Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine

[Vic]

Ekklesia, my comments and posts have been entirely about your doctrine, and asking you to clarify it by specific known parameters of Christian Identity or British Israelism.

If you had stated your beliefs clearly about the beliefs you hold you would not be asked to clarify them based on the usual Christian Identity/British Israel beliefs known as commonly held beliefs.

Quote: I've said before, my beliefs are biblical. Expect me to argue 'the bible', not which ever doctrines you currently detest.

I have not fit you into " any pigeon hole' but have gone precisely by your initial words of holding to the Christian Identity/British Israel beliefs within the articles you had read. And including what is known understood on those issues and beliefs. Like it or not.

I have been giving you every opportunity to clarify the beliefs you agree with or disagree with under those belief 'labels'. Instead you do the obtuse, coy shuffle, deliberately avoiding those direct questions. No one has been baiting you, including me. There has been no straw men arguments except in your responses which attempt to make these false claims about intent behind what is asked or posted by myself or Rose or Mary. The condescension comes through towards each in your posts incedently, just as an aside.

I have been asking direct questions related to Christian Identity/British Israel beliefs.

You can say your beliefs are Biblical, but Christian Identity in and of itself is not Biblical.

Quote:If something cannot be answered biblically, I likely won't address it. Please don't expect me to, or expect me to fit nicely in your stereo types.

Much of what you have to say is opinion about Scripture, which you take out of the context. The language issues/word issues etc are about your opinion that everyone has translated or misused words and you and your Christian Identity beliefs are the right way. Where have we heard this before I wonder. You reject any correlating Scripture other than what you feel fits your position. That's not handling the Word of God properly.

2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

craftiness G3834
πανουργία
panourgia
Thayer Definition:
1) craftiness, cunning
2) a specious or false wisdom
3) in a good sense, prudence, skill, in undertaking and carrying on affairs
Part of Speech: noun feminine

deceitfully G1389
δολόω
doloō
Thayer Definition:
1) to ensnare
2) to corrupt
Part of Speech: verb

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

rightly dividing G3718
ὀρθοτομέω
orthotomeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways
1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly
Part of Speech: verb

I have addressed much of what you have said as I have had time--which has been limited this last while. Believe me when I say, IF I take the time to dissect all your posts, you will not be happy with me then either. And you won't answer those posts either, but will come up with some victimology strategy that will justify your not answering.

However, as you have said, not answering questions, facts or Scriptures means consensus to or with something. The point being made stands, as you said..So I guess we do have the answers to the myriad of unanswered questions and facts. From post 81:

Do believe the white race are the chosen people to do His purposes? >>> the answer must be Yes
Do you believe the lost ten tribes, Ephraim and Manneseh doctrine? >>> the answer must be Yes
Was Jesus an Aryan, Ekklesia?
Are the aryan nations the lost tribes of Israel? >>> the answer must be Yes
Do you believe the pyramidology that the cornerstone is Israel? >>> the answer must be Yes

Since that is what JH Allen believed and to which you recommend his book as a good read?
You want your words and beliefs interpreted--this is how I do it. You wouldn't answer and dismiss it as being directed to other than you, rings hollow.
Your misinterpretation of various Scriptures will be addressed.

Being obtuse doesn't do you justice on these things because you know quite well what white race means and aryan--in use by Christian Identity and British Israel. Otherwise you would not be saying I do not understand the meanings behind them with regards to Christian Identity. And your definition of Aryan, is lacking the rest of the information from which Christian Identity and British Israelism draw their meaning.

I think the onus is on you to present your definition of white race and aryan race----since it is you that says you hold the doctrines of Christian Identity and British Israel as described in my articles. Please try to be fairly concise so there is no misunderstanding.

>>>>As you said, unanswered questions means conceding to what is being said, so we can assume you believe the affirmative to the above as well as the continually unanswered questions that followed---and I would point out that is your stance regarding unanswered questions, not mine:

NOT ANSWERED> therefore we must conclude you agree with that doctrine since it is foundational doctrine to Christian Identity and British Israelism as discussed in the article which you, yourself said you hold the beliefs described in that article--and which was sourced from other Christian Identity/British Israel believers.

NOT ANSWERED, therefore we can conclude you agree with the premise of the White Race being God's choice to work his purpose and Race was the basis of choice between Esau and Jacob.; Ephraim, Mannaseh and the whole "lost ten tribes" spiel, etc.

NOT ANSWERED, therefore we can conclude you believe that the British Crown is of the Davidic line and the other statements above about the United States and prophecy about Israel applies to them.

What's interesting to me is the overturning of Scripture concerning the Davidic lineage which culminated in Christ sitting on the throne of David FOREVER, according to the Scriptures. That's the Messianic prophecies in the Scriptures. Therefore trying to build a doctrine of Britain crown and US being somehow recipient of the crown and lineage is overturning the fulfilment of the following. There is no more throne that matters, because the throne of David is held by Jesus Christ. He reigns now and forever, as King and Lord.

