) attempted to assume dictatorial power of the whole church in the 11th century, the other bishops representing all the other jurisdictions excommunicated him for breaking the tradition of authority established by the Apostles. After all, there's no example of St. Peter ordering the other apostles around or claiming infallibility which is what the Bishop of Rome attempted.

Scoundrels? You call the bishops of the early Church scoundrels and still call yourself a Christian? You presumably accept their authority in establishing at least part of the Canon and several basic doctrines.

These bishops had their authority passed down from the Apostles and this has continued till today. If not for them, you'd have nothing.

Tell me, who was the bishop of Christian Identity in the fourth century? In the fifth century? In the eighth century? Can you give me your unbroken line of apostolic procession?[/QUOTE]The only two Churches that claim an unbroken line of authority back to the apostles, as far as I know are the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And I reject the authoritity of both. The first pope was none other than Simon Magus, and I for damn sure reject his authority. The following link tells the story of what actually happened [url="http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=663&highlight=magus"]http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=663&highlight=magus[/url] I reject the Babylonian religion of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, both of which had their origin at the place of Satan's seat in Pergamum.

The following outlines the line of authority of the pope from the beginning.

[color=darkred][color=darkred]POPE SEATED ON SATAN’S High Priesthood the Prophet of Baal's THRONE[/color][color=#000000]

[img]http://www.samliquidation.com/illumi1.jpg[/img]

[/color][color=darkred]The coming false-Christ of the Babylonian Talmud, Moshiach ben Dovid will merge with his High Priest of Nimrod's Order soon, to establish the one world religion of their god, Satan.[/color][color=#000000]

The Babylonian pagan worship of Nimrod, Semiramis, and the god-incarnate son extended throughout the entire world and eventually assumed the name of Trinitarian Christianity in Rome (Figure 3, pages 24, 25). Trinitarian paganism spread from Babylon to Rome by way of Pergamum. The Babylon Kings, who were descended from Nimrod, served as both king and priest of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion. As priests, they bore the title "Pontifex Maximus"[/color][color=red]125[/color][color=#000000] or "Supreme Pontiff," meaning "supreme pathfinder" or "bridge maker," representing "the path or connection between this life and the next."[/color][color=red]126[/color][color=#000000] They ruled upon the throne of Satan, which is the throne of Nimrod as the "hidden god."[/color][color=red]127[/color][color=#000000] The last king to reign in Babylon was Belshazzar, who celebrated the pagan Babylonian ritual using the sacred Jewish temple vessels which his father King Nebuchadnezzar confiscated from the Jewish temple in 587 B.C.:

King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his wine in front of the thousand.

Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken [in 587 B.C.] out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. Then they brought in the golden and silver vessels which had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

Immediately the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand; and the king saw the hand as it wrote. Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together....

Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. And this is the writing that was inscribed: [/color][color=red]MENE, MENE, TEKEL, AND PARSIN[/color][color=#000000]. This is the interpretation of the matter: [/color][color=red]MENE,[/color][color=#000000] God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; [/color][color=red]TEKEL,[/color][color=#000000] you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; [/color][color=red]PERES,[/color][color=#000000] your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians....

That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

[/color][color=red]- Prophet Daniel128 [/color]

[color=#000000]After the death of Belshazzar in 539 B.C., the Persian Emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon and forced the Babylonian princes to flee to Pergamum. They continued their reign there as priest-kings of Babylonian paganism.[/color][color=red]129[/color][color=#000000] In 133 B.C., Attalus III, the last Babylonian King to rule in Pergamum, willed his dominions to the Roman Caesar, and the kingdom of Pergamum merged with the Roman Empire along with Satan-Nimrod’s throne and the title "Pontifex Maximus."[/color][color=red]130[/color][color=#000000]

In 63 B.C., Julius Caesar, who had been elected Pontifex Maximus, became emperor of Rome and vested the office of Roman emperor with the priestly powers and functions of the Babylonian Pontiff.[/color][color=red]131[/color][color=#000000] Henceforth, the title Pontifex Maximus was used by the Roman Caesars as illustrated on a Roman coin depicting the image of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-14 A.D.) with his title "Pont. Max.," which is an abbreviation of Pontifex Maximus (Figure 4, page 26). Thus, the Roman emperors, like the preceding Babylonian emperors, now served as priests of Babylonian paganism, and bore the title Pontifex Maximus.

For centuries, Pergamum remained the site of Nimrod’s throne. With the appearance of Christianity, Babylonian paganism threatened the early Christian church of Pergamum as related in the Revelation given by Jesus to His Apostle John, who referred to Pergamum as the seat of Satan’s throne which is Nimrod’s throne:

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.

"‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is [i.e., Nimrod’s Throne]; you hold fast my name and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam [pagan Babylonian trinity of Nimrod], who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality.

[/color][color=red]- Apostle John132[/color][color=#000000]

In 376 A.D., Gratian became the first Roman emperor to refuse the idolatrous title of Pontifex Maximus.[/color][color=red]133[/color][color=#000000] He presented the Babylonian Throne, or Satan-Nimrod’s Throne to the bishop of Rome.[/color][color=red]134[/color][color=#000000]

By this time, the Roman bishops had advanced in political power, and in 378 A.D., Bishop Damasus was elected Pontifex Maximus, becoming the official pagan Babylonian priest seated on Satan’s throne in Rome. As such, the bishop converted the pagan Babylonian temples of Rome into Trinitarian Christian churches and introduced the worship of Nimrod, Semiramis and the god-incarnate son under the respective titles of "god the father," "god the son" and "god the holy spirit." All the pomp and ceremony that existed in ancient Babylon was now practiced as Roman Trinitarian Christianity.

Before the Babylonian conversion into Trinitarian Christianity, the early Christians were a small cult surrounded by numerous Babylonian pagan temples. Historians, however, relate the amazing "overnight" conversion of Romans to Trinitarian Christianity, which coincided to a remarkable and unprecedented disappearance of paganism.[/color][color=red]135[/color][color=#000000] In actuality, the Roman pagans did not convert to Trinitarian Christianity; but rather, Bishop Damasus exercised his authority as head of Babylonian paganism in Rome, and replaced all the Christian elders with pagan priests and continued the practice of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion under the name of Trinitarian Christianity. Henceforth, all the bishops of Rome have donned the robes of Nimrod along with the title of Pontifex Maximus.

The Roman Catholic bishops were viewed by most Christians as head of Trinitarian Christianity, and entitled pope or "pater patrum" in Latin, that is, "father of the fathers,"[/color][color=red]136[/color][color=#000000] despite the fact that Jesus the Christ forbid His followers to refer to anyone as father except for the heavenly Father:

But you are not to be called rabbi [Hebrew for master or teacher[/color][color=red]137[/color][color=#000000] ], for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father [pope, derived from the Greek "papa" meaning father[/color][color=red]138[/color][color=#000000] ] on earth, for you have one Father, who is inheaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.

[/color][color=red]- Jesus the Christ139[/color][color=#000000]

Thus, like the Babylonian emperors and the Roman Caesars before them, the pagan Roman Catholic popes were seated on the throne of Satan, and possessed the title Pontifex Maximus[/color][color=red]140[/color][color=#000000] as displayed on a medal portraying Pope Leo X (1513-1521 A.D.) with the inscription "Pont. Max." (Figure 4).

Further evidence supports the fact that the papal office is the pagan Babylonian priesthood. Roman Catholic popes not only bear the title Pontifex Maximus and are seated on Satan-Nimrod’s throne, but they also wear the scarlet robes of Nimrod and the miter of the fish-god Dagon, plus they carry the shepherd’s crook of Nimrod and the mystical keys of Janus and Cybele, who were the pagan god and goddess representing Nimrod and Semiramis respectively.[/color][color=red]141[/color][color=#000000]

The Roman bishops wore only white robes until they received Satan’s throne and the title Pontifex Maximus.[/color][color=red]142[/color][color=#000000] Roman Catholic popes and cardinals now wear the scarlet robes of Nimrod. The shepherd’s crook or crosier carried by the pope is the magical crook traced directly to Nimrod who was the first shepherd king.[/color][color=red]143[/color][color=#000000] The miter worn by the pope represents the mouth of a fish and was worn by the pagan Philistine fish-god Dagon,[/color][color=red]144[/color][color=#000000] which is another name for Nimrod (Figure 5, page 30).[/color][color=red]145[/color][color=#000000] Also, the tiara worn by the popes is identical in shape to that worn by the Philistine fish-god Nimrod.[/color][color=red]146[/color][color=#000000]

[img]http://www.samliquidation.com/illumi3.jpg[/img]

[/color][color=darkred]History Of The Authority Of The Pope[/color][color=#000000]

As part of the doctrine of the sun-worship religion, they believed that the king, or emperor, was the direct representative of the sun god on earth. As such, the king was more than just mortal, but was king-god, or god-king. He was the only one in whom the highest level of the spirit of the sun-deity resided. This 'spirit' was not the Holy Spirit of God, but the 'spirit' of the sun. This is why the pagan emperors were worshipped as god. The religious center representing sun-worship was transferred from Babylon, after the death of Belshazzar, to the city of Pergamos in Asia Minor, about 575 B.C.

In Revelation 2:13, Pergamos is called "Satan's seat," and was the headquarters of the original Babylonian sun-worship until Imperial Rome began to take over the leadership around 50 B.C. This began in the person of Julius Caesar when, as emperor, he had supreme civil and religious rule. "... When Julius Caesar, who had previously been elected Pontifex Maximus, became also, as Emperor, the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then as head of Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him, and he found himself in a position to assert these powers" (From Sabbath to Sunday, Samuele Bacchiocchi, 1977, p. 241).

In the year 46 B.C., Julius Caesar was made "Praefectus Morum" (supervisor of morals); that is, he was made head of Roman religions. In the year 44 B.C., he was made dictator for life (see Langer's Encyclopedia of World History).

It is essential to understand that from that time forward, the Emperor of Rome was also head of the state religions. This did not change until Emperor Justinian, who reigned from 527-565 A.D., submitted to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. From that time forward, the Pope was acknowledged by the Emperor to be Pontifex Maximus over all religion. The Pope now had supreme authority in religious matters and the Emperors had control of the political power of the state.(... End of first half....Part Two next issue!)

The very same Pontifex Maximus High Priesthood of the Babylonian Talmudic Sanhedrin and all of its wizards the Chabad Lubavitch unto their g-d Baal and their false-Church of Rome the Pontifex Maximus has finally been rejoined to establish the World Religion of Satan, Talmudic Pontifex Maximus the Prophet of their soon to be anointed but Temporary Moshiach ben Satan, false-Christ, their god of this world. But they shall fail to establish their Vision, for the Lord Jesus Christ the True King of the Universe will bring in the True Zion to Jerusalem and God's True Chosen, they who were purchased by the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, the Lamb of God the Most High, Christ Jesus.

It was and continues to be these sons of the synagogue of Satan who hate Jesus Christ the Lord God Almighty. It is and was these Pharisees of the Babylonian god tradition the rabbi's of the great Sanhedrin who made void the word of God the Most High with their oral traditions of the Babylonian High Priesthood's Order of Nimrod, the Pontifex Maximus. It is and has been and will continue to be them who in their Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin who so detest Gentile's that they say a Gentile deserves death if he worships on the Sabbath day, thus the control of the Rome Pontifex Maximus was to cause the Gentiles to worhip on their actual god Baal's day, the Sun god's day the sun-day. It was them who sent their Pontifex Maximus in the Order of Babylon to cause any who would worship after Jesus Christ, to establish another day of celebrating the birth of Immanuel into their sun-god baal. Thus the day of the new birth of the sun, after winter soltice, December 25, the day the sun has finished the old round and begins the New Year round. This god, Baal who was and is none other than Nimrod, was represented as a fir tree which became known to the pagan's guided by the Talmudic controll as a christ-mas tree. The yule log was a growth of that fir tree, Nino's the son of Nimrod. Thus Jeremiah 10:

[/color][color=blue]Simon the Sorcerer[/color][color=#000000]

[img]http://www.samliquidation.com/covena3.gif[/img]

[/color]color=red.[/color][color=#000000]

9: But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11: And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13: Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18: And when [/color][color=red]Simon[/color]color=blue[/color][color=#000000] saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19: Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20: But Peter said unto him, [/color][color=red]Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.[/color][color=#000000] 21: Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22: Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23: For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24: Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

[/color][color=indigo]Simon [color=#ffa34f]Magus[/color][/color][color=#000000]

[img]http://www.samliquidation.com/feuer.GIF[/img]

[/color][url="http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html"][color=#0000ff]http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html[/color][/url][color=#000000]

[/color]***[color=#000000]Right from the very beginning, Satan had his counterfeit "messiah" operating right in the true Messiah's backyard. His name was Simon [/color][color=#ffa34f]Magus[/color][color=#000000] or Simon the Sorcerer and this man, and not Simon Peter the Apostle, went on to found the Universal Roman "church." His career was the history of Roman Catholicism in miniature. For a long time he bewitched the people with his false miracles. Since the year 800 A.D., Rome has bewitched the world with her false miracles of transubstantiation. ***

***Simon believed and was baptized. Outwardly he was a Christian but his belief was only superficial and he was still a pagan at heart. He coveted the apostolic office and saw the opportunity of using Christianity to make money - a business corporation masquerading as the church of Christ!! ***

From Simon [/color][color=#ffa34f]Magus[/color][color=#000000] we get the word simony which means to buy a religious office with money[/color][/color]

6KILLER

2005-07-21 00:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=kenite123123]So you believe that Jesus advocted race-mixing and immigration? That is what God advocated if you believe he came down as a white man in a non-white town. This is a fact that if you accept the Identity, and follow the chain of dominos which it leads to, the logical pattern of thought leads to that!

Whereas as a Traditional Christian I have the right to believe that Jesus supported segregation because he lived among his own kind.

It seems Patrick doesn't know the difference between an English teacher and a Theologian.[/QUOTE] This line of stupidity doesn't even deserve an intelligent reply. However, I don't believe that Christ advocated race mixing, nor do I believe that he was a non-white.

kane123123

2005-07-21 00:19 | User Profile

Then what was he doing in a non-white town? He was race mixing dumb*ss.

No, God doesn't support race-mixing so he did not come down in this matter.

Why did God then immigrate into another non-white town?  Does God now advocate interracial immigration?

Town non-white + Savor white = race mixer Town white + Savior non-white = race mixer

6KILLER

2005-07-21 00:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=keniteTheologian123123]Then what was he doing in a non-white town? He was race mixing dumb*ss.

No, God doesn't support race-mixing so he did not come down in this matter. Either the whole town including Jesus was white or it was all non-white, there is no imbetween or God is a racemixer.

