Here we continue with another chapter from Charles A. Wiseman’s book Is Universalism Of God? This chapter concerns Galatians — one of the most popular of Paul’s epistles among Christian universalists who will robotically quote verse 3:28 as if it is irrefutable, prima facie proof that Christianity is a unqualified, universal faith intended for anyone and everyone:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
It never occurs to universalists that there were Israelites among the Greeks — most notably, the Danaans — rather, they automatically assume that “Greeks” here in Galatians somehow means any “non-Jew” (and therefore non-Israelite) regardless of ancestry or origin — and nothing could be further from the truth, as Wiseman shows here:
To Whom Was the Book of Galatians Written?
The book of Galatians is quoted quite frequently by universalists and egalitarians to prove their point. We often hear them quote how “there is neither Jew nor Greek, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28); and how “we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16). They say anyone that believes can be a “son of God” or is “an heir of God” (4:6,7).
These — along with other similar verses [such as Colossians 3:11] — are quoted to show how all people are or can be “God’s chosen” — or that there no longer is any racial or ethnic preferences according to God. The universalists and humanist Christians assert that Christ is the “all in aII” for Israelites and any non-lsraelites alike — and that Paul was telling the non-Israelites in Galatia that they too are included within the Body of Christ.
When Paul said “you” or “we” or “us” — to whom was he referring? Is it anyone who happens to read the letter? No, it is not. The letter was written to a specific people whom Paul had already met and with whom he was already familiar. It is these people who are “sons of God” — or are “in Christ.” So it is critical to understand to whom the Book of Galatians was written.
Universalists read the book of Galatians just as they do much of the Bible — as though it is a letter personally written to them last week. They refuse to follow the rules of logic that require us to keep the epistle within its original historical context — and within the scope of the intended audience.
Let us examine what one humanist-minded “Christian” stated in regards to why he thinks Galatians is universal in scope:
“It is my contention that the book of Galatians was not written to the scattered Israelites of Galatia exclusively, but to all Christians in Galatia. In saluting those people to whom the epistle was written, Paul identifies them as “all the brethren,” in verses 2 and 11. No mention of Israeliteness — or lack thereof — is made. In fact, the next mention of any type of Gentile is found in Galatians 1:16 where Paul declares that he was called to preach to the heathen, which word does not in any way imply a diaspora. In Gal. 2:2, Paul refers to the same people he preaches to as “Gentiles” with no distinction in meaning made or in any way implied.”
This statement — like many of those made by humanist Christians — is riddled with error, speculation and faulty logic. The fact that the letter was written to “Christians” does not necessarily mean they were non-Israelites. It is well known that the [early] converts to Christianity during the “Apostolic church” were almost without exception made up of Israelites.
This Universalist also recognizes that Paul is writing his letter to the Galatians — a people he calls “brethren” — a term Paul uses ten times in the epistle. But the Universalist claims this term has no implication of “Israeliteness.” Well, if one only superficially looks at the epistle to the Galatians, they can probably say that, but if they want to employ proper exegesis, they need to look at other places where this term is used.
The term “brethren” is adelphos in the Greek (#80) — and like the similar Hebrew term “denotes any blood-relation or kinsman” (to quote Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon). Other than a literal brother, this is the more common usage of the term. While some would say the term means a fellow believer, there is more justification for applying the definition of racial/ethnic kinsman:
-The Apostles were ‘brethren” of Jesus (Matt. 4:18,21 John 20:17), all of them Israelites.
-On Pentecost Peter addressed the ‘brethren” (Acts 2:29,37), whom he also calls ‘Men of Israel” (2:22).
-Peter again uses the words “Men of Israel” and “brethren” synonymously (Acts 3:12,17).
-The “children of Israel” in Egypt are referred to as the “brethren” of Moses (Acts 7:23,25).
-The prophecy of the advent Jesus was to come from among your “brethren” (Acts 3: 22;7:37).
-Paul refers to the people in Galatia as “Brethren, children of the stock of Abraham” (Acts 13:26).
