Post Reply 
Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine
08-09-2011, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2011 02:20 PM by Ekklesia.)
Post: #121
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  Rephrasing my question is not really acceptable for the following reasons:
  • it suggests you believe I am unable to ask a question clearly and intelligently; and is therefore patronising and condescending.
  • It's manipulative and biases the debate.
  • it shows a lack of honesty on your part.

Mary, I asked to rephrase the question, not because of any deficiency on your part, but because communication is never perfect. I was trying to ensure I understood the gist of what you were asking. I was not trying to bias the debate, nor was I being dishonest, or I wouldn't have asked for confirmation that my 'rephrase' was correct or not. By rephrasing the question I was showing you what question I thought you were asking, and the one I was attempting to answer. If you felt my rephrasing your question was condescending, please forgive me.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  The question is not about the bride, it is about you. I gather that you believe that I "struggle with the meatier matters in the word of God". I won't contradict you on that, but I continue to learn something new everyday from His word; and this I know: God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14: 33) and your posts are very confusing.

I think we all struggle to become more mature in our understanding, and to obtain the meatier matters. I include myself in this categorisation.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  So, considering your response: if you as a new Christian sat down to read the Bible in your own language, how did you come to know about mistranslations; Hebrew idioms, Greek etc. unless you had learned of them from some other source/s aside from the Bible?

Like anything else, learning about the word of God is a progressive thing. When I started into the bible, I wasn't aware of much of its depth. People learn by recognizing problems as problems, considering alternative answers to problems, and accepting some particular answer as correct. Most people are initially unfamiliar with the contents of the bible when they are 'unsaved' being at enmity with God. But when they first read the bible for themselves, they don't initially detect 'Hebrew idioms' or even Greek ones.

Rather, the first thing most people detect are Christ's claims about Himself, and His wisdom. Those claims cause people to ask the question 'was Christ who He said He was?'. C.S. Lewis said he was either speaking the truth, or he was crazy. Once someone accepts Christ's claim as true (that Jesus was God made man, come to shed blood for the redemption of sins), they start struggling with other theological issues (I would argue, less important theological issues, such as 'once saved, always saved', or 'unconditional salvation').

Like most things, God's wisdom is backwards from the world's wisdom. God puts the pre-emanate theological issues first: Who was Jesus? The ones that follow on later, issues such as the ones we currently debate, are less important theologically, but necessary to explore to mature in our understanding. We don't need to be Calvinists or Catholics to be saved. We do need to believe in Christ, and repent. Even so, we need to continue asking these other questions to better understand our God, even if the things we asking about are less important. (i.e. We don't need to know 'How God has been faithful' to believe 'God is faithful').

Eventually, we arrive at a point where to know about mistranslations, we (prayerfully) read different translations asking ourselves why translations have been translated slightly differently; which translation's meaning is closest to the one intended. We start to recognize that not all translations are of equal worth. It was this process that lead me to discover Hebrew idioms in Greek, or biblical facts which had the potential to change how we view theology, or even history.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  Nevertheless, you say that a plain reading of the Bible lead you to believe that you are of the House of Israel.
post #1: "... an Israelite of the House of Israel, not Jewish"

Your reply also suggests that before being saved you were an ordinary person, unaware of your heritage of the House of Israel, but now you have concluded that you are an Israelite. "Post#25" you asked if I believe Christ came only for those descended from Jacob, and I do". You have concluded this on faith. #30 "I do regard Christians as Israel, not figuratively, but actually" that Jesus came only for his sheep: Israel.
Only his sheep hear his call.

Yes. Recognizing that you and I understand the bible differently, and that you disagree with my premises, presuppose that you didn't (disagree with my premises) for a second, if my premises are correct (which you currently refute), and my logic is sound, my conclusions have to be sound too. So my arguments are as such:

God promised to redeem Israel personally.
God's promises are true.

Therefore Israel must be redeemed by Christ.

God promised to make Israel a light unto the world.
Christ was THE light of the world.

Therefore Israel must be like Christ.

God is without shade or variation.
God's word is like God.

God's word must also be without shade or variation.

God's word is without shade or variation.
God uses prophetic words with meaning.

Therefore God's use prophetic words in the bible with consistent meaning (without shade or variation despite the language it was originally written in).

Christ said "My Sheep hear my voice".
Israel were God's sheep.

Therefore Israel heard Christ's voice.

Christ said "I come only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"
Christ's word are true

Therefore Christ came only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel

Although we debate my premises, if my premises are true, and logic sound, the conclusions also have to be true. (BTW If you want me to justify any of the above premises with biblical quotes, ask.)

If the conclusions are true then, Christ's mission was to redeem Israel but I think the question that keeps getting raised in this debate, is whether or not non-Israelites can respond to Christ (though His mission was only to Israel), I think the answer is 'yes' [Isa 56], many will respond to Christ, even if he came to His flock, and even if Israel has the clear advantage, which is kind of like our argument about the children vs the dogs. That the dog's received bread, doesn't mean it wasn't given to the children.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  You have heard his call; therefore you are his sheep: Israel. This is a logical conclusion from your plain reading of scripture. Oh but you don't like human logic, if I recall correctly, and admonished me not to use it.

Yes, that is my logic.