Why did God then immigrate into another non-white town? Does God now advocate interracial immigration?[/QUOTE] You make the false assumption that ancient Palestine was composed of one race, which it wasn't. According to the Bible more than one race inhabited the region. However, Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the majority of which were not in Palestine at that time. It is my belief that many of those lost sheep were in the British Isles at that time.

kane123123

2005-07-21 00:56 | User Profile

I don't recall any scripture stating that Bethleham and Jerusalem were not towns dominated strongly by one race.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 01:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=keniteTheTheologian123123]I don't recall any scripture stating that Bethleham and Jerusalem were not towns dominated strongly by one race.[/QUOTE] Let's see we had Idumeans (Edomites), the 5 Babylonian tribes that composed the racial make up of Samaria, Nabateans, Philistines, Tyrians, the descendants of the 7 original Canaanite that amalgamated into 5 tribes. Sounds pretty diverse to me.:osama: :caiphas: :afro: :eek:

kane123123

2005-07-21 01:49 | User Profile

See that tells me that there were different groups but not different races. For all I know they could be the same race, just like celts/anglos/germanics are all the white race. It's still not guranteed that these people were all different races genetically.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 02:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=keniteTheTheologian123123]See that tells me that there were different groups but not different races. For all I know they could be the same race, just like celts/anglos/germanics are all the white race. It's still not guranteed that these people were all different races genetically.[/QUOTE] You need to go back to seminary, or better yet ask for a refund of your money, because you don't know much for a theologian.

kane123123

2005-07-21 03:15 | User Profile

Yeah but most of these groups you mentioned came from around the same area geographically, they just came to that area at different times. The Caanites were the first and then the people which practiced Judaism came.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 03:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=kane123123]Yeah but most of these groups you mentioned came from around the same area geographically, they just came to that area at different times. The Caanites were the first and then the people which practiced Judaism came.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but they have excavated skeletal remains there that vary from dolicephalic skulls (look like Anglo-Saxon skulls from excavations in England) to brachycephalic skulls. These are indicators that more than one race once inhabited the area. They also have reliefs of the profiles of ancient Canaanites, Hittites, and Philistines. Most of the Hittite and Canaanite reliefs look like the profile of the eternal jew, while the Philistines look European. Turkey was once inhabited by so-called Celtic people, but then the Asiatic Huns, Tartars, Khazars invaded. Celtic + Asian = Turk

Petr

2005-07-21 05:52 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "As I recall, he advocated versions of both "sola Scriptura" and dispensationalism. Both are rejected false teachings."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

Are you taking a swipe at Protestants here, Bill? Marcion made a mockery out of "Sola Scriptura" - his entire canon actually consisted only a large chunk of the Gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul.

And the basic idea of supremacy of Scripture over tradition (should they happen to clash) was well represented among church fathers:

[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Georgia]There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn.

B[/B]

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. [B] (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6)[/B]

For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

B[/FONT][/COLOR]

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-07-21 08:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "As I recall, he advocated versions of both "sola Scriptura" and dispensationalism. Both are rejected false teachings."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

Are you taking a swipe at Protestants here, Bill?[/QUOTE]

Of course he is, Petr. It's a given that wild bill can't go more than two or three posts without taking at least one pot shot at we anchorless Protestant heretics. :)

But I'm giving him a pass this time since he's taking the time and rather thankless task of debating with the Identity cultists, even if his method is somewhat misguided by appealing to a 'tradition' in and of itself as opposed to one couched in the Scriptures, which as we know are wholly sufficient in all things.

Patrick

2005-07-21 16:11 | User Profile

”I don’t recall any scripture stating that Bethleham and Jerusalem were not towns dominated strongly by one race.”

.....Theologian my tailpipe; the idumeans, (edomite mongrels), were there essentially dominatig the “religious” realm... the Romans were there as political overlords, so to speak, albeit, in small number, but the bulk of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were there, and they were all caucasian Israelites, save those that had already mongrelized their blood; in addition, there were the “mixed multitude” which included all of the mongrels that returned with the Israelites from Babylon...

”See that tells me that there were different groups but not different races. For all I know they could be the same race, just like celts/anglos/germanics are all the white race. It’s still not guranteed that these people were all different races genetically.”

.....I believe that’s only because you’re a tad thicker than most...

.....I find it amusing that the term “cult” is bandied about in such a leisurely fashion, yet the opposition herein has no case outside of the vagueries above; I’m not sure what it is any of you have against the understanding that the caucasians are Israel, as opposed to the nonsense of the antiChrist “jews” falsely assuming said identity, but for as vocal as you seem to be in your opposition, you really have yet to present a case, much less address the least of my points from the posting I put up with evidence contrary to every assertion that denies our premise...

6KILLER

2005-07-21 17:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]”I don’t recall any scripture stating that Bethleham and Jerusalem were not towns dominated strongly by one race.”

.....Theologian my tailpipe; the idumeans, (edomite mongrels), were there essentially dominatig the “religious” realm... the Romans were there as political overlords, so to speak, albeit, in small number, but the bulk of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were there, and they were all caucasian Israelites, save those that had already mongrelized their blood; in addition, there were the “mixed multitude” which included all of the mongrels that returned with the Israelites from Babylon...

”See that tells me that there were different groups but not different races. For all I know they could be the same race, just like celts/anglos/germanics are all the white race. It’s still not guranteed that these people were all different races genetically.”

.....I believe that’s only because you’re a tad thicker than most...

.....I find it amusing that the term “cult” is bandied about in such a leisurely fashion, yet the opposition herein has no case outside of the vagueries above; I’m not sure what it is any of you have against the understanding that the caucasians are Israel, as opposed to the nonsense of the antiChrist “jews” falsely assuming said identity, but for as vocal as you seem to be in your opposition, you really have yet to present a case, much less address the least of my points from the posting I put up with evidence contrary to every assertion that denies our premise...[/QUOTE]kane the kenite is a troll, he's tried the same stuff over at SF in their so called CI forum. But Kludd and Klunt will keep him around as he doesn't threaten their agenda. The definition of cult means nothing to them, so hence anything that disagrees with their their little religious tittles is consider by them to be a cult. Just remember a man convinced against his will remains unconvinced, in effect you are casting pearls before swine. :wallbash:

wild_bill

2005-07-21 17:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Of course he is, Petr. It's a given that wild bill can't go more than two or three posts without taking at least one pot shot at we anchorless Protestant heretics. :)

But I'm giving him a pass this time since he's taking the time and rather thankless task of debating with the Identity cultists, even if his method is somewhat misguided by appealing to a 'tradition' in and of itself as opposed to one couched in the Scriptures, which as we know are wholly sufficient in all things.[/QUOTE]

Everybody knows the Orthodox Christian position of sola Scriptura. I'm not trying to revive any debates over that issue which accomplish nothing. I'm simply observing that that Marcion's ideas were strongly condemned by the Christians of his day. I certainly consider the condemnation by the first generation of Christian writers schooled by the original Apostles to have significance.

I think its one thing for our Identity friends to appeal to some false doctrine, but to favorably refer to the teachings of a man who was so strongly condemned by a very prominant bishop as St. Polycarp actually undermines whatever point they're trying make.

This seems to be a bad habit of the Identity people. Some will accept virtually ANYTHING they can use to support their doctrines. For example, I've seen some of them even advocate the bogus "Book of Jasher" as a legitimate source of Christian doctrine, more or less equal to the Bible.

wild_bill

2005-07-21 17:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr B[/B]

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. [B] (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6)[/B] [/QUOTE]

I don't know the context of that comment, so its hard to discuss it.

wild_bill

2005-07-21 17:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]The only two Churches that claim an unbroken line of authority back to the apostles, as far as I know are the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. [/QUOTE]

Well, friend, you're knowledge is lacking then. The Orthodox Church, the one that the Church of Rome separated from in 1054, has had a continuous existance until this day and has hundreds of millions of members.

I conceded that part of the difficulty in discussing these issues is the common bipolar American Protestant view that automatically defines everything not Protestant as Roman Catholic. This view is apparently a legacy of Luther's revolt of which Eastern Christianity played no part.

Patrick

2005-07-21 18:27 | User Profile

”This seems to be a bad habit of the Identity people. Some will accept virtually ANYTHING they can use to support their doctrines. For example, I’ve seen some of them even advocate the bogus “Book of Jasher” as a legitimate source of Christian doctrine, more or less equal to the Bible.”

.....The Book of Jasher is mentioned in both Joshua and Samual; are you saying Joshua and Samual knew not from whence they spoke?

wild_bill

2005-07-21 18:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....The Book of Jasher is mentioned in both Joshua and Samual; are you saying Joshua and Samual knew not from whence they spoke?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know there was a Book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible. Its obviously a lost book. But the one circulated amongst Identity people is a forgery. As I recall, it was written by some Jew in the 1800s.

Patrick

2005-07-21 19:50 | User Profile

.....I'd sooner see a citing than a "as I recall"...

6KILLER

2005-07-21 19:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Well, friend, you're knowledge is lacking then. The Orthodox Church, the one that the Church of Rome separated from in 1054, has had a continuous existance until this day and has hundreds of millions of members.

I conceded that part of the difficulty in discussing these issues is the common bipolar American Protestant view that automatically defines everything not Protestant as Roman Catholic. This view is apparently a legacy of Luther's revolt of which Eastern Christianity played no part.[/QUOTE]Your knowledge is lacking as well on many things. I never claimed that I was all knowing. The Orthodox Church has the same Babylonian roots as the Catholic Church. Simon Magus the sorcerer and magician, from which we derive the word simony, was their first pope. Their seat was Satan's seat in Pergamum. I accept the Orthodox Church as no more an authority, than the old Babylonian Whore the Catholic Church, so why should I accept one of her daughters?:alucard:

kane123123

2005-07-21 19:55 | User Profile

he's tried the same stuff over at SF in their so called CI forum Hey dumbss, I have never ever posted in the CI forum over there, only in the Traditional Christianity forum, you dumb fck. You can't seem to get much of anything right. Get off this forum, you're not a conservative, you're an identity retard.

You see just looking at posts from people that are as idiotic as you actually makes me feel quite intelligent. I would like to thank you for boosting my self-confidence.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 20:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=cain123123]Hey dumbss, I have never ever posted in the CI forum over there, only in the Traditional Christianity forum, you dumb fck. You can't seem to get much of anything right. Get off this forum, you're not a conservative, you're an identity retard.

You see just looking at posts from people that are as idiotic as you actually makes me feel quite intelligent. I would like to thank you for boosting my self-confidence.[/QUOTE]You're just a retard. I doubt you have the testicular fortitude to say this to my face internet kommando. Yeah! you're the epitome of intelligence theologian.

[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=218523"]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=218523[/url]

wild_bill

2005-07-21 20:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]Your knowledge is lacking as well on many things. I never claimed that I was all knowing. The Orthodox Church has the same Babylonian roots as the Catholic Church. Simon Magus the sorcerer and magician, from which we derive the word simony, was their first pope. Their seat was Satan's seat in Pergamum. I accept the Orthodox Church as no more an authority, than the old Babylonian Whore the Catholic Church, so why should I accept one of her daughters?:alucard:[/QUOTE]

Orthodoxy is not a daughter of Catholicism. It has nothing to do with Babylon. I don't know where you get your information.

But I understand the need of heretics to denounce the true Church. To do otherwise would obviously undermine your credibility completely.

If you choose to believe false doctrines, that's your decision. I know you won't listen to me. One day maybe you will realize your mistake.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 21:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Orthodoxy is not a daughter of Catholicism. It has nothing to do with Babylon. I don't know where you get your information.[/QUOTE]Bill.

Didn't the Orthodox Church originate in Pergamum? I believe that the Whore that the Book of Revelations speaks of that had seven daughters and rode the scarlet colored beast is the Catholic Church. and that the scarlet colored beast is jewry.

[size=3]For centuries, Pergamum remained the site of Nimrod’s throne. With the appearance of Christianity, Babylonian paganism threatened the early Christian church of Pergamum as related in the Revelation given by Jesus to His Apostle John, who referred to Pergamum as the seat of Satan’s throne which is Nimrod’s throne:[/size]

[indent][size=3]"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.[/size]

[size=3]"‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is [i.e., Nimrod’s Throne]; you hold fast my name and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam [pagan Babylonian trinity of Nimrod], who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality.[/size]

[center][size=3]- Apostle John[/size][size=3][color=#ff0000]132[/color][/size][/center]

[/indent]

wild_bill

2005-07-21 21:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]Bill.

Didn't the Orthodox Church originate in Pergamum? I believe that the Whore that the Book of Revelations speaks of that had seven daughters and rode the scarlet colored beast is the Catholic Church. and that the scarlet colored beast is jewry. [/QUOTE]

No, the Church orginated on the Day of Pentecost, wherever that took place exactly, I'm not sure.

Your interpretations are your own. Much mischief comes from people trying to make predictions from the Revelation. Best advice I got from a priest was to worry about your own spirituality and leave the predictions alone. Be ready for the Judgement always and that's the best we can do.

St. John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation), so how could he himself be part of this same Whore of Babylon? How could his own disciple become a bishop in this whore church? Sorry, but it makes no sense and is anti-scriptural besides - Christ said satan would not prevail against the Church. If the Church was indeed subverted, then the Scriptures are not true which is impossible.

It could be that the whore is the RCC, I don't know, but doubt it. In any case, the important point is RCC is not Orthodoxy, so your attacks don't apply.

6KILLER

2005-07-23 05:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]No, the Church orginated on the Day of Pentecost, wherever that took place exactly, I'm not sure.

Your interpretations are your own. Much mischief comes from people trying to make predictions from the Revelation. Best advice I got from a priest was to worry about your own spirituality and leave the predictions alone. Be ready for the Judgement always and that's the best we can do.

St. John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation), so how could he himself be part of this same Whore of Babylon? How could his own disciple become a bishop in this whore church? Sorry, but it makes no sense and is anti-scriptural besides - Christ said satan would not prevail against the Church. If the Church was indeed subverted, then the Scriptures are not true which is impossible.