-The apostles and elders at the Jerusalem council are called “brethren” by Peter, and says they are related to the Israelite fathers (Acts l5:7,10).
-Paul called the Judean Israelites in the Sanhedrin his “brethren” (Acts 23: l-6).
-In his letter to the Romans Paul shows his dedication “for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” Rom. 9:3,4).
-The “Brethren” are those of Israel who Paul desires to be saved (Acts (10:1).
-Paul calls the Corinthians ‘brethren” telling them how “all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1).
-James wrote his epistle to ‘the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” whom he calls “My brethren” (James l:1,2,16; 2:1,5, etc.).
It is clear that the term “brethren” was used by Paul in Galatians of those who had a [literal] kinship with him — those who were [fellow] Israelites (Acts 13:26). The term did not mean a fellow believer — since Paul speaks of “false brethren” (2 Cor. 11:26; Gal.2:4).
The Universalist [quoted above] also mentioned that Paul was called to preach among the ‘heathen’ (1:l6), which he automatically assumes to be non-Israelites. However, this word “heathen” in the Greek is [from] the same word that is translated as “gentiles” in Gal. 2:2. The word is ethnos, (#1484) — and simply means a race or nation or tribe. Paul is not saying “heathen” in verse 16 as we would use it today — he is talking about the nations — one of which is Galatia.
The Universalist says that no distinction in race is implied any way in Paul’s use of “gentiles.” That is basically true — which means he is not justified to assume they are non-Israerites. Again, proper exegesis requires we look at all of Scripture — not just one verse in Galatians — to understand what is meant. Throughout the New Testament, the use of “gentiles” (ethnos) usually means nations other than Judea.
Thus, those of Galilee are referred to as “Gentiles” — such as in Matthew 4:15 — but this does not mean that Jesus and the Apostles from Galilee were non-Israerites. The ethnos or “nations” was obviously used in some cases by Paul — and the writers of the Gospels — to describe a kindred people or those who were of the same racial/ethnic stock as themselves.
Thus, the “Gentiles” are “brethren” (Acts 15:23; Romans 1:13). Israelites were clearly “scattered” in other lands (James 1:1). Since they were not part of the Judean nation, they were ”aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2:12). They were of another nation [or tribe] — not of another race.
[Note: the original Greek suggests that Ephesians 2:12 should more properly translated, “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” — thus emphasizing that the Galatians were originally part of the tribes of Israel from which they became estranged after the Assyrian captivity. CFT]
Now to further show that Paul was addressing his own kindred people in and among the nations (“gentiles”) he addressed, let us see which people in Galatia Paul visited on his missionary journeys. The book of Acts describes the journey of Paul into Galatia and other nations (see map below).
When Paul came to Antioch in Pisidia, he went into a synagogue and preached to the people calling them “Men and brethren” and also “Men of Israel” (Acts 13:15,16). He spoke to them about how “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers” (verse 17). It is quite apparent that in this Galatian city, Paul was speaking to Israelites.
At Iconium, Paul went to a synagogue of the Judeans and spoke so that a great multitude both of the Jews [Judeans] and of the Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1). So here two national groups were addressed — the Judeans, of course, being Israelites. Like his missionary visits to other cities, Paul goes straight to the synagogues — because that is where he would find Israelites.
Paul wrote his letter “unto the churches of Galatia” (1:2) which were the churches he established on his evangelistic journey. It only makes sense that the people to whom Paul wrote his letter would be the same people he visited in Galatia.
Josephus, in Antiquities (16. 32), testifies that many Israelites resided in Galatia — but it is true there was another type of people there. The country of Galatia — formed by Augustus in 25 B.C. — “was so called because a tribe of Gauls had settled there in the third century B.C.”(2) The Gauls had settled there “after migrating from western Europe.”(3) The term “Gaul — or Gallo-graeci — is another form of the name Kelts. Their character is ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers.”(4) So the Galatian population contained those of European stock — and thus were also Israelites.
2 Davidson, The New Bible Commentary, Eerdmans, pp. 1001, 1002.
3 The Wycltffe Bible Commentary, Moody Press, p. 1283
4 Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on the Bible, vol.2, p. 322.