Here's some questions I think would be great if you would answer as it would show what level of Christian Identity/British Israel beliefs you actually do hold,Ekklesia, since there are as you say, differences in dialoguing with a true believer of these things versus my academic article which you said you disagreed with with but hold to the beliefs discussed within it:

Do you believe there was a pre-Adamite race of lesser races--non caucasians? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are there non-Adamic races? >>> the answer must be Yes

Did Adam and Eve give birth to the white race only? >>> the answer must be Yes

Does Scripture support Adam as being caucasian? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are those other than whites made in God's image as Adam was? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are White Europeans descendants of Israelites? through the 'lost ten tribes'? >>> the answer must be Yes

Do you believe Europeans are the true descendants of the Biblical Jacob, hence they are the true Israel? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are white europeans actually true Israelites and God's chosen people? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are modern Jews not Israelites but rather of the descendents of Esau-Edom who traded his birthright? >>> the answer must be Yes or Turco-Mongolian blood or Khazars? >>> the answer must be Yes

Do you believe modern Jews descended from Canaanites? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are those who don't agree with your beliefs anti-semites? >>> the answer must be Yes

Do you believe non-Caucasians are inherently different than Caucasians before God? >>> the answer must be Yes

Do you agree with Two House theology? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are the Jews descended from the tribe of Judah? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are the true descendents of Judah, not modern Jews but instead White Europeans, longside the House of Israel? >>> the answer must be Yes

Are the 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? >>> the answer must be Yes

Do you follow the Mosaic law--that is, do you attempt to keep it? >>> the answer must be Yes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as your intent to 'debate me directly"--no you don't do that. You avoid taking my posts on directly because to do so would show your true beliefs---which in your words, Christian Identity beliefs hold baggage to which you wish to distance yourself. All the while holding those beliefs. Incedently the FAQS are all researched and documented and can be proven as true. They refute your Ephraim/Mannaseh/British Israel/Lost tribes error. Urging someone to read them merely allows information to be presented without reposting the whole thing here on the forum--but I can guess I can do that too. If I post something I have written, it's debating me directly to debate that information. And of course all those topics are addressed individually on this forum. So you want to promote your views about those things, find the thread and have at it.

That you came here because of my articles, shows a double mind when it comes to those same articles.

As I stated to you, YOU have made this thread about Matt 15---despite that not being all the thread is to be about and despite that issue being found on other threads. YOU keep turning it there because you refuse to deal with what is presented to you. YOU refuse to accept what is said to you about that topic because to do so would be to show your misuse of the Scriptures and passage and what Jesus also said and did in that very passage. You have been given many refutations to provide you with understanding of these things which you refuse.

And no, you have not addressed all questions, factual information or Scriptures given to you. You have your mantra and that is where you focus.

I have never said word meanings don't matter. That's a straw man from you. The issue is taking something out of context, or making an issue of a word that is no issue because understanding for it is far greater than what you want it to be about that word. Hence the reason to attempt to overthrow the Scriptures and understanding in order to promote your beliefs.

Quote:For example, I began this debate by criticising the use of the word 'church' as an example of how your modern 'church' doctrine has adopted false (unbiblical) meaning. As long as this position remains uncontested, I'm justified believing your doctrine contains false meaning. As you have pointed out, your own position clearly doesn't want to examine the actual meaning of the word ἐκκλησία ekklēsia found in the bible, because the very idea your doctrine is based on false meaning, weakens your position. This is why you resent this line of argument, and have said so numerous times.

I resent nothing. I have examined the word and find your pursuit of the issue shallow and untenable because you do not understand nor apply all that 'church'--the english rendition-- encompasses with the foundation of the greek ekklesia---and what it means to belong to Christ. You were shown your information to be incorrect. Congregation or assembly are also all used in the english, and believe it or not---we get it, what it all means. Church is not some dirty filthy word when applied to designate the believers of Jesus Christ. THat was shown to you in my posts and I believe Rose and Mary addressed that as well. No one ignored it. You just can't accept anything other than what your Christian Identity beliefs dictate. Because that would mean you have to change your beliefs.

YOur fixation on the word church is one that is found on the net by people who want to undermine the Scriptures. YOu aren't first or the last to go on and on over a word which to those who believe the Scriptures--know it's intent and meaning. It has nothing to do with tampering ---it has everything to do with understanding who we are in Jesus Christ and that is not dependent on one word. It combines all those things we know throughout the Scriptures.

Funny how you ignored all the 'word' information given you and the subsequent questions in order to try to redirect to your beliefs. INstead of answering the questions in such as post # 102. All based on your statements. IN fact not answering any of the factual or Scriptural information in posts 101-107, You make the false statement I don't consider words important. IN those posts alone, I gave you 33 word definitions. Which you ignored. I answered you on the Cornelius issue, which you ignored. ON Italians and Romans, Greeks and Gentiles. I answered you, and you fully ignored it all and attempt to turn the topic again to what has been answered repeatedly and never address all the information in those answers but merely cite your reasons why what you say must be true, and everything else false.

Funny how proving not just the first Geneva Bible but other bibles used church, much earlier than you proclaimed several times, is now acknowledged as really inconsequential for the issue, yet your several statements in various posts was your 'proof' that it was not used prior to the 1700's. Oh well.

I may have raised some issue that you've missed? You want me to waste my time identifying all my posts, some of which is noted above and which you have not addressed yet again, and you will address the many posts put to you? And Rose's and Mary's too?

I doubt it. Because to answer all those posts directly would be to concede you are wrong on many many things. And that would inhibit promotion of Christian Identity holding the answers---which you have stated.

Although, I guess I am remiss in noting that as you have said, if something is presented and not addressed, the information must be viewed as true and being agreed with. So I guess your silence on all those posts is confirmation it is all true and you are just being shy about saying you agree and were wrong about all those things.

That's ok. We understand.