It could be that the whore is the RCC, I don't know, but doubt it. In any case, the important point is RCC is not Orthodoxy, so your attacks don't apply.[/QUOTE]Well, I'll cut you some slack Bill. A CI friend of mine tells me that out of the jewdayo Churches he respects the Orthodox the most. Because they maintain the traditional views on abortion, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality etc. And they pretty much know about the jew and the menace they pose.

wild_bill

2005-07-24 20:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]Well, I'll cut you some slack Bill. A CI friend of mine tells me that out of the jewdayo Churches he respects the Orthodox the most. Because they maintain the traditional views on abortion, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality etc. And they pretty much know about the jew and the menace they pose.[/QUOTE]

I found this to be true and that's why I converted. I would also add that Orthodoxy hasn't changed its traditional stand against birth control in marriage. I think its completely alone on that nowadays. The RCC has gradually given in on birth control and the denominations long ago accepted it. I mention this since its one of those objections aren't even raised anymore since virtually all churches have given in on it. But to an Orthodox person, if something like birth control is wrong and considered a sin 100 years ago, how can it suddenly be ok?

6KILLER

2005-07-24 22:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I found this to be true and that's why I converted. I would also add that Orthodoxy hasn't changed its traditional stand against birth control in marriage. I think its completely alone on that nowadays. The RCC has gradually given in on birth control and the denominations long ago accepted it. I mention this since its one of those objections aren't even raised anymore since virtually all churches have given in on it. But to an Orthodox person, if something like birth control is wrong and considered a sin 100 years ago, how can it suddenly be ok?[/QUOTE]Even the LDS (Mormon) Church with there advocacy of large families accepts birth control. However, you won't score many points with most women (especially white women, and the jewess Femensheviks would go absolutely berserk) on this issue, Bill.

Quantrill

2005-07-25 02:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think its completely alone on that nowadays. The RCC has gradually given in on birth control and the denominations long ago accepted it. I mention this since its one of those objections aren't even raised anymore since virtually all churches have given in on it. But to an Orthodox person, if something like birth control is wrong and considered a sin 100 years ago, how can it suddenly be ok?[/QUOTE] WB, Just to be fair, the official Catholic position is still strictly against birth control, although many lay Catholics ignore this teaching. There are also some Orthodox jurisdictions (either Antiochian or Greek, I believe) that have significantly softened their strictures against birth control.

6Killer, I think you'll find that, despite the vestigial conservatism of many of its long-time, white members, Mormonism is not at all a conservative faith. It is as strongly philo-Semitic and multiculturalist as any Protestant church you could find.

6KILLER

2005-07-25 03:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]6Killer, I think you'll find that, despite the vestigial conservatism of many of its long-time, white members, Mormonism is not at all a conservative faith. It is as strongly philo-Semitic and multiculturalist as any Protestant church you could find.[/QUOTE] I won't argue with you on this one, I live in Idaho which is quite conservative and has many of the old school Mormons. However times are changing even here.

wild_bill

2005-07-25 11:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]WB, There are also some Orthodox jurisdictions (either Antiochian or Greek, I believe) that have significantly softened their strictures against birth control. [/QUOTE]

Softened in what way? I have heard that a married couple can seek a dispensation from their bishop if having more kids would be an economic hardship. But that's only AFTER they have at least two. Maybe that's not as strict as it was once, but the point is that birth control is still condemned.

Everything I've read indicates all Orthodox jurisdictions condemn the use of birth control by newlyweds or childless couples and consider it a sin to marry with the idea of avoiding children.

I know the OCA is very strongly against birth control and categorically opposes abortion.

Quantrill

2005-07-25 14:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Softened in what way? I have heard that a married couple can seek a dispensation from their bishop if having more kids would be an economic hardship. But that's only AFTER they have at least two. Maybe that's not as strict as it was once, but the point is that birth control is still condemned.[/QUOTE] Perhaps that's it, then. I have read attacks by traditionalist Catholics on the Orthodox for 'selling out' on the issue of birth control, although I don't know the specifics. Anyway, I think it is safe to say that both the Orthodox and the Catholics oppose birth control and abortion at the doctrinal level, although there is significant departure from this teaching among the laity.

wild_bill

2005-07-25 14:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Perhaps that's it, then. I have read attacks by traditionalist Catholics on the Orthodox for 'selling out' on the issue of birth control, although I don't know the specifics. Anyway, I think it is safe to say that both the Orthodox and the Catholics oppose birth control and abortion at the doctrinal level, although there is significant departure from this teaching among the laity.[/QUOTE]

This is no doubt true, but if the Orthodox leaders don't discuss it openly, then its probable that people think its not important. My personal opinion is they should start hitting on some of these practical issues. Many parishes are experiencing diminishing membership, but how many priests bring up the fact that the married parishioners are using birth control and not replenishing themselves? It seems like a taboo subject that doesn't get discussed, but a very fundamental one to the health of Orthodoxy.

6KILLER

2005-07-26 05:17 | User Profile

[center][size=6][color=darkred]!! EARLY CELTIC CHURCH TAUGHT PHYSICAL SEDUCTION OF EVE!![/color][/size][/center]

[font=Verdana][size=4]Most of you are aware of the extensive research I have done on the subject of Two Seedline. I will now present solid evidence that Two Seedline is no new doctrine as some so cocksurely insinuate. I get this testimony from the book The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge; in a chapter entitled "The Role of the Scriptures", page 48. Though Hardinge does not trace the Celtic Church back to the Church set up at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea about five years after the Passion, he does, however, quite well after 400 A.D., and proficiently documents his material. In this chapter he demonstrates the various methods of teachings used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses):

"Who died but was never born? (Adam) Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk) Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch) Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth) How many languages are there? (Seventy-two) Who spoke with a dog? (St Peter) Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet) [u]Who was the first woman to commit adultery[/u]? ([u]Eve with the serpent[/u]) How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet)."

Now all of you anti-seedliners (and everyone knows who you are) that have been running all over the country making all kinds of snide remarks and asking, "if Two Seedline doctrine is true, why didn’t the early Church Fathers teach it"? My answer is: "they did teach it." The anti-seedliners simply haven’t done their homework! And all of you who have been following and supporting these theology quacks, don’t you think it is about time to put their feet to the fire? False teachings scatter rather than gather the sheep!

Hardinge finished this chapter by saying the following: "... The Celtic Church cherished a deep love of the Bible, and from the Epistles of St Paul developed their theology. The Psalms were used in worship, and were the inspiration of poets and preachers. Without the influence of the views of church fathers Celtic theologians set about discovering what the Scriptures meant. Their tenets and practices, based on this understanding, show the eclecticism and pragmatism of exegete and layman. The legislation of Moses pervaded social, economic, and legal relationships to an extent seldom seen in the history of other branches of the Church. Unlike the theologians of Roman Christianity who appealed more and more to the teachings of Church and councils, Celtic teachers stressed the Bible. The role of the Scriptures in Celtic Christianity was indeed a vital one, so much so that no thorough study of the beliefs and practices of the Christians of Celtic lands are possible without bearing this fact in mind."

That Eve committed adultery with the serpent was one of the tenets that the Celtic clergy taught! Over the last several years, I have piled substantial evidence on top of substantial evidence. Yet hecklers on the sidelines continue to criticize my research. It will be interesting how they will try to gainsay this evidence, but I’m sure they will attempt some asinine tactic. While some will blow everything but their nose, others will be strangely quiet!

Now for anyone who would want the above mentioned book, try contacting Teach Services, Inc. Route 1, Box 182, Brushton, NY 12916.

[url="http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/Celtic%20Church/celtic_church.htm"]http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/Celtic%20Church/celtic_church.htm[/url]

[/size][/font]

wild_bill

2005-07-26 05:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER][center][size=6][color=darkred]!! EARLY CELTIC CHURCH TAUGHT PHYSICAL SEDUCTION OF EVE!![/color][/size][/center] [/QUOTE]

Where in the Bible does it say Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent? It doesn't. This is a Kabbalistic myth taught by the satanic Jew!

But if they really believed all this. It only proves is that the Celtic Christians were in error and it wouldn't be the first time some local church fell into false teachings and needed corrected.

Where did St. Patrick, St. Brendan, or St. Columba teach any of this stuff?

Patrick

2005-07-26 13:15 | User Profile

”Where in the Bible does it say Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent? It doesn’t. This is a Kabbalistic myth taught by the satanic Jew!”

Nonsense, Bill...

.....I told you early on I would provide this information, were you to only ask; neither is this “jewish” teaching... in fact, the “jews” infiltered the “church” that they might remove such teaching from the pull pit; read this carefully, and investigate, lest ye continue railing against the truth in ignorance...

THE SERPENT SEED

Past lineage as it pertains to salvation is of little merit. If one is in Christ, then you are the children of Abraham (Galatians 3:28-29) and heirs to the promise. Most ancestry is murky in origin and this was no accident, rather it was permitted to take the emphasis off of lineage and elevate it to the spiritual level.

There are “types” given in physical terms in the Word, but more important to remember is the spiritual corruption of man, from which no lineage is exempt (Absalom would be a fine example).

We therefore read the past with the enlightened understanding that those who are elect were chosen before, and though many are and were of the seed of Jacob, there were and are now those of ALL other lineages also chosen as God’s elect.

Christ came for all men and is Kinsman Redeemer to all men. Therefore, the following is a physical type of what transpired before with the understanding that now, all lineage, which by its very definition IS blood, was redeemed by Christ Jesus’ blood.

Physical types are transcended by spiritual types, simply because the spiritual is of greatest importance both in this world and in eternity. Let, therefore, only those deceived, be offended and not those rooted in Christ Jesus.

The doctrine of the “serpent seed” has found support in some quadrants and has been disputed in others; so it behooves us to look at what the Word of God has to say on this matter.

The serpent seed doctrine consists of the belief, that satan inseminated Eve with more than knowledge [da’ath (#1847 cunning, wittingly knowing)], of good [towb (#2896 beautiful, pleasant, good in its widest application)] and evil [ra’ (#7451 wickedness, displeasure, affliction)]. More specifically, it says that:

** his insemination of her was both spiritual and physical.

** the twins she carried to term were fathered by two different beings; Abel was sired by Adam, and Cain was sired by satan.

** Cain’s progeny continued, and associated at various times, with the children of Adam throughout history.

** Cain’s progeny infiltrated and mingled in with the Israelites, and garnered high positions in leadership and in religious service.

** the damning words of our Lord concerning the children of satan, his parable of the tares, and the repeated mention of the synagogue of satan, point to more than a “spiritual” allegory.

** the lineage of satan was, and is, alive and well among the children of Israel, whom at present consist of both the Jewish and Christian peoples, whether by lineage or adoption.

The account of the deception in Eden begins in Chapter 3 of Genesis. Gen 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

The word translated as “beast” (chay #2421-”alive”) can apply to any living thing. It does not necessarily imply a “beast” or animal, and the word translated as serpent (nachash #5172) means to prognosticate, to enchant, hissing a mystery. What else are we told about this creature? He is subtle (aram #6191) meaning to make bare, as in smoothness, crafty, i.e. “he was smooth”.

Notice too, he was a created being. He also has the skill of speech. Can a snake or beast speak? That would require a miracle, greater than the one required for Balaam’s ass.

The word “nachash” is used several places in scripture where clearly, the meaning is “enchantment” and “divination”-and in other passages, it is equally clear that the translation given as a “snake”, is not even close to being appropriate. Notice in Num. 21:8, the Lord says: “Make thee a fiery serpent “saraph” (#8313) meaning “burning” or “shining”. Then, Moses complied by making a “nachash”. Here it is clear that “saraph” and “nachash” are interchangeable. No “snake” is this. A shining, fiery, cunning enchanter emerges, for the portrait of this “serpent”.

Refer to II Corinthians 11:3, where the serpent who beguiled Eve was described as an “angel of light” (v. 14).

The complete meaning of the seduction of Eve doesn’t lie has everything to do with the context and the subject being discussed in 2 Cor. 11:2-3, which is virginity. Paul is drawing a simple analogy that he would like to present the church as a pure “virgin” to her husband, unlike Eve who lost her virginity to the seduction of the Serpent. For Christians, loss of virginity lies in the spiritual seduction by antichrist. Those that give suck or are in bed with satan who is antichrist, spiritually pregnant by him instead of remaining pure virgins for the Bridegroom.

2Co 11:2 “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

He then connects the physical example with the spiritual application.

2Co 11:4 “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Even more evidence for the physical appearance, nature and history of this one, to whom Eve paid so much deference, is seen in Ezekiel Chapter 28. The “King of Tyre” or Tyrus is described clearly as a cherubim (supernatural) who dwelt in Eden.

Ezek 28:12 “…Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.”

Ezek 28:13-14 “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God… Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” and this: Ezek 28:15 “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.”

And how about this: Ezek 28:17 “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy BRIGHTNESS: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.” Note: Tyre means “rock”. We do well to recall which rock.

Deuteronomy 32:31 “For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges”.

Finally, as pertains to this “serpent’s” identity, refer to Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

The case for the serpent’s identity in the garden is devastating. What of the tree? Is the serpent, this fiery cherub, this fallen angel sitting in it, coiled around it, or merely loosely tied to it?

Scriptural evidence is overwhelming, as to the use of trees as symbolic of men and supernatural beings. Christ is called the Tree of Life by implication. The Lord likened Himself to a “green fir tree” Hosea 14:8. A tree has a trunk and limbs-as do men and angels. The word “ets” (#6086) is used for tree, and “atsah”, the prime of “ets” means to close or shut as in eyes (from wisdom). Atseh (#6096) also, is the spine or trunk.

The shades of meaning found within these related words, point to much more than a simple plant, and the depth of interpretation is dependent upon the context. The subject and object of the Eden account, clearly show that a deception - a seduction is taking place, between a knowledgeable, charismatic being, with an ulterior motive; and his prey-but not just any prey. This was a woman, one capable of being inseminated with seed, and of bearing fruit of a physical kind. Satan could corrupt her spiritually AND physically. Kill two birds with one tone (or in this case, a “tyre”).

Genesis 3:2-3 “And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (v. 3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

The phrase “neither shall ye touch it” was added according to Bullinger’s comments. Touch is “naga”, meaning, to reach out, or figuratively, “lie with a woman”. Depending on context, it also means to strike as in, to destroy. Bullinger does not indicate who added this “touch” remark. We’ll assume he meant it was inserted by the 1611 crowd.

Clearly the person(s) who added this line understood what was happening here. A “wise” male being and an innocent/naïve female=sexual danger. We can dismiss this added line, but even without it, the remaining chapter taken back into the hebrew, and referenced by other scripture, leaves no doubt as to her spiritual AND physical encounter.

Paul is not shy about this, as written in II Corinthians 11:2. Used in the context, Paul has espoused his followers as spiritual virgins to Christ. The subject is chastity, the object is keeping your virginity. Paul then, compares this to the sexual and spiritual seduction of Eve. The word exapatao (#181 , means “wholly seduced”. Can it be both physical and spiritual? The context of chapter 3 in Genesis will tell.