About logic though, where the bible says something plainly, we should take the bible as true (apart from human logic). Taking the bible as true - is 'faith' (as you know). Does that mean there is no room for 'reason'? No, we are also to use 'reason' but with faith. Also, we are not to use it to the detriment of the bible. Human reason is not perfect, whereas God's word is. This is why our 'debate', our 'reasoning together' as [Isa 1:18] says, is good. (I admonished you to first accept what the bible say plainly is true, is true, and not to contradict what the bible says with 'reasoning'; the idea being, the bible makes it clear God established a unique and very specific covenant with only one nation Israel (that would last forever). So I don't believe it advisable to then deduce a conclusion that goes against this plain biblical doctrine). Even so, I will concede there are things implied in the bible, not stated directly.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  Still it works in this case. But for the converse: Someone is an Israelite, but he is not saved, does not hear Jesus call. Can that be?

Yes, there are 'Israelites' who reject their shepherd just as their are non-Israelites who accept Him.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  Or someone who knows their bloodline is definitely not of Israel, and yet they are saved: what must their conclusion be? They are not saved.

Not necessarily. Israel has an advantage in the new covenant. This last claim should not be controversial since they had a clear advantage in the old covenant (says [Romans). Here's how:

To Israel came the law, and from the law came a knowledge of sin [Rom 3:20]. So Israel, more than other nation, should have been able to recognize 'sin'. But just as the law was an advantage (from [Romans 9:4]]), it was also a stumbling block because a knowledge of sin brought condemnation and death [Rom 7:10]. However, had Israel seen the 'law' as spiritual [Rom 7:14](as they should have seen it), this awareness of condemnation and death should have lead to faith, but didn't because Israel did not see the law as it was.

This means that though Israel has an advantage, Israelites are not 'automatically' saved (because of their blood). They still need to believe in Christ (and I believe most do). Likewise, though non-Israelites are disadvantaged in this same sense, when they do by nature, spiritual things (by faith), they are under "a law to themselves" (says [Romans 2:14]) which means a personal covenant modelled exactly on that covenant God established with the obedient of Israel. That is what [Rom 11:17-24] means when it talks of 'grafting in'.

If you accept this, you can see how I can claim there is only one 'covenant', just as there is only one 'tree'. The wild branches cease to be wild once they are grafted into the 'tree' God has chosen but that doesn't mean God has not identified His tree.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  Ah but you will take us back to 'God's kindness" vs God's salvation: issues you have really not addressed.

I'm not quite sure I understand your question here. I think God love's His entire creation (as it originally reflected His perfect workmanship), however God is also righteous, and so must punish sin. Biblically the bible says God does not rejoice in the death of a man, but makes it clear he who remains in his sin, will die. Therefore God is kind, but will still only save those in Christ. (Some have argued that in sending people to Hell God is still being kind, but that is a theological debate unto itself).

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  The next logical step is that only a certain group of Christians can be identified as Israel: the rest must not be truly saved. But who are they, where is scriptural support for this? It is so confusing really Ekklesia, when you break down your doctrine.

As above, I don't believe every non-Israelite will perish Mary.

(08-05-2011 04:53 AM)Mary Wrote:  May I ask whether you are using or even quoting from another source in your reply to me, esp from "the question is not to 2000 years"? Or perhaps there are two of you collaborating on these responses? It's just that your use of grammar and spelling and even your 'tone' is inconsistent. It's not a problem, just interested.

No, there is only me, and I am poor at typing (sometime repeating words or worse clauses), and I rely on the bible for biblical arguments. (I will rely on historical evidence for historical arguments though). About my mistakes, I try to go over my responses for errors before the 20 min. time limit runs out. Sometimes I don't do that successfully, and I am forced to leave things an a partially edited state. Sorry if this causes confusion.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2011, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2011 03:56 PM by Ekklesia.)
Post: #122
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  Let's go back to post # 30 where you asked:

"show me where God forges a covenant with someone other than Israel; show me where God calls someone other than Israel his sheep, his bride, his garden, his branches?"

Ok.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  What is a covenant? It is an agreement, a promise. In the Bible specifically it is an agreement between God and a person or group of people. It can be conditional or unconditional.

No, it is more than that Mary. Though God makes many promises in the bible, a covenant has specific components to it that makes it something more than a mere promise. Not all of God's promises are covenants, though all of God's covenants are promises. This is the same as saying not all 'promises' are 'contracts' though all 'contracts' are 'promises'.

Specifically, God's 'covenants' all have a legally binding component to them, above and beyond the certain truth of His word. Often, you can see elements of this in How God establishes His covenants, such as God limiting His own sovereignty according to the terms of the covenant. This is different than God simply choosing to exercise his sovereignty. The Hebrew word used for 'covenant' specifically includes the binding between parties.

Notice that God promised Noah and his children through a rainbow, a prohibition on the use of water (but not fire) as a means of enacting judgement forever. Notice also that God used the shedding of blood to exemplify His 'sealing' of the covenant with Abraham and descendants ( [Gen 15:9-17] particularly [Gen 15:17]). Both examples above had promises, restrictions, and a signatory seal.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  So what have we here in John 8: 31 -33?

We have Jews, who have just heard Jesus proclaiming he is the son of God; he has been sent by the Father, and that God the Father is with him. Some of those Jews believed in him; and to those Jews Jesus makes a promise: "if ye continue in my word then you are my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

This may have been a confirmation that God's covenant was still in effect, but it was not the establishment of a covenant itself.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  You say that these Jews who heard his voice could not have been of the house of Israel, because the house of Israel had been enslaved twice. You conclude that these Jews were descendants of Esau - were Edom. Not his sheep, as you have argued consistently. Yet here we have Jesus - God: making a covenant with them.