The book of Galatians also supplies us with other internal evidence which reveals Paul was writing to Israelites:
Gal. 3:7 “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.”
Gal. 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.”
Gal. 3:23 “But before faith came, we were kept under the law.”
Gal. 4:4-5 “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Gal. 4:28 “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”
These words and statements would be rather bizarre and unfamiliar to a non-Israelite people. They would not apply to such a people. Only Israel was under the law (Psalm 147:19-20) — and of the lineage of Abraham and Jacob to whom the promises were made. Further, Paul’s use of “us” and “we” within these verses identifies the Galatians with himself as Israelites.
Universalists and humanist Christians read only those verses which are generic and appear as though they could mean or include anyone. They will avoid those verses which clearly deal with the racial or ethnic exclusiveness of Israel. They refuse to look at the whole picture to see how the words used are qualified or limited by context or related subject matter. Instead they quote only verses that say “those who are of faith” are “heirs according to the promise” — thinking [simplistically] that anyone who [merely] “believes” is made an heir. But this qualification is placed upon all Israelites — whether they be Judeans or Galatians or Greeks or Gauls.
I noticed my comment didnt get approved on the other article, fair enough. However I think it is appropraite to ask my question here. So CFT, what are your thoughts on guys who reject Paul as an apostle?
Justin, your comment was approved, but we moved it to a more relevant article, and you can find our response to you here:
https://christiansfortruth.com/a-christian-response-to-jesus-the-jew-by-white-nationalist-thomas-dalton/#comment-186845
And this will help you understand the identity of true Israel:
https://christiansfortruth.com/an-open-challenge-to-all-christian-ministers-who-teach-that-only-the-jews-are-israel/
If Jesus Christ were to return today,
HE would be hounded as a ‘racist’ – “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24).
HE would be castigated as ‘antisemitic’ – “Ye = (the Jews) are of your father the devil” (John 8:44)
HE would be accused of violating ‘human rights’ by limiting His disciples’ activity to one people alone — “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6).
As such, 99% of so-called Christians today would reject the true Christ upon His return. Only the racist and antisemitic Christians would accept Him. How ironic.
ha!
You jews are not Semitic…so your accusations don’t hold water. The tribe of Judah ain’t you! Why don’t you go to where you feel good? Because you never feel good. Your wicked violent corrupted satanic dna will never allow you to feel good. That’s why you spew lies and deceit because it is impossible for you to invent anything. You steal to survive. You slander to uphold your corruption(s). You kill when you are called out for your crimes. Make no mistake your days are numbered! And Jesus Christ has already conquered your satanic death cult. So as you have dished out so shall you reap. And REAP….and infinitely REAP!!! Get lost vile pig full of blasphemous arrogant lying vomit.
Sparrow, I think you may have misunderstood my comment.
I was trying to show how today’s Christians are so judaized that when Christ returns, they will reject Him because He’s not politically correct the way Christians have been taught.
Most Christian ministers teach “another Jesus”, not the one that is coming.
Only a small remnant will understand.
Of course, Jews aren’t semitic, nor was Jesus a “Jew”, but that’s what Christians today believe.
Therefore, they will reject Christ for being a “racist” who comes only for the lost sheep of Israel, just as He said He did (Matt. 15:24).
True Christianity is an exclusive faith, as Christ came to divide, the wheat from the tares.
My last comment must have been rejected as it’s gone but it seemed rather innocuous. In any event, search “davidjamesboston” and “Investigation Into The Apostle Paul’s Gospel” to learn more about Saul.
Goylent, Your previous comment was rejected because you made a blanket statement about Paul, claiming “ample evidence” to prove Paul was a fraud, but you offered no evidence, as if your comment was self-evident. As such, your comment virtually said nothing and added nothing to the conversation.
Im 100% for the preservation of European peoples and completely against the Babylonian talmud’s eradicating different races of people and mixing us into a culture less society of obedient slaves to the “Jewish master race”.