In Genesis 3:5, two lies are perpetrated. Satan, displaying knowledge of God’s Word, then calls God a liar. He makes the statement: “ye shall not surely die”, which departs 180 degrees from the Lord’s Word. Then he plants another lie, by twisting the Lord’s Word:

”For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

The Lord’s actual words are: Gen 3:22 “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

Notice, the Lord said AS one of us-NOT ‘one’ of us. Clearly, if Adam and Eve had become gods (immortal), then why would they need to partake of the tree of life? With these lies, satan planted the seed that would convince Eve and Adam to partake of spiritual death. Even today, people still believe that if one only acquires enough ‘knowledge’, and is a “good” person (implying that it emanates from within themselves-a form of idolatrous blasphemy), that they will attain eternal life, or that they are already immortal. Though men would never admit the antiquity of their “original” philosophies, it is clear that their corrupt thinking began from that seed planted by satan right there in Eden.

Genesis 3:6 “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat”.

This word for food is maakal (#397 : flesh, provender “good for food”, lust for flesh. The word for wise is sakal (#7919): instructed, learned, expert. Desire (#837 comes from ta’avah (#183) and avah, which means to lust after, delight in desire. In other words, she lusted after what he had to offer—his “food”. What fruit did satan have to offer? Eternal life? He HAD no eternal life to give, as he was created, and is not the Creator. He gave her what he did have....himself….the world-he is the ‘prince of this world’ as Christ is quoted as saying in John 12:31, and in two other passages. And the world is flesh. He had nothing more to offer her but the flesh and fleshly desire, and PASS IT OFF AS IMMORTALITY. The wisdom of this world is flesh, MASQUERADING AS SPIRITUAL—as the way to eternity—a lie from a created being who couldn’t deliver what he promised. “If only I acquire more knowledge”, “If only I do good”, “If only I believe in myself”—all part of the world/flesh religion perpetrated by satan. His lie had already been delivered in her mind, so it was only a small matter now for this seduced one, to willfully partake of his physical fruit. This was the one thing that he COULD deliver—his seed via the flesh—all that he (really) had. Adam also partook of it. But, SHE GAVE it to him-the same fruit she partook of. The word “eat” is ‘akal (#39 . It is a broad, generic term which can indicate ingestion, or consumption of a ental/spiritual nature. Therefore, its meaning must be derived from those words surrounding it—the context.

The words surrounding Eve’s consumption, and those leading up to her “feast”, are of a spiritual and sexual nature. Those words and context applied to Adam’s consumption, are in the same passage as hers, but if that’s unclear, then the passages that follow clarify any misunderstanding.

Genesis 3:7 “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons”.

Here’s where the nature of that fruit becomes clearer. The word for eyes is “ayin” (#5869), meaning the eye, countenance, affliction or conceit. Those eyes, their affliction, became apparent to them, open (#6491), ‘paqach’ meaning observant, knowing. And they knew they were ‘naked’. This word is interesting. It is ‘eyrom’ (#5903); compare to ‘arowm’ (#6174) AROWM implies an innocence as seen in this passage:

Genesis 2:25 “And they were both NAKED, the man and his wife, and were NOT ashamed”.

Looking at these other passages where the word arowm is used, the context and word itself are very simply “naked” as in the flesh., or open to view as in the one reference given below to hell. 1 Sam 19:24/Job 1:21/Job 22:6/Job 24:7/Job 24:10/Job 26:6/Eccl 5:15/Isa 20:2/Isa 20:3/Isa 20:4/Isa 58:7/Hosea 2:3/Amos 2:16/Micah 1:8.

Notice though, the use of eyrom (#5903) “Eyrom implies from passages and from its root aram (# 6191), a thing of shame, beyond that implied by nudity. Nudity is humbling— not shameful. Aram means bareness, as a function of smoothness, cunning, prudent, wise, SUBTILE. ARAM IS THE SAME WORD TRANSLATED AS “SUBTILE” AND USED TO DESCRIBE THE SERPENT. This worldly subtilty is shameful, and is used in connection with whoredom of idolatry, as in Ezekiel 23:29, where the passage reads:

”...naked and bare, and the nakedness of your whoredoms...”the first naked is “eyrom” or shameful world-lust. The 2 words, bare and nakedness are from ervah , (# 6172)which is more specifically, disgrace-and pointedly, the pudenda. Pudenda refers specifically to the female external sex organs. Here and in three other passages : Ezek 16:7/Ezek 16:22/Ezek 16:39, the word eyrom is tied to ervah, this disgrace of a sexual nature.

The connection between spiritual seduction and sexual intercourse is also made evident, from the use of fig leaves (a sweet fruit—a sign of worldly prosperity); and where this apron was placed on the anatomy. Figs are greenish, inconspicuous fruit that are hidden among large leaves of like color, until they ripen. Adam and Eve used leaves from a tree that signifies worldliness to hide their “fruit”. The word for apron is chagowr (#2290) from (# 2296) chagar = a belt to gird on, to restrain. A belt of figs; therefore an apron. Aprons cover the pudenda—the sex organs..

Why would a spiritual lie cause sexual shame if the fruit satan offered had no consequences beyond a spiritual death? These people were humiliated, and did not want to face their Lord-because they believed a damnable lie, and because they exposed their pudenda-their seed-NOT to each other as was God’s will, but to a liar and he whose name is DEATH. In other words, they got screwed! Big Time. In more ways than one.

They were devastated. Physical consequences which are a RESULT of sin, (understand, not all physical manifestations are the result of sin), but ALWAYS are PRECEDED by spiritual corruption. He corrupted her soul…and then the natural course was physical…one thing leads to another…

Satan’s M.O. continued thereafter and is seen again: With what did satan tempt our own Lord, Christ? With physical things. Not everlasting life...not spiritual things...physical comforts/temptations. Remember, this man was starving, and at the point of physical death, after nearly 6 weeks of fasting. The first temptation was bread….a starving man thinks of little else. The second was an appeal to break God’s own Word-”Oh they’ll catch you”, as satan twisted the words of Psalms 91:12. And here, to a man who was weakened, to the point where he could barely KEEP Himself from falling. Then, the third temptation: kingdoms of this world-in exchange for the soul of Life Himself. This was not sexual-after all, Christ was a man-satan’s physical tares/seed had been flourishing for many years hence. But note carefully the worldly offers.

Too, it’s appropriate here to note that for the same reason Christ was not tempted with a sexual seduction, that Adam did not partake of that fruit. This is clearly stated in I Timothy:

1 Timothy 2:13-14 “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” (v.14) “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Deceived is apataoà BUT, the texts of the original manuscripts reads exapatao. And we know what that means! She partook of the spiritual AND physical actà. Adam therefore, partook of the spiritual seed, not (most likely) the physical act (homosexuality).

1 Timothy 2:15 “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” Notice: this verse is inexorably tied to verse 14, being of the same subject; moreover, the act of childbirth is a function of SEXUALITY. Therefore, it is CLEAR, that Eve committed a SEXUAL act with satan, which was evidenced in the fig apron covering the pudenda. Adam also wore an apron, so he in all likelihood “joined in the fun” by copying the act that satan performed, after witnessing the seduction of Eve.

Genesis 3:13 “And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” The word beguiled is nasha (#5377), to seduce. Other uses of beguile: Gen 29:25/Num 25:18/Josh 9:22 do not use ‘nasha’. Their words convey betrayal and treachery, not seduction. ‘Nasha’, used in still other passages, is interpreted as a more generalized deception. She says in the strongest terms possible-”I was seduced”. Still think the physical act didn’t or couldn’t occur? Then read this:

Genesis 6:2 “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Gen 6:4 “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

It is widely acknowledged that the “sons of God” are angels. These angels are called ‘giants’. This word is nephilim (#5303) from the root ‘naphal’ (#5307) meaning to fall away, outcast ones. Fallen angels mating with the daughters of Adam. Producing hybrids-and this was against God’s will. Noah and his family were all that was left of the adamic race, who were untainted in lineage. Hence, the purpose of the flood-to cleanse the tainted adamic line-the line through whom the Messiah would come. If fallen angels can have sexual intercourse with women, then why not the RINGLEADER? And the best way to spoil the gene pool is to start with the mother of all adamics. WHO sowed the seed in Genesis? The devil, that old dragon, the serpent.

Are you getting around to the “serpent seed doctrine?” Well, why wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t you kind of get around to the serpent seed stuff? Well, I heard that, that is a very bad doctrine. Well you have been lied to! Do you know what the first prophecy of the Bible is? Have you never read it? I asked you a question. Do you know what the first prophecy of the Bible is?

Let’s test you out. Let’s check you out and see if you have the knowledge. You will find it in Chapter 3 of Genesis and let’s start at verse 14 so that it brings you up to speed and you know whom we are talking about. This is just AFTER the “serpent” has beguiled Eve.

GENESIS 3:14 And it reads: “And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle,” that means beings, creatures, “and above every beast of the field:” every creature of the world, “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:”

It is a statement of degradation. Do you know what “serpent” means being translated? “The glistening one,” the “upright one.” Well, who is the serpent? Haven’t you ever read the New Testament? It is the DEVIL. The old serpent, the dragon. Read; Revelation 20:1 & 2. Read; Revelation 12:6 and it will give you all of satan’s names basically that pertain to the prophecy we now speak. Don’t be lost, learn the truth and it WILL set you FREE!

There is more to God’s word than you have been taught. Now these are the words of Almighty God, listen to them. Who is He speaking to? The “serpent.” Satan’s role as the deceiver, the hypnotizer, the beguiler that is how snakes take their prey; they hypnotize them and take them.

3:15 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,” that is to say, between the serpent and the woman, “and between thy seed” Now, who are we talking about? The serpent and his what? His SEED, CHILDREN! “And her seed:” that is to say, Her CHILDREN! “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” That is the prophecy where Christ’s “heels” were nailed to that cross. And, so it is!

The deception began forth with that prophecy, the VERY FIRST ONE! Then you got Sunday school after Sunday school that will teach contrary to God’s word and the teachings of Jesus Christ, “she ate an apple, yep, and then tossed Adam one.” It’s not even written in God’s word.

Do you know something? You will not even find it in Mythology. It is MADE UP! NOT BIBLICAL! And, if you do not understand the parable we just read, you are not going to understand any, I mean NONE AT ALL, NADA! Nothing of Christ’s parables, with any depth. There we have it…his seed and her seed. The progeny of Adam getting bruised in the heel, but satan’s seed getting it to the head-his plans, aspirations-everything. This “seed” is too clear to dismiss as something allegorical or strictly spiritual. This was the beginning of it. Cain was the bad “fig” they hid in the same womb as the good “fig” Abel, and Cain was the first liar and murderer-of his own brother-though not of the same father. And Cain’s father was the first murderer of souls and a practiced liar. Paternal twins, meaning of two different fathers and the same mother.

Genesis 4:1-2 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (v.2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

She had ‘gotten’ a man—qanah—means to purchase, and in all the passages where it is used, it is bought/purchased—not given; not a gift.

Furthermore, the word for Cain—quayin, doesn’t directly mean “purchased” but is from #7013 a spear—and from #6969 quwn—to strike a note, as in lamentation. The name Cain and the word “gotten” play upon one another, but are not exclusively defined by one another. She states she received “a man from the LORD.” Blatantly, if you were seduced by someone that was so beautiful and sensuous and clearly very bright, as an “angel of light,” (II Corinthians 11:14), and “shinning” then you too would think it was from God and not the opposite.

That is until you learn the truth, as she and Adam did as shown later on by their embarrassment, so let’s continue.

The word “again” is (#3254) yacaph meaning to continue doing something. She continued in her bearing—hence twins. Conceived at or very near the same time. It is not unheard of for twins to be sired via different fathers, and it is a very common occurrence in the animal kingdom. Abel is from ‘Hebel’ (#1893) & (#1892) transitory, empty, vain. The contrast in names is interesting. It appears that the meaning of Cain’s name could have been understood at his birth and perhaps Abel’s too-there are certainly enough examples of persons for whom their names proved prophetic. Abel was in fact, transient, as he left no offspring, and his death a great ‘emptiness’ to his parents.

Another example of Cain’s unusual origins, often interpreted as strictly of a spiritual nature:

I John 3:12 “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”

Notice, that the greek word ‘of’ is (#1537) ‘ek’. This word is used to describe those things which ‘emanate from the origin’. Picture a circle, with a line extending from a point in the center that proceeds outward. ‘Ek’ can refer to time or space, but also to generative functions as seen in these passages: Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:9; 19:12; Luke 1:27; 2:4; 3:8; John 3:6. It is a generic term in many passages, yet of all the prepositions translated ‘of’, ‘ek’ is the word which describes the innermost depth of spiritual and physical origins; the ‘bowels’ of whatever is described, with few exceptions existing, including those passages where the subject is time.

Looking at the passages surrounding this one in I John, the subject is clearly to distinguish between God’s children and satan’s kids: I John 3:8-10 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (v.9) Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (v.10) In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”

One might casually interpret these passages as ‘spiritual’ in the strictest sense, UNTIL, it is recognized that two oddities exist. One: a specific man is named, who is clearly listed as NOT of Adam’s progeny and is ‘of the wicked one’ in the deepest sense of origins. Two: and more striking, is that virtually all NT passages using the word ‘seed’ that apply this word in a spiritual context have it as (#4703) ‘sporos’, which is defined as a scattering or sowing of something. Passages using ‘seed’ that express lineage or generative function use almost exclusively the word (#4690) ‘sperma’, defined as male sperm or in the strictest sense of physical seed such as seen in a plant. Both ‘sporos’ and ‘sperma’ share a root - (#4687) ‘speiro’, yet the context in which these two words are used shows a clear distinction.. Here then, in these ‘strictly spiritual’ passages listed above, what could be the reason for the word for seed given as ‘sperma’?

Lineage, along with the specifics given of a man (Cain), show us that more than a spiritual distinction is given-the physical connection becomes clearer.

Genesis 4:9 “And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”

The word ‘Keeper’ is (#8104) shamar to shepherd, observe, protect. Since this ‘one’ was Abel’s brother, then it would naturally follow that he should be associated with him, and at the least bear some responsibility for his welfare. So for him to have said in effect, ‘He’s my brother, but I have no care for him’, is both a twisted statement of incongruous terms, and a telling indictment—same womb—different seed. Even so, they were half-brothers; therefore, Cain is a liar, (for his denial of his fraternal responsibility), and for saying he didn’t know where Abel was—gee, that makes two lies doesn’t it? Sounds like that serpent in Eden, (who spoke those two lies back in Gen 3:4-5). He is a murderer too... he didn’t learn that from his parents...and can’t say he had a bad home.