Any Jew claiming never to have been enslaved was either not an Israelite (since Israel had been enslaved twice), or unbelievably ignorant of Israelite history. We know there were non-Israelite Jews that were Edomites, so it could have been both. I don't believe Jesus' use of the word 'slave' was the same as the Pharisees or Sadducee understood it, but even so - Jesus was not establishing another covenant, rather, he was showing people how to be assured whether or not they belonged to the 'tree' (were they under the 'covenant'). In other words, he was showing everyone how to recognize a tree by its fruit [Matt 12:33][Luke 6:44].

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  While still on the topic, let's look at Abraham: is Abraham Israel? No. Yet God made a covenant with Him, and his offspring for eternity.

Quite right. Notice, however, that Israel's covenant was first inherited from Abraham (through Isaac). Notice also, that Abraham's covenant was NOT inherited by Ishmael, though Ishmael was Abraham's son [Gen 21:12][Rom 9:7][Heb 11:18]. It was also not inherited by Esau [1 Chron 16:16-17][Psa 105:9-10][Mal 1:2-3] though Esau was Isaac's son. The covenant may have been inherited by blood, but it was not simply based upon blood.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  Then let's also look at Gen 25: 20 -23. God makes a promise to Rebekah - a Syrian- and Jacob and Esau are born.

I'm not sure of your point here. Abraham was a Hebrew, so was Rebekah having come from Nahor. Israelites were a subset of Hebrews that came after Abraham, and Rebekah. It was Jesus who identified to whom he was sent, according to His own claim and contemporary to His ministry. Clearly, all Israelites were Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were Israelites.

So what are you arguing? I hope you're not suggesting that because Abraham was a Hebrew rather than an Israelite, God couldn't establish the 'new covenant' with a subset of Abraham's Hebrew descendants (who the Israelites were). I hope you're not suggesting God could not specifically bless Israel, because Abraham came before. God blessed Abraham before Israel, and Israel descended from Abraham. God's covenant promise passed from Abraham to his descendants, though clearly not all (as evidenced from Ishmael, and Esau). Paul in Romans makes this very argument; simply having Hebrew blood did not mean one would 'automatically' enjoy the blessings of the covenant [Rom 9:6-13]. God's promise most certainly was restricted to Israelites, even if it wasn't first made with an Israelite. I would also add that those Israelites who rejected Christ were cut off like Ishmael and Esau before.

If anything, Christ's claim to have come 'only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel' is evidence that the covenant first established with Abraham, inherited by Isaac, then Jacob, was absolutely worth something because of the blessings it carried with it; whether or not Abraham was an Israelite.
Vic, this post is an example of how you've already made up your mind, and how your method of arguing is based upon a straw-man.

You've posed the questions. and you've answered them (suggesting your answers are actually mine). Your answers are your staw-man.

I've said (honestly) I answer from the bible, and yet you use expressions like 'white race'. If you want me to take your questions seriously, put them in biblical terms, otherwise we're talking apples and oranges. I'm not the one being elusive because I don't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race'. The bible doesn't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race', so like the bible I don't employ that type of vocabulary. That vocabulary is yours.

And you conclude with:

(08-04-2011 01:07 PM)Vic Wrote:  That's ok. We understand. :14389:[/b] [/color]

Which is to say, you've already pre-judged my position and made up your mind (so it really doesn't matter anyway).

If you want to challenge my position, do so. If you don't (because you already understand), that's fine too.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 01:38 PM
Post: #123
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-09-2011 03:21 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  Vic, this post is an example of how you've already made up your mind, and how your method of arguing is based upon a straw-man.

You've posed the questions. and you've answered them (suggesting your answers are actually mine). Your answers are your staw-man.

I've said (honestly) I answer from the bible, and yet you use expressions like 'white race'. If you want me to take your questions seriously, put them in biblical terms, otherwise we're talking apples and oranges. I'm not the one being elusive because I don't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race'. The bible doesn't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race', so like the bible I don't employ that type of vocabulary. That vocabulary is yours.

And you conclude with:

(08-04-2011 01:07 PM)Vic Wrote:  That's ok. We understand. 14389[/b] [/color]

Which is to say, you've already pre-judged my position and made up your mind (so it really doesn't matter anyway).

If you want to challenge my position, do so. If you don't (because you already understand), that's fine too.

Ekklesia, while some might be bamboozled by your consistent refusal to answer any direct questions about what you believe in order to clarify the Christian Identity beliefs you DO hold---which YOU YOURSELF SAID YOU BELIEVE AND COULD DEFEND AND DISCUSS, I am not one bit bothered by your answers. They show who you are. YOU said you could be held accountable to what you yourself said, yet when applying your own statements to the discussion you don't like it. That is, you yourself said that unanswered questions means consensus---all that I did since you have refused to answer post after post with questions after questions---is apply your very statements. You said to not answer means to be in agreement with what is being asked or stated. You don't want that to be true now ---or is it only you that can apply your 'rule'?.