But If Christians go down the rabbit hole of “whiteness” then they have fallen completely into the Jewish trap. It’s like wrestling a pig in a sty. You’re just going to get covered in mud and poo.
Why preserve the European people if their “whiteness” is meaningless? That makes no sense. If all races are equal, preserving the white race is “racist”, or so the Jews tell us.
Either the white European is significant in the spiritual sense or it isn’t. I believe it is. I believe, and can prove, that the living remnant of the Israelites is found within the European people, and that’s why it is worth preserving, and why it must be preserved.
If you understand your Bible, that should make sense to you.
What is Jewish “poo” is the idea that they are Israel, and the white Europeans or “the gentiles”, are Edom or Amalek. Jews have convinced you and most other people of this lie, and you want to spread it here and everywhere.
Truthbearer…..
I am in agreement with Marlowe and would enjoy hearing you respond to his comment.
You said — “…..But If Christians go down the rabbit hole of “whiteness” then they have fallen completely….”
I am very curious what this means to you. Specifically as it relates to several articles here on CFT and a topic of interest for me —- the Origin of the Races.
As an example — https://christiansfortruth.com/does-acts-1726-prove-that-all-races-are-of-one-blood-in-christ/
Where do you stand on this? Are you a Pre-Adamite theorist, or do you believe that all People Groups are descended from Adam and Eve?
Could you explain your position/belief on this issue? Because I may have a follow up question depending on how you answer. I don’t want to assume anything.
“Truthbearer” is a bold avatar. I’m curious in your “truth”.
Because arguing about “Aryan” and “true bloods” becomes a clown fiesta where the Jew can easily poke holes in your arguments and make you and us look very foolish for their gain.
It is going to take an enormous effort to defeat the evil the Jews have wrought to this world. I believe we need a united Christian front of all the different peoples to overcome it. Let us not be so divided and conquered. We can argue semantics later when the war is won.
Truthbearer, you are making the same argument that Catholic apologist E. MIchael Jones attempts to make…that when you call yourself a “white” person, the Jews “win” because they can discredit you. That’s a facile argument. “Don’t admit that you are white because the Jews know how to make you look bad in an argument.”
This battle is not going to be won through politics, which is what you are advocating. Jews own politics. We aren’t going to defeat the Jews by denying who we are, which is white Europeans of Israelite descent.
Jews want us to deny who we are, and that’s how we got in this mess in the first place. Politics is dead, and there is no political solution to the JQ.
We have the Jews we deserve because of our turning away from God, and allowing our Christian faith to be corrupted. God uses Jews as His “rod of chastisement”, and He’s not going to remove that chastisement because we find a political common cause with blacks, latinos and Asians.
Jews like Dennis Prager encourage white Christian conservatives to do exactly what you are advocating, and he also tacitly encourages race mixing for whites, which is what will happen if we elevate those races to our level for satanic political exigencies.
That’s a lose/lose scenario. No, thank you. Only a remnant will be saved, and that remnant will be those who do not compromise with the world. Which side are you on?
“…Jews want us to deny who we are, and that’s how we got in this mess in the first place….” Hear, hear!
“…We have the Jews we deserve because of our turning away from God, and allowing our Christian faith to be corrupted….” Amen.
Marlowe, you are making a lot of presumptive accusations here and give me a false dilemma/ultimatum.
I believe in God and the only way to salvation is through the son, Jesus Christ our Lord. That is my side.
I agree politics would seem completely lost as with most of our institutions. Jewish tentacles of corruption and control runs deep. But with God, all things are possible.
We are in a battle with evil to save souls. The great masses are asleep and completely oblivious, sold out too or live in fear of mentioning Lucifer’s chosen ones machinations.
I do not advocate race mixing as you accuse, yes we should love and treasure our own unique peoples, but going down some “white power” rabbit hole is setting yourself up for failure. We need to win the hearts and minds of the great masses to awaken them to what is being done to them. I don’t think excluding people and claiming superiority is it chief.
Truthbearer writes, “I believe in God and the only way to salvation is through the son, Jesus Christ our Lord. That is my side.”