We know genes aren’t all that influential in one’s thinking and behavior-but the soul that was created before the flesh came into being, had a behavior and history all its own-and free will to act on impulses. Here is the curse that Cain earned:

Genesis 4:12 “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” No luck at farming. A wanderer with no nation to call his own. So he would have to mingle with and depend upon the nations built by others, for his home and livelihood.

(#5110) nuwd: vagabond, to wander, to flee, to mourn. Obviously, not a good thing to be. (#5128)—nuwa, fugitive, to continually be on the run, to waver—be on the move.

Genesis 4:15-16 “And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. (v.16) And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”

This “mark” (#226), is from the word “owth.” There are numerous words in scripture that are translated as “mark” yada (#3045), mattara (#4307), ra’ah (#7200), qashab (#7181), shamar (#8104), miphga (#4645), biyn (#995). Several words are distinct in meaning from one another, others differ by shades of meaning. Owth is clearly identified as a ‘sign’ and ‘token’, and is used in many passages, to signify prophetic events that are pointed to, and those pertaining to covenants. Only once, is this word used as ‘ensign’, in Numbers 2:2, where in all other passages, ‘ensign’ is derived from nec/nacac and is specifically a flag or flagstaff.

So the word “owth” used for the mark upon Cain, is not a physical manifestation, rather it is more damning—a sign for all time, prophetic and lasting, for him, and for his progeny, his “seed” his “children” the only translation in the Hebrew for this is ‘Kenite’ which means exactly and ONLY that, the “sons of Cain.” A sign meant for all those of God’s people to ‘mark’ Cain and his seed well. Also, we are not to kill them-else God Himself will avenge. Other passages clearly indicating the will of God concerning these people is written in Jeremiah 35: Jeremiah 35:2 “Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.”

And who are these Rechabites?

1 Chronicles 2:55 “And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”

Interestingly, the word Hemath is used interchangeably with the name Hamath, which is situated just north of Damascus, Syria. References made to Hamath, indicate that these people were descendants of the Canaanites Genesis 10:18. Canaan, of course, being the cursed son of Ham. So, the Kenites lived in the land that belonged to the Canaanites.

KENITE, by definition, is literally, “Sons of Cain”. From (#7014) “Qayin”. Rechab was a kenite and his son Jonadab was their acknowledged leader.

Jeremiah 35:5-10 “And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine... (v.6) But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: (v. 7) Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. (v. 10) But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.”

Notice, the Lord commanded Jeremiah to set wine before the Kenites-in the HOUSE of GOD. They did not drink out of unswerving loyalty to THEIR father. Nor did they farm, or build homes or cities-wanderers living off the land of others-exactly like Cain as was ordered by God. What wine is drunk in God’s House? The wine of His covenant. And later, the wine of His new covenant-the blood. God’s covenant with His people and His blood, partaken of by His children. These children of another father would not partake of such a covenant.

One naïve reference I read likens the Rechabites to Nazarites because of their abstinence from wine, and claims that these Kenites hated Baal worship because of Jehonadab/Jonadab’s alliance with Jehu, an Israelite king. Jehu was one of the most bloodthirsty kings of Israel, and was denounced because he refused to rid the land of all idolatry. This indicates that the king only rid the land of Baal worship because it afforded him an opportunity to do battle-not because his heart was right! There is NO evidence scripturally, to support the claim that the Rechabites were Baal-haters-only that Jehonadab saw a favorable alliance, and took advantage of it. Remember, the Rechabites had no territory, and led a nomadic existence. They depended on their alliances to support them. Mercenary work was one good way to ensure survival.

Taking the Kenites’ abstinence from wine as comparable to the oath of a Nazarite, one who has sworn an oath to God, is both taken out of context and is very dangerous. The reason as to why our Father, the true God, had the Kenites brought in to the Lord’s House, is given in the following scriptures:

Jeremiah 35:14 “The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey THEIR FATHER’S commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you (Israel), rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me.”

Jeremiah 35:18-19 “And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab YOUR FATHER, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: (v. 19) Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.”

The Lord was using the example of the Kenites’ loyalty to THEIR FATHER, as a way of embarrassing the children of Israel, who were stiff-necked and not obedient to God, their Father, soddish children. The Lord then promises that the Kenites will never lack for leadership, in the midst of not only the Israelites and their descendants, but IN THE HOUSE OF GOD. Why? Where did all this take place? Outside by some well? Out in some field? In a barroom? NO. In the House of GOD. This was done to HAUNT the Israelites for all time whilst in the flesh. A glaring humiliation so that they would not forget. But they forgot anyway. There is even a rabbinic tradition which claims that the daughters of Rechab married the sons of Levitical priests! (Nelson’s bible dictionary). God didn’t set Kenites in the temple for Israel to embrace! These are the children of Rechab, who was the descendant of Cain, who was the son of satan. Not a smart move to marry God’s priests to the children of CAIN!

Tracing the descendants of Cain, requires noting that his progeny was not included in that of Adam’s descendants, (Genesis Chapter 5). This was no glaring oversight, or ‘punishment’ for the murder of Abel. Regardless of what Cain did, IF he was Adam’s son, then his offspring would still be counted among Adam’s.

There are plenty abominable acts recorded throughout the Word, as committed by heinous men, whose lineage is clear. Yet these men, were not cast aside as no longer of their father. This complete dismissal of Cain is another clear indication that he was NOT Adam’s son. Another interesting note is at verse 3 of Chapter 5. Notice the distinction of; “a son in his own likeness, after his image and called his name Seth.” Implying here as opposed to Cain that Seth was made in the image or likeness of Adam. This use of likeness and image is more receptive or condusive of a father and his son. More impressive is it was in his “OWN” likeness. Not of someone elses. Cain is not Adam’s Son! People can deny it all they want but truth is truth.

Genesis 4:16 “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”

The presence of the Lord (paniym #6440). This verse and the verses before it, speak of the terribleness of this fate, when Cain says in Genesis 4:14:”...from thy face shall I be hid”. “Hid” is: (#5641) cathar; to hide, be absent. And this word ‘face’ is the same as that for presence—paniym. He would be absent from and unable to approach the face of God—whether he set foot in God’s tabernacle, or not. Nod is (#5713) ‘nowd’, and signifies only ‘vagrancy’ and ‘exile’, not a specific geographical land. The word for East is qidmah (#6926); ‘forward’; and from (#6924) qedem & (#6923) qedmah: ‘ancient time’, ‘past’, ‘everlasting’. So, Cain was exiled from entering God’s presence, His favor—away from Him; more a spiritual exile than geographical, but “on the east of Eden” tells us that it is also a geographical distance. Most scholars believe the land of Nod to have been what is now known as Outter Mongolia, to the East.

Genesis records Cain’s progeny in 4:17-24, where six generations are given: Cain-Enoch-Irad-Mehujael-Lamech-and Lamech’s sons: Jubal and Tubalcain. The next time we read of them is in this passage:

Numbers 24:21-22 “And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock. Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.”

Asshur, Son of Shem, and ancestor of the Assyrians, and a type of antichrist used in Isaiah; Gen_10:11; Gen_10:22; 1Ch_1:17; Eze_32:22; Balaam, the prophet of God, allows Balak, to see what will occur to several peoples at the time of the end-the latter days. He prophesizes concerning the fate of the Kenites - the descendants or sons of Cain. The word for nest is (#7064) ‘qen’, a fixed dwelling in a rock (#5553) ‘cela’ which is defined as a craggy rock, an impenetrable fortress. We know that a ‘fixed dwelling’ can’t refer to the Kenites’ physical habitation, since they are wanderers and nomads, and have no fixed nation for themselves. They must provide services to others for their livelihood. This ‘nest’ in the ‘rock’ refers to the source of their strength and their trust.

So in what ‘rock’ do these people trust?

Deuteronomy 32:27-30 “Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the LORD hath not done all this. (v. 28) For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. (v. 29) O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! (v. 30) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?”

Moses speaks of the enemy’s boasting v. 27, “of whom if Israel fell would say it was their doing and not God’s”. He then talks about Israel’s forgetfulness, forgetting Israel’s ROCK, the source of their strength and life.

Deuteronomy 32:31-37 “FOR THEIR ROCK IS NOT AS OUR ROCK, EVEN OUR ENEMIES THEMSELVES BEING JUDGES. (v. 32) For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: (v. 33) Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. (v. 34) Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures? (v. 35) To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. (v. 36) For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that THEIR POWER IS GONE, AND THERE IS NONE SHUT UP, OR LEFT. (v. 37) And he shall say, Where are their gods, THEIR ROCK in whom they trusted,”

Moses speaks of Israel’s enemies, as evidenced in the subject-change. The one in whom the foe places their hope is a “false” one, distinguished from the True. He speaks of the eventual downfall of the enemy-but not until Israels’ descendants are at their weakest-no protection-His remnant-His elect killed or all but almost gone. That refers to the latter days. THEN, He will avenge, and take His kingdom-for good. This Deut 32 passage is the Song of Moses. It is referred to in:

Revelation 15:3 “And they sing the SONG OF MOSES the servant of God, and the SONG OF THE LAMB, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.”

That ‘rock’ in whom the enemy trusts is the same as that in whom the Kenites build their ‘nest’ as described in Numbers 24. That ‘King of Tyre’ or ‘Tyrus’ which means “rock,” from Ezekiel 28, but is a ‘false’ rock.

We know that these ‘sons of Cain’ dwelt in close proximity to others due to their nomadic existence. They were highly dependent upon their neighbors. The scriptures give more specific information and clues to how Israel related to them:

Genesis 15:18-21 “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (v.19) The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, (v.20) And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, (v.21) And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

This passage is rather broad in the territory occupied, which includes many peoples, but the Word gets more specific:

1 Samuel 15:5-6 “And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. (v.6) And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.”

Here, the specifics of their location is undeniable...they were among the Amalekites, dwelling within their cities. The location of this stronghold that Saul and his men took without mercy is given by the following reference: Eventually, the Amalekites gained a mountain in the land of Ephraim. King Saul of Israel won this area back and then chased the Amalekites from the land <1 Sam. 14:48; 15:1-9>. (from Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers). The other note to be taken mention of is in the fact of how the Kenites “snuggled” up to the Israelites and maintained a contineous relationship.

Ephraim’s territory at that time was situated just north of Jerusalem, and west of the Jordan (Hammond’s Atlas of the Bible Lands, 1984). Of course, that territory was Canaanite, prior to the Israelite claim to it; and it has already been established that the Kenites dwelt among the Canaanites, prior to the Israelite exodus. Therefore, the Kenites were well situated to dwell among the Israelites; and since they had previously ‘shown kindness’ to the Israelites; they were (therefore) spared a worse fate than their hosts. Again, the kindness of these Kenites is largely due to their dependence upon others for their living. Had they any substantial holdings, or land to defend, it is highly unlikely that any ‘kindness’ would have been bestowed; since they would be meeting up with a people, who were instructed to conquer and show no deference to any in their path, to acquire land. A nomadic people would, however, stand to gain much by being generous and snuggling up to their “paternal” brethren.

The fact is also shown that in fact as they themselves stated in John Chapter 8 that they never were in captivity by the Egyptians like their brother Judah. The term “Jew” in the Greek; Ioudaios, (ee-oo-day’-yos) (2453), has only two meanings and are inclusive of both in the translation and are; one, being of the tribe of Judah and two, being a person that lives in the land of Judea. Not the same as the Hebrew; “yehudhi.”

Another indicator of where these Kenites settled: 1 Samuel 30:26-31 “And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD;...(v.29) And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites, (v.30) And to them which were in Hormah, and to them which were in Chorashan, and to them which were in Athach, (v.31) And to them which were in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.”

These locations are in southern Judah, and again, show the intermingling and close relationship of the Kenites and their host territories, since David’s men were ‘wont to haunt’ these places.

1 Chronicles 2:55 “And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”

And here it is seen, as recorded in Chronicles (written after Judah’s captivity), that the Rechabites (a branch of Kenites) were ‘employed’ as scribes. The record of this ‘employment’ is later than the incident of their “invitation” into the House of God as described in Jeremiah (before the Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians). It is unclear, however, as to the exact period of their first employment. It is possible, that the role of scribeship was bestowed upon these Kenites, after the “invitation” as recorded in Jeremiah. Such an “invitation”, would have paved the way for these sons of Cain, to gain this important job; and therefore, put the priesthood within their reach. This is tenable, if the rabbinic tradition of Rechabite women marrying Levitical priests holds true.

It should be clear that the Kenites were in close proximity to the Israelites and to the Canaanites, and that these Kenites regularly carried out their daily affairs with both peoples. The Canaanites consisted of several tribes: Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Amorites and Gibeonites. The last mentioned is particularly interesting, (#1391) Gibown, same as (#1387) Geba, which is the same as (#1368) Gibbowr — Geber. These ‘Geber’ were the offspring of the influx of fallen angels as described in Genesis chapter 6, where it is stated:

Genesis 6:4 “There were giants in the earth in those days; AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men...(#120) ‘adam’ and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men of renown.”

One must pay strict attention in the use of pronoun and noun, verb and adverbs in this particular verse in Genesis. The use of the words “giants” and of “the sons of God” used together along with the term “mighty men” strictly implicates a realtionship in that we have these words where one describes the other and is thus not confusing the word “Geber” or “Gibbowr” with the other uses throughout scripture of just valiant or mighty warriors. Thus making these particular “Geber” which is the translation here for “mighty men” more than just “Geber” as used elsewhere in scripture to denote strong or warrior types. Used in conjunction with the term “giants” or in the Hebrew “Nphiyl,” (nef-eel’); from the prime root word (#5307), “naphal,” (naw-fal’); “ to fall in a great variety of applications, i.e. to cast down,” when used with the term, “sons of God” or “ben-elohiym, (bane-el-o-heem’), indicates the fallen angels or Nephilim, thus concluding that they in fact were of the fallen angels that “came unto the daughters of men,” and produced offspring that are called the “Geber” (or ‘Gibbowr #1368), here in this verse that separates the rest of the uses of the words “mighty men” throughout scripture giving them a more superiority than just a strong, valliant or warrior type person, but one also of angelic or superior being descent.

It is only fitting that the ‘sons of cain’ who are the progeny of satan, would ‘hang out’ with the ‘sons of the nephilim’ AND, the sons of Canaan, the cursed son of Ham.

Apparently, the Kenites found a better name and job among the ‘sons of Israel’. Very advantageous and clever of them to hide among the Israelites and acquire their status and ‘blessing’. Then, in Chronicles, to be listed as scribes to the priests of YHVH. Quite a leap. Followed by the rabbinic tradition holding that the daughters of the Rechabites married the sons of Levi (SOME) who were the Lord’s very priests! That would easily put SOME Kenite progeny in the seat of Moses:

Matthew 23:2 “Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat...”