Whatever. Christian Identity holds particular beliefs.
In your first post you said you hold CHristian Identity beliefs as stated in my articles.
You said you could defend those beliefs---all the while promoting some of those beliefs on this thread and others
You said you could answer questions about those beliefs. You refuse to do so.
Instead being asked direct questions by myself---who is more than familiar with Christian Identity variations along with British Israel beliefs, Lost tribe etc.--you pretend it is being an assault on you---you don't play the victim real well btw. There's been many HR/British Israel folks ahead of you who had a better spiel with the victimology.
Not answering the many questions and trying to twist the intent to be beyond what you could possibly believe.
One merely has to read Christian Identity--including aryan nations sites to receive the same type of 'disbelief' about the white race/aryan comments, because they call it European or caucasian etc. And are just as offended that someone disagrees with their take on things which is generally viewed as being racist. They, Christian Identity believers just like you, claim they are falsely accused of being racist and misunderstood etc. I haven't accused you of anything, but was wanting you--as I have stated repeatedly---to answer the questions to clarify your beliefs. No one was keeping you from answering biblically or factually. Except you. Sign0170

I was giving you every opportunity to clarify what you believe different than the 'normal' Christian Identity beliefs. You won't answer the questions. Therefore, there is no point you being here. All you want is to disseminate the lesser obvious Identity beliefs and pretend you aren't really like other Christian Identity, when in fact you are. THey all claim to hold to the bible too, for their beliefs. And you have clearly stated Christian Identity holds the answers. When it does not. And while making that claim you don't want anyone to know what you really believe, which is why you won't answer the questions pertaining to Christian Identity which you promote. That's the type of 'believer' you are---you want everyone to join Christian Identity beliefs but don't want anyone to know what those beliefs are. 17113

You won't answer my questions, and clarify those beliefs as being anything different than the heresy already identified in the articles--which you clearly said you held those beliefs-- there's no point you continuing to disseminate your heresies. You aren't prepared to discuss anything except the agenda you have in mind. You can do that elsewhere. Icon_runforhills

And if you want to play the victim and say how unfair I was and falsely accusing you and so on, by all means make sure you mention this forum and send the recipient of your complaints here, so they can see all the unanswered posts, and all the questions put to you, that you refused to answer. 2743

Not that you couldn't answer very easily, but that you wouldn't answer.
6775

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Col 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Vic
SeekGod.ca

3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-16-2011, 02:17 AM
Post: #124
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-09-2011 03:21 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  Let's go back to post # 30 where you asked:

"show me where God forges a covenant with someone other than Israel; show me where God calls someone other than Israel his sheep, his bride, his garden, his branches?"

Ok.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  What is a covenant? It is an agreement, a promise. In the Bible specifically it is an agreement between God and a person or group of people. It can be conditional or unconditional.

No, it is more than that Mary. Though God makes many promises in the bible, a covenant has specific components to it that makes it something more than a mere promise. Not all of God's promises are covenants, though all of God's covenants are promises. This is the same as saying not all 'promises' are 'contracts' though all 'contracts' are 'promises'.

Specifically, God's 'covenants' all have a legally binding component to them, above and beyond the certain truth of His word. Often, you can see elements of this in How God establishes His covenants, such as God limiting His own sovereignty according to the terms of the covenant. This is different than God simply choosing to exercise his sovereignty. The Hebrew word used for 'covenant' specifically includes the binding between parties.

Notice that God promised Noah and his children through a rainbow, a prohibition on the use of water (but not fire) as a means of enacting judgement forever. Notice also that God used the shedding of blood to exemplify His 'sealing' of the covenant with Abraham and descendants ( [Gen 15:9-17] particularly [Gen 15:17]). Both examples above had promises, restrictions, and a signatory seal.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  So what have we here in John 8: 31 -33?

We have Jews, who have just heard Jesus proclaiming he is the son of God; he has been sent by the Father, and that God the Father is with him. Some of those Jews believed in him; and to those Jews Jesus makes a promise: "if ye continue in my word then you are my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

This may have been a confirmation that God's covenant was still in effect, but it was not the establishment of a covenant itself.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  You say that these Jews who heard his voice could not have been of the house of Israel, because the house of Israel had been enslaved twice. You conclude that these Jews were descendants of Esau - were Edom. Not his sheep, as you have argued consistently. Yet here we have Jesus - God: making a covenant with them.

Any Jew claiming never to have been enslaved was either not an Israelite (since Israel had been enslaved twice), or unbelievably ignorant of Israelite history. We know there were non-Israelite Jews that were Edomites, so it could have been both. I don't believe Jesus' use of the word 'slave' was the same as the Pharisees or Sadducee understood it, but even so - Jesus was not establishing another covenant, rather, he was showing people how to be assured whether or not they belonged to the 'tree' (were they under the 'covenant'). In other words, he was showing everyone how to recognize a tree by its fruit [Matt 12:33][Luke 6:44].

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  While still on the topic, let's look at Abraham: is Abraham Israel? No. Yet God made a covenant with Him, and his offspring for eternity.

Quite right. Notice, however, that Israel's covenant was first inherited from Abraham (through Isaac). Notice also, that Abraham's covenant was NOT inherited by Ishmael, though Ishmael was Abraham's son [Gen 21:12][Rom 9:7][Heb 11:18]. It was also not inherited by Esau [1 Chron 16:16-17][Psa 105:9-10][Mal 1:2-3] though Esau was Isaac's son. The covenant may have been inherited by blood, but it was not simply based upon blood.