That is my side, too. The difference being that only Adamites/Israelites are eligible for salvation. I don’t believe all Israelites will be saved just because they are Israelites, in the same way I don’t believe all “gentiles” can be saved just by saying they “believe in Jesus.”
That’s what you have projected racial salvation on me, and upon others here. We don’t believe in salvation by race, but we do believe that God chose one race — Israelites — and He made a salvation covenant only with Israel, no other people. This is confirmed in Jeremiah 31:31-33
“31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Notice that God will write the New Covenant on their “inward parts”, not on their soul or spirit, but literally on the “inward parts”, their physical bodies. That’s why the flesh matters as a prerequisite for redemption, for salvation.
Truthbearer…………….
“….Because arguing about “Aryan” and “true bloods” becomes…..”
Who is doing this? Can you give me an example? I don’t see anyone here arguing over whether a certain person or peoples are pure Adamites i.e., White Peoples.
I have no idea of that which you describe. CFT hasn’t written any articles describing what a pure Adamite should look like, as an example.
So, can you give me an example of this so called “argument” that you seem to notice here on CFT in the past 12 months???
You’ve got me very confused. I’m a regular reader here at CFT and I have never seen anyone here fight over “who” is a true Adamite.
In other words ………… I have no idea of what you are talking about.
Maybe you could give me an example. ???
Thanks.
Ps …… Are you a Pre-Adamite Theorist; or do you believe all the peoples of the world all descend from Adam and Eve? This might help us understand your point of view more clear.
Truthbearer…………
“… but going down some “white power” rabbit hole is setting yourself up for failure…..”
Truthbearer ……………… there you go again. You are borderline in danger of “slander”.
What in the world are you talking about? Who on this website is advocating “violence” against non-white peoples? Because when you use that term — White Power — this is what you are implying. You might be naive to this fact, but this is what you are implying.
You then said — “…I don’t think excluding people and claiming superiority is it chief…”
Marlowe is not God’s judge. Marlowe has an opinion about Eternal Life. And I’ll venture to guess Marlowe is not walking into all black churches or Korean churches and telling them they are wasting their time.
No one here is excluding anyone. What people do and believe is their own business. If blacks want to believe in Jesus, that is their freedom to do so. I have been to an all black church once — I didn’t feel welcome. And I’d suspect one of those Korean churches with Korean writing, and the only way you would know it was a christian church is because there is a Cross on the sign ………….. I’d suspect I wouldn’t feel too welcome there either. No one here is telling other peoples they can’t believe in Jesus Christ and worship Him in the way they want to.
If Marlowe is doing anything, he simply just cares about his Ethnic Family Tree (his family) and would like to see them find the Jesus Christ of the Scriptures and to understand their true Spiritual Heritage. I know this is how I feel personally. I am very sad for my immediate family and my extended family. I’m sure Marlowe feels the same.
Then you use the word “Superiority” …………
If you believe all People groups come from Adam and Eve and all People groups have access to Eternal Life ……………………. that is your opinion and your business. But I would be careful as to how you characterize those who believe differently from you. You use dangerous words.
If you believe “christians” of all races could unite to defeat the Anti-christ New World Order ………… you should be spending your time advocating with “them” ………. not us. What non-white race is advocating for us??? What non-white christian church is advocating for White peoples??? No other race is coming to our rescue. If anything, they are joining in on the gang tackle. Maybe you should start visiting non-white churches/websites and start advocating for the survival of White peoples. Because, if you haven’t noticed, we are a dying people on the brink of extinction and no one is coming to our rescue.
Lastly ………………………. It is obvious to me now that you do actually believe that all people groups descend from Adam and Eve.
How exactly? I would be very interested in “why” you believe that. Because I believed it once too. I no longer believe that. So, I’m curious as to why you believe it — because honestly, no one ever really explained that to me. It was just something I believed because my friends and family believed it and my pastor believed it but we never were taught “why” we believe it.
I’d love to hear why you believe it.
If Paul meant “gentiles” to include any “non-Jew”, regardless of race, then he was putting all people on the same spiritual level as the Adamic race. By doing so, Paul would have been encouraging race mixing — how could you bring non-Adamics into the congregation of Christ and then say “But don’t mix with them!”