So...what did our Lord have to say while He walked in the flesh, concerning these sons of the devil? John 8:32 “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:33 “They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?”

The Lord is addressing the pharisees - those who sit in Moses’ seat - but not ALL the pharisees, since not all were present at our Lord’s side. Mostly, those present were out to catch Him in His Words or spy on Him for others who ‘sit in the seat of Moses’ as mentioned in the following passage:

Luke 20:19-20 “And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people...(v. 20) And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words...”

So, our Lord was speaking to and in the presence of a few select men, and this next passage further defines those to whom He addresses:

John 8:37 “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”

If the Kenites wiggled their way into the camps of Israel as shown before in this study, then it would be logical that yes, intermarriage would have occurred. Therefore, it was a true statement that the sons of Cain/satan had mingled their bloodline with that of Adam/Israel. NO great feat however! Most of the children of Israel were NOT tainted with satan’s seed, keep that in mind and make note of it.

Notice, Christ acknowledges that these few who taunt/bait and spy on Him are ‘children of Abraham’, yet the Baptist shows them (and us) how insignificant a thing this is:

Matthew 3:9 “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

Father doesn’t need us or anyone else to do His will-He could use anything He pleases. Yet, it pleases Him to privilege us with His work, for us to grow and to appreciate and delight in His will. Christ cuts to the chase with His damning indictment of these so-called ‘children of Abraham’:

John 8:39 “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.”

Point number one made by our Sovereign! Followed by...

John 8:40 “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.”

Point number two scored by the Way, the Truth and the Life everlasting Himself. He shoots point blank here:

John 8:41 “Ye do the deeds of your father.”

Make no mistake, they understood Him COMPLETELY, and were NOT ignorant of what He said. How do we know that? Look at their response! “Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”

Their response is one that could only have been made after having understood what our Lord was implying. “Born of fornication” implies idolatry—that one is a ‘bastard’, not of Israel. Further, they stated that their father is GOD. If they had understood our Lord to have meant that they were only foreigners then why make the spiritual statement concerning the God of Israel, who created all creatures and therefore is the ‘father of us all’?

Therefore, they clearly understood that ‘another’ had also fathered a people. There’s an old latin expression: “Those who excuse themselves, accuse themselves”. These are those ‘tares’ of whom our Lord spoke growing up among the wheat that were planted by the enemy Matthew 13:24-40.

Then, the Author and the Finisher of our Faith strikes the most Telling blow:

John 8:42-45 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. You would love me...because I AM HE, of whom YOU claim to serve. (v. 43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. “

They chose to not understand His Word...because it would reveal them to the people.

(v. 44) “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (v. 45) And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.”

Christ gets right down where the rubber meets the road. This is Christ’s teaching not mine or anybody else’s. This is why it can be documented that they are Kenites. Duh, the “beginning,” now, where was that? The garden of course, when the first murder was done. Who was that first murderer? ONE answer. NO multiple choices. There is only ONE and you should know. The first murderer was “Cain” and his children are Kenites.

Well, isn’t Jesus just speaking spiritually? ABSOLUTELY NOT! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Have you never read the word of God? Jesus taught a parable, did you know that? And, He said; IF you do not understand this ONE parable you are NOT going to understand ANY of My parables. That parable of course, was the parable of the sower.

The seed that was sown or broadcast was the word, the truth, the truth that makes you free. Our Kinsman Redeemer spends a little more time with the sons of satan:

John 8:47-49 “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” Touche.

(v. 48) “Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? (v. 49) Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.”

Interestingly enough, YHVH’s Only One doesn’t answer their attempt to insult Him as regarding the Samaritan comment. He was after all, the Son of Man...taking upon Himself the kinship of all men. Reading the remainder of the chapter, it is clear that Christ doesn’t back down from His claim of Divinity and in fact He gained steam and further badgered the bastards of satan. Not for the faint of heart. Note: the word JEWS used in the above passage implies only the location of these citizens, NOT LINEAGE.

They SAID they were jews-but how many really were of Judah’s lineage or even of Israel? Christ went into much more detail about their father the devil, and how they got here on earth in the first place. In the great book of Matthew Chapter 13. This is for you to know this is the teaching of Jesus Christ. Not some man, and not some misfit. It is the simplicity of the doctrine of Christ.

The parable of the tares sown among the wheat is so clear in its target and who the enemy is, needs little explanation:

Matthew 13:24-26 “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (v. 25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. (v. 26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.”

The enemy is certainly he whose name MEANS adversary, i.e. “satan”. Tares, as Bullinger comments upon in the Companion bible are: “‘zewan’ a grain that resembles wheat until it is full-grown. THEN, its black color reveals it among the golden wheat.

Unless weeded out before harvest, the zewan will impart a bitter taste to the wheat and is said to be poisonous.”

Interesting too, what our Lord says concerning what is to be done with these ‘tares’ - these children of satan, both those of his spiritual and physical seed:

Matthew 13:29-30 “But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. (v. 30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”

Continuation of the point made by God in Genesis 4:15, marked so that they are not harmed; (from v.15) “...lest any finding him should kill him.”

Matthew 13:35-36. Jesus has just given the “parable of the sower” and then He speaks of the “tares” that looks just like wheat growing only they are fake. They are false. It is poisonous, “hemah,” in Hebrew, and “Ios” (ee-os’); in the Greek tongue. Physically, the man who fathered them was the first murderer and liar. Clearly, this is Cain. But since Cain was satan’s offspring, then the statement takes on a twofold meaning more terrible than first recognized.

What are you saying about this then? Well, The “serpent seed.” I heard that was a bad doctrine. WELL, Christ, Almighty God taught it! We just read it. I would be VERY careful in listening to someone that would call God a liar. Or that His teachings are a false doctrine. I would be VERY SUSPICIOUS of someone that would go against the word of God. Why? They are going to the lake of fire, where are you going?

Let’s go to MATTHEW 13:35; first, in verse 34 it speaks that He speaks in parables and that only the wise would understand.

(v.35) “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Of course this “foundation” is the “Katabole,” or the overthrow of satan, which, destroyed the first earth age and brought this one into being. If you are not familiar with that and if you have a Companion Bible it is in appendix 146 and will fill you in.

”Been kept secret.” Why? Because people would not understand. Many of you do, praise God for you.

13:36 “Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came to him, saying, declare to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

Not even His own disciples understood. Now listen. He is going to explain the parable He is NOT going to speak in one. He is going to explain this in such a way that a child could understand it. Let’s see if you can. Do you have ears to hear?

Paul would say in 2nd Corinthians; now listen and take notes, start at the end of 2 Corinthians 11:2.....”I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

11:3 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent,” THE DEVIL, WHOLLY SEDUCED; “EXAPATAO,” (ex-ap-at-ah’-o), “BEGUILED, Eve through his subtlety.”

YOU GOT THAT? What does that mean? Well, I don’t know, how do you lose your virginity, friend? Christ teaches in such a way that most people can understand and so did Paul. I will quote that scripture again for your documentation. 2nd Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 2 & 3.

If this were not clear enough, the Lord goes on to say it point blank for his disciples’ ears:

Matthew 13:37-40 “He answered and said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;”

In other words, the good children that God put on this earth, the races and the Adamic peoples, that God Himself created and brought them into being. (6th day “races” in: Genesis 1:26-31. AND 8th day “Adamic” in: Genesis 2:5 and then 2:15-20).

13:38 “The field is the world;” This is the world He created them in and created the beasts of the fields, in the beginning; remember, in the beginning? ”The good seed are the children, of the kingdom;” OH, we are talking about people, yes we are. “ But the tares are the children of the wicked one;” OHHHHHHHH, WOW! Who is THE “wicked one?” Well, let Jesus tell you so that you don’t have to wonder.

13:39 “The enemy that sowed them is the devil;” Do you want to know why the other “father;” in John 8:44 is in LOWER CASE? Well, there you have it. ”The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.” (v. 40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.” In other words, this goes all the way to the end of the Millennium, because even the Kenites will have an opportunity if they believe and love our Father. To come out of that.

Wait, WHO sowed the seed? The devil, that old dragon, the serpent. Are you getting around to the “serpent seed doctrine?” Well, why wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t you kind of get around to the serpent seed stuff? Well, I heard that, that is a very bad doctrine. Well you have been lied to!

Want to comment on the statement made on the “physical and spiritual seed of satan”.

Christians speak of the seed of Jacob being Israel. This is physical obviously. We also speak of the adoption of others grafted into Israel. These verses speak of the adoption of the gentiles engrafted into the Body of Christ:

Acts 11:18; Acts 13:48; Acts 15:7-9; Acts 15:17; Acts 26:17-18....and these: Romans 3:29 “Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also...” 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” Ephesians 3:6 “That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel”

The point is this: We know that satan is a mimic in all he does, though his mark sets him apart and in contrast to Christ. If Israel consists of the seed and the adopted seed, then it should be clear that satan also has a seed (physical) to serve him in his ‘kingdom’ as ‘prince of this world’ as well as an adopted seed (spiritual) consisting of other races along with that portion of Jacob who have chosen satan’s lot.

Not to digress...since it disturbs folks to know that in the words of our Counselor, but...

Matthew 10:34-36 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (v. 35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (v. 36) And a man’s foes shall be they of his OWN HOUSEHOLD.”

A sword divides and knocks people off the fence. Then, the tares are more readily distinguished from the wheat. Remember, Christ said of the Laodiceans:

Revelation 3:15-16 “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. (v. 16) So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I wi

wild_bill

2005-07-26 16:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]”Where in the Bible does it say Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent? It doesn’t. This is a Kabbalistic myth taught by the satanic Jew!”

Nonsense, Bill...

.....I told you early on I would provide this information, were you to only ask; neither is this “jewish” teaching... in fact, the “jews” infiltered the “church” that they might remove such teaching from the pull pit; read this carefully, and investigate, lest ye continue railing against the truth in ignorance... [/QUOTE]

The problem is that what you advocate here contradicts 2,000 years of Christian tradition. That's really the main issue. Show me any of the Church fathers who advocated this seedline theology. I never even heard of any who did.

Patrick

2005-07-26 17:14 | User Profile

”The problem is that what you advocate here contradicts 2,000 years of Christian tradition. That’s really the main issue. Show me any of the Church fathers who advocated this seedline theology. I never even heard of any who did.”

Horsespit, Bill...

.....You cannot dismiss the facts of the above post in such cavalier fashion; you continue to offer the same tired nonsense when you are “supposed”, (according to this sorry thread title, at any rate), to be exposing this teaching as “cultic”, of which, it is the furthest thing! You offer nothing in the way of factual refutation, nor a single Scripture that refutes this position; are we to take your hand-waving word for it and cling to this nonsensical “tradition”, (of which, you were warned by Our Christ Himself), that you cannot even delineate?! I take Scripture far more seriously than to merely cite some contrived dearth of teaching as reason to disbelieve in the reality of that which I posted above; can you, or can you not, Sir, offer refutation to the facts above? You have yet to offer your first shred of evidence to "expose" this supposed "heretical cult"; as such, your "contributions herein are less than lame...

wild_bill

2005-07-27 03:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]”The problem is that what you advocate here contradicts 2,000 years of Christian tradition. That’s really the main issue. Show me any of the Church fathers who advocated this seedline theology. I never even heard of any who did.”

Horsespit, Bill...

.....You cannot dismiss the facts of the above post in such cavalier fashion; you continue to offer the same tired nonsense when you are “supposed”, (according to this sorry thread title, at any rate), to be exposing this teaching as “cultic”, of which, it is the furthest thing! [/QUOTE]

I think the problem for you is that the entire Identity approach assumes any antagonist is a Protestant, whom you attempt to convince through sola Scriptura tactics that the Bible says something other than what that person had thought. But when dealing with an Orthodox or Catholic person this tactic doesn't work, since merely spinning Scripture is not enough, no matter how cleverly its done. Such Christians are always restricted in any interpretations by the traditions of the Church, which means Scripture is only interpreted within certain limits as decreed by the Ecumenical Councils and as accepted by concensus by the Church Fathers down through history. So when I tell you that your interpretations are far outside those traditions, its not an obsfuscation or avoidance, but rather pointing out that any interpretation that contradicts traditions, is automatically null and void. And it doesn't matter how clever or otherwise convincing it may be or what outside sources you may cite. This is why the fundamental teachings of Orthodoxy and the RCC have remained pretty consistant for many centuries.

I suspect this is probably why Identity probably gets few Orthodox or Catholic converts.

Macrobius

2005-07-27 07:20 | User Profile

"Such Christians are always restricted in any interpretations by the traditions of the Church, which means Scripture is only interpreted within certain limits as decreed by the Ecumenical Councils and as accepted by concensus by the Church Fathers down through history."

That may be how it works out in practice, but the ultimate truth of Orthodox Christianity appeals simply to truth. This argument is a bit like that between a conventional member of the medical profession and a chiropractor. In the end, there is a human disease, a diagnosis, and several purported cures and regimens. It is not immaterial which ones "work", though it may be rather hard to convince both sides to listen to each other.

Orthodoxy comes with a specific diagnosis of the human condition and a Tradition that claims to cure it (actually results in "salavation" of one's "soul"). The norms and rules for that Tradition are important--define it in fact--but what sells Orthodoxy or Western Medicine in the end must be (1) agreement with its goals and (2) agreement that its methods are effective.

Now what Orthodox Christianity thinks of the human condition, and what goals and methods it pursues are the subject of many books, so there is no need to rehearse them here. Anyone who wants can find out all about it. I will content myself with a single provocative site that contains a mix of mainstream material and stuff that will be of interest to some members of this site from the metahistorical perspective--basically historical theories (some of them probably false) that put an "anti-gothic" our "counter-spenglerian" spin on ethnic matters:

[url]http://www.romanity.org/cont.html[/url]

But let's be fair. Orthodox aims to cause what in modernist lingo, with its implicit materialism, we shall have to call "real, physical change" in the human body, which includes parts you maybe didn't know you had--a nous (often mis-translated "mind" or "intellect"). These results include empirically, physically verifiable claims, such as "sainthood results in incorrupt relics" (bones that give off a myrrh like substance and don't smell).

What does Christian Identity aim to do, aside from provide and propagate a specific interpretation of history, the Bible texts, and politics? I am will to believe these are adjuncts to its main point, just as councils or rulebooks or creed are secondary to Orthodoxy. But what is its main point?