(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote:  Then let's also look at Gen 25: 20 -23. God makes a promise to Rebekah - a Syrian- and Jacob and Esau are born.

I'm not sure of your point here. Abraham was a Hebrew, so was Rebekah having come from Nahor. Israelites were a subset of Hebrews that came after Abraham, and Rebekah. It was Jesus who identified to whom he was sent, according to His own claim and contemporary to His ministry. Clearly, all Israelites were Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were Israelites.

So what are you arguing? I hope you're not suggesting that because Abraham was a Hebrew rather than an Israelite, God couldn't establish the 'new covenant' with a subset of Abraham's Hebrew descendants (who the Israelites were). I hope you're not suggesting God could not specifically bless Israel, because Abraham came before. God blessed Abraham before Israel, and Israel descended from Abraham. God's covenant promise passed from Abraham to his descendants, though clearly not all (as evidenced from Ishmael, and Esau). Paul in Romans makes this very argument; simply having Hebrew blood did not mean one would 'automatically' enjoy the blessings of the covenant [Rom 9:6-13]. God's promise most certainly was restricted to Israelites, even if it wasn't first made with an Israelite. I would also add that those Israelites who rejected Christ were cut off like Ishmael and Esau before.

If anything, Christ's claim to have come 'only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel' is evidence that the covenant first established with Abraham, inherited by Isaac, then Jacob, was absolutely worth something because of the blessings it carried with it; whether or not Abraham was an Israelite.
Vic, this post is an example of how you've already made up your mind, and how your method of arguing is based upon a straw-man.

You've posed the questions. and you've answered them (suggesting your answers are actually mine). Your answers are your staw-man.

I've said (honestly) I answer from the bible, and yet you use expressions like 'white race'. If you want me to take your questions seriously, put them in biblical terms, otherwise we're talking apples and oranges. I'm not the one being elusive because I don't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race'. The bible doesn't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race', so like the bible I don't employ that type of vocabulary. That vocabulary is yours.

And you conclude with:

(08-04-2011 01:07 PM)Vic Wrote:  That's ok. We understand. 14389[/b] [/color]

Which is to say, you've already pre-judged my position and made up your mind (so it really doesn't matter anyway).

If you want to challenge my position, do so. If you don't (because you already understand), that's fine too.

Ekklesia, I'm sorry but your reply to me is just a summary of the inconsistencies in your doctrine throughout the entire thread. The whole of the matter goes back to John chapter 3 and verse 16. Now all along you keep saying to us that you believe Jesus words, all of them, and you say we disbelieve them because we 'reject' that He came only for the lost sheep of Israel. Yet these words "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him may have everlasting life" are spoken by Jesus. Does he contradict himself? The chapter relates the event of Nicodemus going to Jesus. Here is the chapter from the beginning to verse 18.

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In Jesus Christ' death and resurrection we are born again, and are a new creature: whether of Israel or Edom, Ethiopia, or Italy or where ever in the world we are from, from whatever tribe or nation. Giving credence to the blood of a person is literally glorying in the flesh, which we are not to do. See Romans, and here Galatians Chap 6:12 - 18

As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Now look very carefully and prayerfully at 2 Corinthians Ch5 ( the whole chapter) but I will just post these verses: 15-18 :

And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Phillipians 4:23 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2011, 05:29 AM
Post: #125
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
Furthermore, although a covenant is 'more' than a promise, with God, a promise, is never less than a covenant; nor will His promises contradict or supercede His covenant but will be contained in and ultimately fulfilled in His Covenant, in Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20

For all the promises of God in him (Christ) are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Also look at 2 Chronicles 6:1-11

Then said Solomon, The LORD hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.
But I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling for ever.
And the king turned his face, and blessed the whole congregation of Israel: and all the congregation of Israel stood.
And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who hath with his hands fulfilled that which he spake with his mouth to my father David, saying,
Since the day that I brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build an house in, that my name might be there; neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel:
But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel.
Now it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.
But the LORD said to David my father, Forasmuch as it was in thine heart to build an house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart:
Notwithstanding thou shalt not build the house; but thy son which shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house for my name.
The LORD therefore hath performed his word that he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and am set on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.
And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, that he made with the children of Israel.

Phillipians 4:23 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2011, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 08-22-2011 11:05 AM by Ekklesia.)
Post: #126
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-11-2011 01:38 PM)Vic Wrote:  You won't answer the questions. Therefore, there is no point you being here.

Vic, I'm happy to answer your questions, but YOU must permit ME to answer them, and not attribute YOUR answers to me. I would rather defend MY actual position, rather than the one you attribute to me. As I've shown you before, that type of argument is a fallacy (called Straw Man).

Your last posts have not specifically posed questions to me about my position (and allowed me to respond). Reviewing what's transpired, I've continued to make a biblical case which represents my position. But you won't engage what I say, rather you engage your straw-man position. I've specifically asked you (a number of times) to identify questions to me you specifically want answered. You've identified questions, but you've also provided answers you claim are mine. Thus, you've represented the position you wish me to defend, in attributing your answers to me.

You're not really engaging MY position here, so how can I respond? You've also gone on to make a number of ad homenim comments which I've identified as such. You portray this identification as "playing the victim" which shows your missing the point.