Was Paul trying to subvert Christianity by promoting race mixing through mixed congregations? Congregations that included Israelites and “gentiles” i.e., Adamics, and any non-whites? If you believe that, then Paul must be dismissed entirely. If you don’t believe that Paul was encouraging mixed congregations, then how is he subversive otherwise?
Do we believe that our Lord Jesus picked his followers by some arbitrary reason? I don’t. Not a chance. He knew these men before he met them. And He declared that He came for the lost sheep of Israel.
Why then would Paul be arbitrarily speaking to just anyone, when according to the Will of God in mediation of Jesus Christ, ‘call’ Paul to finish what we today need to heed? No wonder there are so many accuser’s of Paul to label him a murderer of the half brother of Jesus. Why would Jesus Himself allow Paul to never mention his horrible murder, even when Paul relented many times to his brethren (the lost sheep of Israel) his devout single minded purpose to fulfill his mission. As to the ‘man’ Dorotheus , as mentioned above:
[“Nowadays, a work of St Dorotheos is preserved, which deals with the wider circle of 70 disciples of the Risen Jesus.”]
https://orthodoxtimes.com/life-of-holy-martyr-dorotheos-bishop-of-tyros/
In the Book of John it is written:
60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very [a]unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this [b]offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who would [c]betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Peter’s Confession of Faith
66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 And we have already believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”
******
Imho…and in short…I believe there is a concerted effort to insert heresies/lies to cause apostasy of Israelites in Jesus Christ. Are we to believe what a man says or are we to believe what the Holy Spirit teaches us? We are warned by these things.
Right, why would God the Father allow Paul, if he wasn’t what he said he was, to get away with murdering James and then writing what amounted to 25% of the New Testament, leading everyone astray for the next 2,000 years with “false doctrine”? And how did Paul so completely fool the apostle Peter, who sang Paul’s praises when he wrote,
“Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by Him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” (2 Peter 3:14-17)
<3
Saul of Tarsus? The one related to King Herod? That guy…..?
Troll. And not even a clever troll. Sad.
He’s not trolling. This book will clear things up for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Arimathea-Jesus-Robert-Nelson/dp/1514226596/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=13G0VB8SI9ZQ1&keywords=joseph+of+arimathea+and+jesus&qid=1657443606&sprefix=%2Caps%2C243&sr=8-1
Matt, I think you missed the point. Johannes called him “Saul”, not “Paul” of Tarsus, to make him sound more Jewish. And he said “Saul” was related to Herod, an Edomite. So he’s claiming that Paul is an Edomite, not an Israelite. That book you linked to has nothing to do with the issue of Paul being a crypto-Edomite. Some people don’t like Paul, claiming he’s a “judaizer”, and think his writing doesn’t belong in the NT, so they claim he’s an Edomite to discredit him, even though there’s no proof of it in the NT.
Have you read the book? I would suggest you read the book first before commenting on it’s contents. The book documents in detail who Paul/Saul really was and what happened after Jesus’ crucifixion, when Paul murdered James in the Temple, etc. All I can say is to read the book before you come to any conclusions.
Matt, since you claim to have read the book, why don’t you share with all of us where and what the documentation is that the authors used to prove Paul murdered James in the temple. Since you mentioned that as a historical fact, and seem to believe it, share the documented upon which this astonishing claim is based.
Here is an excerpt:
Did Paul of Tasrus kill James, the brother of Jesus, in A.D. 62? (Pages 25-27)
As shocking as that may seem to the readers of this book, the authors have discovered a statement of an early Church bishop and historian, Dorotheus, that included the claim that Paul did, indeed, kill James, the brother of Jesus. (Dorotheus was the teacher of Eusebius who was the famous early Church historian.) That statement was included in his book, ‘The Lives, the Ends, and the Martyrdomes of the Prophets, Apostles, and seventye Disciples of Our Saviour,’ and was reported subsequently as:
“James, the son of Alpheus was, was bishop of Jerusalem by the appointment of other apostles. He was killed by St. Paul. Having been set by the Jews upon a pinnacle of the temple…Paul thrust him off.”