Macrobius

2005-07-27 07:22 | User Profile

Apologies. That link should have been: [url]http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm[/url]

Texas Dissident

2005-07-27 14:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think the problem for you is that the entire Identity approach assumes any antagonist is a Protestant, whom you attempt to convince through sola Scriptura tactics that the Bible says something other than what that person had thought. But when dealing with an Orthodox or Catholic person this tactic doesn't work, since merely spinning Scripture is not enough, no matter how cleverly its done. Such Christians are always restricted in any interpretations by the traditions of the Church, which means Scripture is only interpreted within certain limits as decreed by the Ecumenical Councils and as accepted by concensus by the Church Fathers down through history. So when I tell you that your interpretations are far outside those traditions, its not an obsfuscation or avoidance, but rather pointing out that any interpretation that contradicts traditions, is automatically null and void. And it doesn't matter how clever or otherwise convincing it may be or what outside sources you may cite. This is why the fundamental teachings of Orthodoxy and the RCC have remained pretty consistant for many centuries.

Once again wb, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura doctrine.

I'm shocked. :eek:

For those in the cheap seats, what wild bill would deliberately try to obfuscate is that the fundamental teachings of protestant Christianity have remained pretty consistent for many centuries, also. Indeed, in most cases it remains much, much more conservative than Rome and the various Orthodox churches.

I suspect this is probably why Identity probably gets few Orthodox or Catholic converts.[/QUOTE]

I doubt it. How many converts does the Identity cult get period? I doubt it's even in the thousands nationwide. I believe it's mostly an American cult, so there wouldn't be many converts from the various Orthodox churches because the latter's numbers are so small here in the States.

Macrobius

2005-07-27 15:06 | User Profile

I find it interesting that today Southerner's have so little appreciation of their Catholic heritage, and that the cause of the South is so exclusively identified with Protestantism. If one looks back to the colonial period, of which the antebellum South is the fruition, and the Confederacy a very short if representative sampling indeed, you see a culture that is markedly late medieval and feudal--and thus, ethnically and politically Catholic--in many ways. There were Tories in Virginia before there were numerous Whigs. Of the land battles in Maryland in the 1650s, we might note it was the High Church Anglicans and the Catholics vs. the Puritans. In 1651/2 O.S., the Old Dominion surrendered to Cromwell and the Tory leaders retired to their estates to do a bit of what we would not call cultural resistance.

We are not, in this thread, going to resolve all the fights over identity in Christendom, but perhaps we can point out that if Catholicism has been divorced from the Southern cause in the popular mind, it has been in an exact proportion to the extent to which the South has ceased to be itself as a Colonial American would have understood it, and become more like Massachussetts--more whiggish, more merchantile, more pro-Enlightenment. A bit of an identity crisis, non?

The implicit political identity of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy is typically catholic here) does not stop at an artificial and recent construct, such as the West, but it goes on to names that ethnicity--Roman. "Naming the Romans" is political dynamite that I'm sure won't please many Southerners and Protestants. But historically, it is an identity that the elite in the South adhered to--the Lees and the Jeffersons and the Randolphs. Legitimate political power, is, in the older political and ethnic view of the West, largely the Roman political and social order. The notion of the West[ern Empire] as distinct from the East[ern] one, or of a West separate from Christendom, it does not admit, or rather it does, as a schism within a single Roman Christian political order. Splitting East from West would be like a South separate from its feudal and medieval and consquently Catholic past. [There were Protestants in the middle ages too, of course. Luther and Calvin hardly spring out of nowhere--indeed, the presence of both Protestants and Catholics, with their traditional social and ethnic differences, is convincing evidence of racial and ethnic continuity of the South with Europe]. But don't underestimate the "Catholic" and "Roman" part of the equation when looking for racial and ethnic identities.

Now, I'm sure the British Identity movement and its counterpart in America tells a different story. But lets not forget the old version of that story, the one the Southerners who settled Virginia would have known. The one taken for granted by the readership of Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World (and debunked by everyone who printed official court histories from Henry VII's reign on to Milton's--so tenacious was its traditional hold).

In that history, it is the British christians who defeat the white Anglo-Saxons at Mons Badonicus. Where does that Britain come from? Brutus comes from the Trojan settlers who settled in Rome--British political history is tied to the secular history of Aeneas, Romulus and Remus, and Brutus. It ties into the dominant Roman political order, and when Christianity is accepted, it is as a specifically Roman Christian that Patricus travels to Ireland.

Read the first sentence of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle [ok--the part about Armenia might be a misprint for Armorica]. It "names the Saxon" alongside the Roman, the Brit, and the Pict. Saxon ethnic identity took over from the British and Roman--and neither Saxon nor Southerner forgot it, til our day. Read the 10,000 line poem (in Norman French) by Wace, who honors Brutus in Roman de Brut just like he does Rolle (Roland) in Roman de Rou. The earliest poem in middle English of any length is Laymon's translation of this story into the language of the people.

So, when discussing "the identity of our people"--we should remember that there are three versions of the founding myth. The one you learned in school, which is propaganda, and the one everyone knew up until the curriculum-reform at bayonet point in the recent unpleasantness--that is, the basis for chivalry, Arthur, "Britain" in its various political incarnations, and oddly enough southern American equestrian and feudal culture--and in between the offiical revision of that myth, which was instigated by the Tudors originally, carried on by academics who wanted to debunk the folk myth and replace it with a more modern notion of "the historical truth about us". This later mythos, door number three, is where the Puritans and English protestants, the Cromwells, the Miltons, the Commonwealthmen, the old Covenanteers, the "Real Whigs" of the American Revolution, the Federalists, and the mainstream Victorians get their version of "us".

The British identity movement shares, as far as I can tell, most characteristics with the protestant Nation-myth stream, together with an overlay of radical biblical speculation. Specifically, to takes the older, medieval view, and replaces the "Norman French" parts with "Biblical" parts, but leaves the general structure intact. This is an almost algebraic operation in Protestantism--wherever you see "Roman" cross it out and put "Bible" instead. Make it up if you have to. But that should not blind to the fact that in this regard it is doing what most Protestants have done--to obliterate systematically the memory of the Normans, the Romans, the Catholics, and their culture, in the popular mind, and fill the void with non-traditional biblical yarns of their own devising. How's that for Historical Revisionism?

Quantrill

2005-07-27 15:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] For those in the cheap seats, what wild bill would deliberately try to obfuscate is that the fundamental teachings of protestant Christianity have remained pretty consistent for many centuries, also. Indeed, in most cases it remains much, much more conservative than Rome and the various Orthodox churches.[/QUOTE] I don't want to get into the sola scriptura vs Holy Tradition thing here, and I agree that there are many conservative Protestant denominations, including your own Missouri Synod Lutherans. That said, however, in this era of megachurches, Left Behinders, and woman preachers, it is impossible for me to see how you arrive at such a conclusion.

Quantrill

2005-07-27 15:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Macrobius]I find it interesting that today Southerner's have so little appreciation of their Catholic heritage, and that the cause of the South is so exclusively identified with Protestantism. If one looks back to the colonial period, of which the antebellum South is the fruition, and the Confederacy a very short if representative sampling indeed, you see a culture that is markedly late medieval and feudal--and thus, ethnically and politically Catholic--in many ways[/QUOTE] Nice post. During the War Between the States, the Vatican was the only foreign power to grant diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy, and the pope at the time, Pius IX, sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns he had woven with his own hands to comfort the Confederate President during his imprisonment. So that Pope, at least, considered the South as more of a Catholic civilization than he considered the North.

Texas Dissident

2005-07-27 15:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I don't want to get into the sola scriptura vs Holy Tradition thing here...

I don't either, but blame wild bill. He started it. :)

...and I agree that there are many conservative Protestant denominations, including your own Missouri Synod Lutherans. That said, however, in this era of megachurches, Left Behinders, and woman preachers, it is impossible for me to see how you arrive at such a conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Well you could also put it this way: We wouldn't see any of those problems if the Orthodox churches and Rome were having any kind of significant cultural and/or social impact here in the West.

No offense intended Q, but it's been my observation and assessment that Catholics and Orthodox are almost without exception the most carnal and worldly Christians I have known and/or been around in my thirty five years.

Quantrill

2005-07-27 15:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Well you could also put it this way: We wouldn't see any of those problems if the Orthodox churches and Rome were having any kind of significant cultural and/or social impact here in the West. Well, that is unfortunately true. Although in defense of the Orthodox, their numbers in the West are rather small. In the US , for example, there are 52 times more Protestants than Orthodox. So one could also make the case that Protestants should be affecting the culture a lot more positively than they are.

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] No offense intended Q, but it's been my observation and assessment that Catholics and Orthodox are almost without exception the most carnal and worldly Christians I have known and/or been around in my thirty five years.[/QUOTE] That may be true. I can't argue with personal observation, although I am curious as to the number of Orthodox you have known.

wild_bill

2005-07-27 15:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Once again wb, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura doctrine.

I'm shocked. :eek:

For those in the cheap seats, what wild bill would deliberately try to obfuscate is that the fundamental teachings of protestant Christianity have remained pretty consistent for many centuries, also. Indeed, in most cases it remains much, much more conservative than Rome and the various Orthodox churches.

My comment was not intended to mean that ALL Protestants are equally erroneous. From the Orthodox view, some are just a little in error, others are way far out. But the root of the various degrees of error is the sola Scriptura doctrine. This can be seen in virtually every split that has occurred within any Protestantism. Each one happens over a disagreement about what people think Scripture says. The fact that any sect may have held a particular belief for many years, doesn't prevent people from disagreeing with it and leaving to form some new group.

All of Identity's arguments are based on trying to convince people of some new interpretation of Scripture. It doesn't matter what was believed in the past - that's not an issue, all that matters is what one can be convinced to accept NOW - as long as that belief is based on what someone thinks the Bible REALLY says. So the only issue then is whether someone can be convinced that the new interpretation is correct, if so then that automatically makes it correct in their mind - sola Scriptura!

I doubt it. How many converts does the Identity cult get period? I doubt it's even in the thousands nationwide. I believe it's mostly an American cult, so there wouldn't be many converts from the various Orthodox churches because the latter's numbers are so small here in the States.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, their numbers are tiny, so they're not getting many. My comment is based on my personal experience of not encountering an Identity adherent who wasn't previously a Protestant. The efforts of Identity to convert people are based on the sola Scriptura premise. The key to conveting people is convincing people that Identity is the correct interpretation of Scripture.

wild_bill

2005-07-27 16:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] No offense intended Q, but it's been my observation and assessment that Catholics and Orthodox are almost without exception the most carnal and worldly Christians I have known and/or been around in my thirty five years.[/QUOTE]

As a convert from Protestantism, I find exactly the opposite to be true.

Patrick

2005-07-27 16:19 | User Profile

”I think the problem for you is that the entire Identity approach assumes any antagonist is a Protestant, whom you attempt to convince through sola Scriptura tactics that the Bible says something other than what that person had thought.”

.....I have no problem, Bill; neither am I assuming an adversarial role with you... furthermore, I seek to converet no one; I’m a worthless man, just like yourself, and no man can convert another, as that is solely the task of Our Father; He is the one that does the calling and the choosing, not us... I also read that, “he that will hearken, let him hearken; he that will forebear, let him forebear”; it’s no skin off my nose whether you recognize my Doctrine as the genuine article, as that’s between you and YHVH... the most I could ever do is to plant the seed; whether it takes root or not, is on you... if you choose to continue being stiffnecked as the Scripture describes you, so be it... you say I am attempting to use a sola Scriptura approach? That’s nonsense; if you recall, I also utilize a lot of History, and should the discussion continue, we could be into languages, anthropology, hell, even philology...

”But when dealing with an Orthodox or Catholic person this tactic doesn’t work, since merely spinning Scripture is not enough, no matter how cleverly its done. Such Christians are always restricted in any interpretations by the traditions of the Church, which means Scripture is only interpreted within certain limits as decreed by the Ecumenical Councils and as accepted by concensus by the Church Fathers down through history.”

.....Sounds like an indoctrination problem on your part to me; you’re welcome to call it “spinning Scripture”, but from what I’ve seen, it is the “church”, (be it of whatever stripe), that has done all of the spinning; when they’re finished with the spinning process, the weave a well-crafted fable, and we were warned against such things as your seemingly cherished “traditions” and the “jewish” fables of Titus, one... if you are unfamiliar with the machinations involved in the various and sundry ecumenical councils, as well as some of the rather sordid History of the actual textual manipulations, I’d advise to to look deeper into that which you defend; are you seriously trying to tell me that there were no political motivations involved with the “accepted” decrees of such?

”So when I tell you that your interpretations are far outside those traditions, its not an obsfuscation or avoidance, but rather pointing out that any interpretation that contradicts traditions, is automatically null and void.”

.....Perhaps in your mind, they are “null and void”; from my perspective, I am admonished to “prove all things” and to “shew myself worthy by studying the Scriptures”... when such study is undertaken, despite one’s prior beliefs, it is my opinion that no honest student could come to any other conclusion than that which is referred to as “identity”; I was resistent to the term, and indeed, I have my differences with the identity people on a number of points, but, in reality, Scripture makes no sense without properly indentifying the players, i.e. the Israelites are the caucasian race, which we know by their fulfillment of the aforementioned “marks”, (which you have yet to attempt to refute), and that the “jews” are antiChrist, (as a collective, and progeny of the serpent), which we know “by their fruits”... anything else is merely in error; I submit that if your own research fails to verify this, your research is seriously lacking, and decrees from “on high” be damned...

”And it doesn’t matter how clever or otherwise convincing it may be or what outside sources you may cite. This is why the fundamental teachings of Orthodoxy and the RCC have remained pretty consistant for many centuries.”

.....In the event you’ve failed to notice, it was hardly “clever” that I was after here; the question is, “is it correct, or is it not?”... I am not some one-book wonder that grabbed ahold of the first words of some pastor and ran with it; I’ve been researching these matters for a great many years, all the while my jury remained out... I was initially raised in the catholic “church”, but there was nothing within that rang true to me; I later attended a non-denominational protestant “church” which was just as empty, spiritually speaking, as was the catholic... it was many years between my departure from organized “religion” and my actual study of the texts proffered therefrom; I found that what Scripture actually brought forth bore no resemblence whatsoever to what the organized pull pit attempted to parlay...

”I suspect this is probably why Identity probably gets few Orthodox or Catholic converts.”

.....As I said, it matters not one whit to me whether you recognize the factual nature of my position, or remain in the darkness that is the “church”; the point of this thread, being a split from another as “off-topic” and named in such blatantly denigrating fashion, was to “expose the heresy” in my belief system... I see nothing exposed as heretical as far as what I believe, indeed, I don’t believe you even understand the depth, nor Scriptural foundation of that which I believe; all that has been shown here is that you hold fast to your “tradition” and wish to namecall all other belief systems, whether you understand them or not, which you obviously do not...