I do not feel the victim here, and I am not "hurt" by your ad homenim comments. WRT the positions I've defended or refuted, my "feelings" are actually irrelevant, neither proving nor disproving anything. However, I identify your "ad homenim" comments, not because they "injure" me, but because they prove you are employing false reasoning (fallacy) and avoiding the substance of the argument being contended.

Because you would rather address the arguer rather than the argument, there is really nothing for me to address in your position. For your position to be sound, your premises must be true, and your argumentation must not contain a fallacy. If so, your conclusion will be true. But I've pointed out that your premises are false. I've shown the fallacies in your argumentation, so there is no way your conclusions can be true. (At this point, with your position shown to be false, I can do no more)

Even so, you still seem to have a controversy with my position. If so, the way ahead is for you to specifically identify what you disagree with by making or refuting a point. If you identify questions you'd like me to answer, please pose them and allow me to answer you. Otherwise, at this point, I don't see what debate you have with with my position (which is why I ask you to restate your position).

If you're not happy to make a case and defend it, or argue against mine, I'm happy to rest my case, having no further challenges.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-24-2011, 12:08 AM
Post: #127
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote:  The whole of the matter goes back to John chapter 3 and verse 16.

Yes but [John 3:16] is not forging a covenant with non-Israelites as you are arguing. [John 3:16] shows that creation will be restored, but that many will perish in the process; a few will not. This is no different than what happened during the flood; for the sake of restoring the earth, many perished, and God saved the righteous. Simply citing [John 3:16] does nothing to show we should disbelieve Jesus's claim that he "came only for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel".

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote:  Now all along you keep saying to us that you believe Jesus words, all of them, and you say we disbelieve them because we 'reject' that He came only for the lost sheep of Israel. Yet these words "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him may have everlasting life" are spoken by Jesus. Does he contradict himself?

You are taking His words in [John 3:16] out of context because you are making the ".. so loved THE WORLD" mean something that it did not. When Jesus says THE WORLD or κόσμος (kosmos" G2889) he's speaking of something greater then "all men", namely creation itself as His choice of words show (κόσμος kosmos G2889).

Jesus did not come to save "all men", clearly many will perish [Luke 13:3,5]. So how will Jesus save the [b]κόσμος kosmos He loved? He explains clearly [Matt 25:31-46] that He will save some and destroy others. Even [John 3:16] says the only ones saved will be only those "whoever believes in him". If you're going to use Jesus words to make a point, you should use them correctly as he meant them.

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote:  The chapter relates the event of Nicodemus going to Jesus. Here is the chapter from the beginning to verse 18.

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Wasn't Nicodemus an Israelite who believed in Jesus? I'm not quite sure why you quoted this because it seems to me you're proving that Jesus was addressing an Israelite who believe in Him. This is inline with my position.

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote:  In Jesus Christ' death and resurrection we are born again, and are a new creature: whether of Israel or Edom, Ethiopia, or Italy or where ever in the world we are from, from whatever tribe or nation. Giving credence to the blood of a person is literally glorying in the flesh, which we are not to do. See Romans, and here Galatians Chap 6:12 - 18

...
Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Mary, I don't dispute that in Christ, one is born again. This is not what we are debating. You are imparting to me something I'm not saying, which is that our flesh has anything to do with our salvation. Only Christ's work was responsible for our salvation.

Rather my argument is about to whom Christ was sent, however they are redeemed. If the bible says clearly the Bridegroom was sent to His Bride; it is worth asking "Who was the bride?" since the bible spends many verses answering this. This is not "glorying in the flesh" since it is not speaking to the nature of Christ's work but instead to the object of Christ's love. What I dispute is that the bride was anyone but Israel.

Your own verses refute your argument then. Notice, [Gal 6:18] shows that Paul presupposes a blood relationship with his audience, when he addresses them as 'brethren'. This expression only applied to those who shared a common forefather. This particular audience were obviously Israelites exiles as their very name shows (Galatians was Greek for גלה Galah H1540).

Look at the promises God made specifically with faithful Israelites [Lev 26:12] "And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.". This promise is integral to the Mosaic covenant, yet your position is that God did not come specifically to His people though He promised to do exactly that! You claim my position is false, but my position holds God's word, at face value is true. It is not my position that needs to explain How God promises one thing, or says one thing, and does another.

I believe God did not abandoned His people. Here's why biblically:
[Jer 31:36] says "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever." (Jesus did describe His people as a Kindom didn't he?). So I ask you: How can Israel be a nation before God IF they reject Him? This promise was specifically tied to the new covenant.

I believe God established the new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Here's why biblically:
[Jer 31:31] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah"
[Heb 8:8] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah"

Because Jesus said "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" [Matt 15:24], I am justified in believing Him. But he went further and commanded his disciples "but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" as well.

My position so far is consistent with the bible in believing God came to His people, walked among His people, shepherded His people, specifically because He promised to. The bible is clear that God's bride, His sheepfold, His vineyard, WAS ISRAEL.

About Jesus' relationship to Israel [Isa 40:11] says "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." Yet your position makes out these lambs to whom He was sent, were people who never knew Him or received such promises! In none of this have I denied that Christ's blood and ONLY Christ's blood was responsible for redemption, but in all of this you have denied Christ's love for His bride.

You either believe Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as He said He did, or you don't. If you don't, it isn't my position that is unbiblical or that needs to explain why Jesus would say one thing, but do another, or why God would promise one thing but do another.

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote:  Now look very carefully and prayerfully at 2 Corinthians Ch5 ( the whole chapter) but I will just post these verses: 15-18 :

Ok, now look very closely at who Paul was addressing Mary. The audience Paul was here: [2 Cor 1:8] "For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers (ἀδελφός adelphos G80), of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself."

Which adelpho (brethren) of Paul's had experienced great affliction in Asia? None other than the House of Israel who had been first persecuted by the Assyrian Empire, and pushed westward, then the Greek empire. It was none other than the House of Israel as recorded by Strabo commenting on Herodotus (calling them a number of things including Cappadocians (12.3.9))

Mary, you cite [2 Cor 5], but you pay no heed to whom it was addressed. If you're going to cite Paul's letter, cite it in context. Paul was writing Israelites.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-24-2011, 12:47 AM
Post: #128
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-11-2011 01:38 PM)Vic Wrote:  In your first post you said you hold CHristian Identity beliefs as stated in my articles.
You said you could defend those beliefs---all the while promoting some of those beliefs on this thread and others
You said you could answer questions about those beliefs. You refuse to do so.
Instead being asked direct questions by myself---who is more than familiar with Christian Identity variations along with British Israel beliefs, Lost tribe etc.--you pretend it is being an assault on you---you don't play the victim real well btw.

Vic, are you seriously suggesting I haven't defending my position? I think anyone reading this debate can see otherwise.

I am happy to defended my position? I think anyone who reads this thread will agree I've done exactly that. I'll point out again though, you haven't honestly asked me about my position. What you've done is ask me to defend the beliefs of others, or a straw-man position that you (apparently) would like me to hold. You accuse me of acting the victim which isn't relevant to this or any debate.

If you wish, I'm happy to concede "I've acted the victim". But, whether or not I'm a victim, doesn't establish the truth or falsity of my position. Whether I've acted the victim or not, I've focused on the debate.

I asked you to frame your position in biblical terms, terms I could understand. This is simply a point of fairness. You need to clarify your questions, just as I need to clarify my answers. In my first post, I said I was a Christian in essentials, which means in terms my belief about Christ's redemptive work, I'm no different than you. It also means that I value the bible as source of truth and understand things from a biblical perspective.

In engaging me, you've not engaged me biblically. When I ask my opponents in a debate to frame things in terms of the bible, it is so we have a common vocabulary, and speak to the same thing. This is a necessary pre-condition for any debate and not unreasonable.

I am curious why you refuse to debate things in biblical terms. I understand that you would have everyone believe as you do. But if your beliefs are too weak for you to defend you should question whether they are biblical. Personally, I believe your position is unbiblical, doctrinally bankrupt, and denies the faithfulness of Christ, which is why you appear not willing to defend it. Your faith must be very weak.

In my first post, I identified this sites criticism of Christian Identify, British Israelism, as the thing that drew me here. What I saw in it was arrogance, and ignorance. Your criticism reflects a contempt that suggests people who adhere Christian Identity understandings are irrational (or blind) for believing such. Your criticisms also reflect an ignorance which shows that contrary to your claims, you really do not understand the position against which you argue, and people's reasons for holding it.

It may be that from your perspective, I've not succeeded in establishing my position, or challenging yours. But, in my short while here, I've shown that belief in Christian Identity/British Israelism is not only rational, but is not born in ignorance, or devoid of faith. Whether or not you believe I've proven my position, I have succeeded.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2011, 01:03 PM
Post: #129
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
Ekklesia, to be clear, I put you on moderation temporarily because of your posts and attitude, despite other members waiting to respond to you. I was busy and wanted to make sure things didn't get going while I was unable to be available to moderate if necessary. Not that I need to explain those issues to you. If you need to understand that please read the forum rules which you said you had read.

You persist in twisting what is happening on this forum. Allow me to clarify some things for you. You are here as a guest to this DISCUSSION FORUM. It is not like many other forums where they are a free for all. It is not a debate forum as you have tried to make it and to which you attempted to make up all the 'rules' by which other members could address you, in your first posts. Your intent by those statements has been to control and direct the discussion which you want to be a debate.

This thread is about Christian Identity and British Israel beliefs. You have determined that only particular beliefs will be discussed by yourself, with pretense that any discussion of other known CI doctrine is to be viewed as a strawman, ad hominem attack on you and your beliefs. Unfortunately for your stand, saying that Christian Identity holds the answers is contradictory to that doctrine being a strawman for discussion. Christian Identity has never been just one or two beliefs. It's a whole mess of beliefs---some of which varies from group to group. That is a known and provable fact. End of your debate over that issue.

That you wish to dismiss that as a strawman is your perogative and shows total lack of substance for your debate. There has been ample posts asking you to clarify which of the known Christian Identity beliefs you do side with or believe---including listing some of the more common ones. All of which you refuse to answer, then state in your debate "rules" that not responding to information means consensus. Except you don't like that 'rule' applied to all the questions and facts refuting your very posts and doctrine as presented by you. Instead you refused to answer, acknowledge or concede to that information. And you treat it all as not pertaining to any of the discussion. Therefore, as you have said, not responding to those facts or questions means your consensus---we can believe nothing else because you yourself made that statement. Therefore, End of debate from you on those issues.