”That may be how it works out in practice, but the ultimate truth of Orthodox Christianity appeals simply to truth.”

.....Forgive me for so saying, but this sentence is circular; the “ultimate truth” appeals to “truth”? What were you attempting to say, exactly?

”Orthodoxy comes with a specific diagnosis of the human condition and a Tradition that claims to cure it (actually results in “salavation” of one’s “soul”).”

.....I would be surprised if one from the orthodox could tell me the difference between this “salvation” and “redemption”...

”What does Christian Identity aim to do, aside from provide and propagate a specific interpretation of history, the Bible texts, and politics? I am will to believe these are adjuncts to its main point, just as councils or rulebooks or creed are secondary to Orthodoxy. But what is its main point?”

.....As I see it, it is to rediscover for our nation our stolen heritage, (birthright); the birthright has been usurped, as was prophesied, by the selfsame entity that Scripture declared would so do... the kenties/edomites, (modern “jewry”), have spent an untold fortune foisting this lie upon the whole of humanity, that they are the “people of The Book”, or, YHVH’s chosen Israelites; they’ve conquered the Holy Land and called in Israel by which to confuse others, when Israel was never a name in reference to a country, (ground), but of a nation, (peoples, bound by race); Our Father said Israel would never return thereto, as it is a desolate place due to the shed Blood of Our Savior... that land is now defiled, and what did The Law say must occur for it to be cleansed? The blood of the murderer must be shed there, which, in my opinion, has much to do with the ingathering we see there of the murderer(s); we need to arise from our collective slumber and realize what has been done to our nation by way of the one main weapon of the adversary, that being “lies”...

.....The world of organized “religion” has been categorizing themselves into two distinct camps; those who believe the physical, literal aspects of Scripture, versus those who spiritualize the story away into futuristic nonsense, even going so far as to push already fulfilled Scripture into some unknown distant day, without coming to the amalgam of the physical and spiritual understandings; I don’t believe in a literal coming, de facto entity that would referred to as “the antiChrist”... I believe the collective of “jewry” down through the age is antiChrist, developing their beast system, (jew world order), under fiat, and the slumber induced upon the true Israelite people have allowed them to stand by and let it happen without recognition due to thier failure to be vigilant in pursuit of their heritage and protection of our jewel of God-given liberty... further, they now “stand in the Temple” where they ought not, literally “showing themselves to be God” as organized “religion no longer worships Our Father, but they seem more interested in worshipping the antiChrist “jew”...

6KILLER

2005-07-27 22:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]The problem is that what you advocate here contradicts 2,000 years of Christian [color=red]tradition[/color].[/QUOTE] The 'tradition of the elders' that the Pharisees advocated? :caiphas:

wild_bill

2005-07-28 11:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]The 'tradition of the elders' that the Pharisees advocated? :caiphas:[/QUOTE]

No, Christian tradition.

Patrick

2005-07-28 12:14 | User Profile

"No, Christian tradition."

.....You still have done nothing to show the error of this, nor exposed any supposed "heresy", save that which is in the "church"...

Blond Knight

2005-07-28 13:22 | User Profile

An interesting snipet from Little Geneva that is related to this discussion:

[url]http://littlegeneva.com/?p=330[/url]

Hateful race-mixer Andrew Sandlin imagines Americans to be exempt from traditional nationhood. "Blood and soil mean much less here than ideas. Not race or place, but ideas, have always been at the root of what it means to be an American… The United States is first about ideas…" God really bungled the fifth commandment. It should read, "Honor multiracial propositions that your days may be long upon the ideationally homogeneous land with porous borders which the Lord your God has given you."

"The man who cuts his roots away and denies that they were ever connected with him withers into half a man. The provincial who cultivates only his roots is in peril, potato-like, of becoming more root than plant." ~ John Graves

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." ~ President Andrew Jackson

I was asked for my opinion on the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts of the Old Testament. I’m not a Bible scholar, but here’s my take on it, and you can take it or leave it. It is said that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls lends greater credibility to the Masoretic text, but it seems to me that we should give greater attention to the text actually used by the writers of Scripture, which was the Septuagint. Louis Cappel was a French Huguenot scholar, and this quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica is very interesting: “As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier than the 5th Century A.D., and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity… The various readings in the Old Testament text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text, as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars.” We should be wary about relying on any interpretation in which the same Jews who wrote the Talmud played a large part. The Masoretic Text was used for the Old Testament of the KJV, and the New Testament source was Erasmus’s Textus Receptus. We should be wary about trusting this manuscript too because it relied very heavily on Latin rather than Greek in some places. (Many have wondered whether John 7:53-8:11 first appeared in the third or fourth century.) The KJV was based on only eight Greek texts, and most of the best and oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were not discovered until after it had been published. Other recent translations have also relied heavily on the Textus Receptus. There are some errors in the modern translations that aren’t found in the Septuagint. In the KJV, we find that Jehoram’s youngest son was two years older than he; that Saul’s daughter Michal had no children, when she actually had five; that Jehoiachin was 8 rather than 18 years old when he became king. In most places the manuscripts agree, but in those places where there is disagreement, the Septuagint can cast a clearer light.[B] For[/B] [B]instance, in Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint, Hosea 4:2 reads: “Cursing, lying, murder, theft, and adultery abound in the land, and they mingle blood with blood.” The KJV renders this as blood touching blood, and the NKJV renders it as bloodshed upon bloodshed. It seems to me that the Septuagint clearly ties race-mixing to adultery.[/B]

Patrick

2005-07-28 15:03 | User Profile

Thank you, Knight...

.....Just as the Command is "thou shalt not murder", as opposed to "kill", the other is "thou shalt not adulterate", as opposed to "commit adultery"; thus encompassing a far wider scope of behavior than mere sexual relations...

6KILLER

2005-07-28 16:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]No, Christian tradition.[/QUOTE] The Christian Traditions of Simon Magus, Bishop Damasus, and those who destroyed the early Culdee Church, along with murdering the monks and plundering the Abbey at Bangor?:alucard:

Patrick

2005-07-29 12:37 | User Profile

.....So I guess that settles it, 6Killer; no one here has been able to make a case, so they must be the "heretical cult"...

wild_bill

2005-08-01 04:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]The Christian Traditions of Simon Magus, Bishop Damasus, and those who destroyed the early Culdee Church, along with murdering the monks and plundering the Abbey at Bangor?:alucard:[/QUOTE]

Discussing this with you is useless. You just re-define words create strawman arguments. IOW, none of what you said has anything to do with the traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Patrick

2005-08-01 12:25 | User Profile

"none of what you said has anything to do with the traditions of the Orthodox Church."

.....And none of what you said exposes any so-called "heresy"...

Texas Dissident

2005-08-01 15:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....So I guess that settles it, 6Killer; no one here has been able to make a case, so they must be the "heretical cult"...[/QUOTE]

No, it is you Identity "Christians" who are most definitely the heretical cult, Patrick. I pray the Holy Spirit will lead you out of that darkness and into the true light of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I'll leave you with just a couple of versus from St. Paul in the 3rd Chapter of Philippians. It's just one of the numerous passages that put 'Identity' to the lie.

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh-- though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Identity "Christians" are the modern-day 'dogs' and 'evildoers', who boast in the flesh. I've let you have your say for long enough, Patrick. Please don't peddle your judaizing, demonic heresies around here any longer.

God Bless.

Patrick

2005-08-01 16:23 | User Profile

.....So when my position goes unanswered, I get run off? Is that about how it works?

Texas Dissident

2005-08-01 16:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....So when my position goes unanswered, I get run off? Is that about how it works?[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Patrick

2005-08-01 16:54 | User Profile

.....Good luck, then; you'll be needing it...

Texas Dissident

2005-08-01 17:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....Good luck, then; you'll be needing it...[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Patrick. I appreciate that.

I don't mean to come off short or rude, but think about it. You Identity people have all kinds of places to preach your false gospel here on the internet. This isn't the first run-in I've had with CI fanatics and there's really no better way to handle it except to say 'no more'. You're still free to put-up your views/opinions on any other subject.

No hard feelings I hope, but the bottom line is that I do not want OD to be responsible for helping spread your message to the greater community and people we may reach.

Okiereddust

2005-08-01 20:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]Well, isn’t Jesus just speaking spiritually? ABSOLUTELY NOT! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Have you never read the word of God? Jesus taught a parable, did you know that? And, He said; IF you do not understand this ONE parable you are NOT going to understand ANY of My parables. That parable of course, was the parable of the sower. "By what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you."

As you note, your understanding of even the most simple of the Bible's doctrines - the parables - is completely different than ours. And we can't both be right.

I'm afraid we have different gospels.

:thumbsup: YHVH has provided discernment to us regarding His Word and the tools. .....Declamtions to the contrary notwithstanding...[/QUOTE]Would that be a [I]special[/I] knowledge?

Okiereddust

2005-08-01 20:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident].......This isn't the first run-in I've had with CI fanatics and there's really no better way to handle it except to say 'no more'. You're still free to put-up your views/opinions on any other subject.

No hard feelings I hope, but the bottom line is that I do not want OD to be responsible for helping spread your message to the greater community and people we may reach.[/QUOTE]I don'y know sometimes. With all the militant Odinists, atheists, Hitler worshippers, Holocaust deniers, LSD disciples, tree worshippers, nei-Inquisitionists, dispensationalists, Hindu's and everything else we have had here, I don't see why CI's are especially malovalent.

Dogmatic hereticists are an American religious tradition anyway. The most dangerous ones I've always found are not the ones that yell in your face but the ones that smoothly shake your hand, say "amen Brother", then reach around and grab your wallet.

But different people feel threatened by different things. Sometimes its the things closest to us I guess.

Texas Dissident

2005-08-01 21:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]But different people feel threatened by different things. Sometimes its the things closest to us I guess.[/QUOTE]

I'm certain that's some of it Okie, and each of us feels a certain responsibility about different things here on this board. I'm pretty flexible about most things, but I guess in a sense we jealously guard the things that matter to us most.

You know we've opened up dialogue with all the various folks you list before, and not much of anything productive has ever come from it. Having the CI adherents continue to post their thousand word proof texts without end would be no different than allowing Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons or Noahides have free run of the place. For whatever good this board is still worth, I don't think it serves anything productive, though I truly wish no ill will on any of those folks and that they would come to the Truth.

Patrick

2005-08-01 21:02 | User Profile

.....Am I to respond, or shall there be a number of potshots taken wherein I am to remain silent?

6KILLER

2005-08-01 21:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust][color=darkred]The most dangerous ones[/color] I've always found are not the ones that yell in your face [color=darkred]but the ones that smoothly shake your hand, say "amen Brother", then reach around and grab your wallet[/color].[/QUOTE]This sounds like a description of the jews and jewday-O xtians, that are currently in charge of the mud ball.:caiphas: :alucard:

Texas Dissident

2005-08-01 21:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....Am I to respond, or shall there be a number of potshots taken wherein I am to remain silent?[/QUOTE]

Alright, Patrick. Speak your peace and then I'll just close the thread.

Exelsis_Deo

2005-08-02 03:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]I won't argue with you on this one, I live in Idaho which is quite conservative and has many of the old school Mormons. However times are changing even here.[/QUOTE]

you really like Glenn Miller don't you. How many times do we have to see that 25 year old photo shot ??? ad infinitum ???

Patrick

2005-08-02 12:49 | User Profile

"Alright, Patrick. Speak your peace and then I'll just close the thread."

.....Give me a little time to do the typing...

.....And thanks for being fair, Tex...

Patrick

2005-08-03 21:04 | User Profile

Well...

.....Where do I begin? My detractors herein claim I promote heresy; by the same token, I am submitting that the organized “church”, (as in, all denominations), has been in a profound state of apostacy for a long, long time...

.....I’ve frequented this forum for a few years now, and while I’ve gained a lot of respect for many of the posters, overall, it seems that intellect is esteemed beyond value; it does no good to read tons of History if one gets on the other side of such reading and still fails to see how the pieces of the puzzle go together... History and Scripture are tightly woven into one fabric; the biggest problem people have it understanding the puzzle is that they mis-identify the players on the world stage, which is due to the last couple of centuries’ propaganda, which places the antiChrist “jews” into the wrong position of the Scriptural players... the first century Church understood who they were as well as understanding that they, all caucasians, were the Israelites; this understanding faded, as was prophesied, after the English versions of Scripture were changed from their original text wherein the words “jew” and “gentile” were substituted for the original terms, creating confusion in the minds of people whom had only just begun to obtain the Bible that they might read at all, rather than being wholly reliant upon an evermore corrupt clergy...

.....It’s one thing to hold CI in derision, but holding fast to what I claim as a Doctrine that is seriously lacking, splitting the thread wherein such came up and titling the new thread as was done, without ever really addressing the voluminous number of points I made is rather lame, wouldn’t you agree? Some of the terms bandied about above in description of what I consider the only possibly true understanding of Scriputre, in accordance with the History it speaks to, serve only to reflect poorly upon those who use them, as opposed to foster understanding, which is what the Christian should be about when dicussing Doctrine; is that not the very contest of the lesson concerning “turning the other cheek”? As I said before, I seek to convert no one, but simply enjoy discussing the things that interest me most; wild bill pronounced this “heresy”, yet utterly failed to demonstrate it as such when given the opportunity... likewise, anyone else that believes this is heresy has not only failed to demonstrate it as such, but they never even bellied up to the bar, so to speak; I have stated that the “learned” among you have failed to identify the Scriptural players, and I am willing to painstakingly demonstrate these facts, but you seem to have closed your minds to your positions, so it won’t be me that suffers from a result of such...

.....I simply thought there was a sufficient level of intellect on this forum to find these topics as fascinating I always have...

adina

2005-08-07 22:47 | User Profile

anybody who spurts out joo-lying talmud trash everyday must be a joo himself.

This is what is expected from these joo-slerks in Amerikwa.

Patrick

2005-08-08 12:57 | User Profile

.....Where did you trolls come from?

6KILLER

2005-08-08 21:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....Where did you trolls come from?[/QUOTE]Yeah! these two troll's posts look real cute in the [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14"]Christianity and Christendom[/url] forum. Bumble shouldn't post such photos of it'sself on the internet.:eek:

albion

2005-08-11 20:34 | User Profile

[font=Arial][size=4]British Israel: The Hidden Hand Behind the

'The Kingdom of God on Earth' Deception[/size][/font]

Patrick

2005-08-12 12:21 | User Profile

.....British Israelism is a Rothschild contrivance; Christian Identity is something entirely different...