Incidently the facts concerning greek words, Cornelius, the Italian band, all information which refuted your stand and to which you merely dismissed as not existing. Therefore we must conclude you now understand the error of believing the Italians and Cornelius were Israelites, and now have understanding on the issue of obtaining Roman citizenship while being Israelite or some other nationality, versus being a true Roman. End of debate for you on that issue also.

To be clear, this thread is for discussion about Christian Identity beliefs---any and all of them. You don't want anyone to perceive what your beliefs are other than the 3 or 4 ideas you have been fixated on here--that is your choice. You say your Christian Identity holds the answers but don't want anyone to know all the beliefs or for it to be viewed by readers that you hold the usual or commonly held Christian Identity beliefs.

What must then be concluded, is that you have designed your own unique and specific Christian Identity beliefs with perhaps some other believers, since you don't want to be identified as the same as other Christian Identity adherents. And we can assume you are attempting to draw others away after those unnamed beliefs. Since we are called to test and prove all things to the Word of God, not your say so, it would be prudent for anyone to discover what all those unnamed doctrines are and see if they can stand the test of Scripture. Right off the bat we see issue with your stand, when tested to many Scriptures.

However. All that said, Since this thread is about the beliefs of Christian Identity, British Israel and Lost tribes--which are interconnected, any and all beliefs under those labels can and will be discussed with or without your participation, approval or disapproval. And if you want to show which Christian Identity beliefs you hold or you don't hold, feel free--because so far you have not shown dissension to any of those which I have presented in the list, other than haggling over what the definition of white race means==and to which you still withhold what you actually do believe about that.

It is of no interest or consequence to me what you want to call Christian Identity or not or hide behind saying it is not being asked in a way you understand as being Biblical. The facts and beliefs for Christian Identity, British Isreal and Lost tribes are all out there for people to investigate and refute. One can start with these: http://www.seekgod.ca/hr/hrfaqs2.htm
http://www.seekgod.ca/identity.htm http://www.seekgod.ca/britisrael.htm

Now you can say that is some other person's Christian Identiy beliefs-which you have claimed repeatedly-but then you yourself said Christian Identity holds the answers. So since you do not wish to discuss all the 'answers' Christian Identity doctrine holds--but only your take on the few things you have tried to direct and control the discussion with here, it is really inconsequential to me what you think about the direction of the discussion. Christian Identity holds particular beliefs to which you have said you are in agreement, and therefore we can take the known CI beliefs and discuss them all around you, with or without your participation and know that is what Christian Identity adherents believe. It's really no problem that you don't want people to know the Christian Identity doctrine you believe, other than your attempted control, direction and focus on this thread.

I would urge you to reread the forum rules if you wish to continue here.


1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

John 3:14-21 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Titus 3:4-11 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6. Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 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.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Vic
SeekGod.ca

3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2011, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2011 02:04 PM by Vic.)
Post: #130
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
These are Some Christian Identity and British Israel doctrine.

Is there Scriptural support for the following beliefs? If someone decides to answer one or more , please include the statement with the answer and show Scripturally your belief. Please Break your responses into smaller posts if answering several questions. Thank you.:


The White Race is God's choice to work his purposes?
[White race meaning exclusion of non-caucasians or similar definitions.]

Non-caucasians do not have souls?

Can other than 'caucasians' ever be saved?

Did Jesus pay for the sins of the House of Israel and House of Judah only, and salvation comes through redemption and race?

Are white Europeans the literal and true descendents of the Israelites through the ten tribes which were taken into captivity in Assyria?

Race was the basis of choice between Esau and Jacob?

Is there a pre-Adamite race of lesser races--non caucasians? Some believe the 'beasts of the field' meant non-caucasian races as mentioned in Genesis 1:25, Jonah 3:8?

Are there non-Adamic races?

Did Adam and Eve give birth to the white race only?

Does Scripture support Adam as being caucasian?

Are those other than whites made in God's image as Adam was?

Was Eve seduced by Satan--the snake--and produced Cain, while with Adam, produced Abel? This dual seedline or serpent seed or two seedline belief means that Cain was the progenitor of the Jews in later matings with the non-Adamic races. Is there Scripture to support this?

Are the White Europeans --true Israelietes and God's Chosen people?

Are the White Europeans or Caucasians God's chosen people according to the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? And the early white European tribes were really the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and therefore the rightful heirs to God's promises?

Are modern Jews not Israelites nor Hebrews but are Turco-Mongolian or Khazars or descendents of Esau-Edom [Genesis 25:29–34]

Are white Europeans the true descendants of the Biblical Jacob, and therefore they are the true Israel?

Did modern Jews descend from Canaanites?

Did Jews descend from the tribe of Judah?

Do Jews make up the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the British and other related Northern European peoples making up the remainder tribes of Israel? This is a form of British Israel doctrine which is different than Christian Identity.

Was the flood with Noah global or local?

Is racial separation, whites versus other groups, part of belonging to Jesus Christ?

Are the modern Jews genetically compelled by their Edomite? ancestry to carry on a conspiracy against the Adamic or white seedline and have control over much of the earth because of their illegitimate claim as God's chosen people?

Is the term Christian Identity a Biblical term?

When did Christian Identity first form as a denomination/belief system?

Are those who don't agree with Christian Identity beliefs anti-semites?

Vic
SeekGod.ca

3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)