(Ref: Taylor, The Diegesis, 262, 265)
It was also reported about the statement of Dorotheus which concerned the death of James that:
“Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyrus, who wrote the Lives of the Apostles, says that he was killed by St. Paul.”
(Ref: Arthur Dyott Thomson, ‘The Gospel History and Doctrinal Teaching Critically Examined (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1873) 193
Another statement which refers to the killing of James by Paul is the following:
“St. James is said to have been murdered by St. Paul and therefore his death ought not to be laid to the charge of Pagan persecution.”
(Ref: Taylor, The Diegesis, 283)
If that is all true, then it is a devastating blow to a central message of Christianity; that is that Paul, after his “conversion,” became a different person and then only strived to take the message about his “Christ Jesus” to all the world.
Eusebius seems to try to keep Paul from involvement in the death of James.
“Eusebius says that ‘the Scribes and Pharisees’ put him on a wing of the temple, but that upon his testifying in favor of Jesus instead of against him, they began to stone him, and that one of them, a fuller, beat out his brains with the club with which he used to beat clothes.”
(Ref: Thomson, The Gospel History, 193)
Dorotheus stated unequivocally that it was Paul who actually pushed James from a pinnacle of the temple to the ground in A.D. 62. (Ref: Taylor, The Diegesis, 262, 265). It is understandable, though, that Eusebius would have tried to deflect blame from Paul for the murder of James. The Christianity that Eusebius served depended on it.
It appears possible Paul was still doing favors for the corrupt High Priests, this time serving as the thug for Ananus, the young and very temporary High Priest. We know that James, the brother of Jesus, had something that Paul could never have. James had a very personal connection to Jesus, being a close half-brother. Also, Paul had a long time animus towards James and had almost killed him many years earlier when he threw him headlong down the steps of the Temple. Following is a description of the earlier confrontation:
“Then ensured a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy [Saul] attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.”
(Ref: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1867), III (Writings of Tatian, Theophilius; and the Clementine Recognitions), 188)
While one could understand why Eusebius would have protected Paul by trying to keep the information about Paul’s participation in the death of James in A.D. 62 from ever getting out, it is hard to understand why Dorotheus would have stated this fact if it were not true.
As you can see, the claim is hardly astonishing. There are quite a few books out there which cover this topic.
In the following video, you will see Charlemagne’s throne in Aachen, where the stones that were used to build it were brought all the way from Jesus’ tomb in Jerusalem, overtly showing a connection to Jesus’ bloodline, the Royal bloodline of Jacob Israel.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q59m4nf8wlw
“History is a series of lies agreed upon.” – Napolean
I woulnd’t limit my knowledge to only the NT or the Bible. Both have been edited, and many books not included, etc.
Only read that book if you have an open mind. You may not even agree with it either. Up to you.
What does any of this have to do with Johannes’ insinuation that Paul was an Edomite like Herod?
I can’t see how Dorotheus, well over 200 years after the fact, can be considered anything but a hearsay (rumor) source for the “murder” of James. His authorship of the book on the 70 apostles isn’t even certain, nor can its contents be considered reliable history. What makes Dorotheus an authority and a reliable source when we know virtually nothing about the man?
Eusebius is also mentioned as his student, yet Eusebius is considered by many to be a completely unreliable writer when it comes to history. That’s a very unstable foundation upon which to build any theory about Paul.
I’m curious what Wiseman would say today about the “Genesis 10 Nations” theory that has been written about here.
I’ve never come across anything that he has written that may shed light on that question.
Hey CFT , have you ever heard of the author/publisher Robert Alan Balaicius ? he was friends with Weissman ! He is Christian Israel Identity , he wrote over 100 books and has about 10,000 banned books in stock.
This guy has been banned off the 4 corners of the net !
Tell him Eric in Canada sent you 👍🏻
Sacred Truth Ministries dot com
you can get in touch with him
[email protected]
We’ve heard of Robert Balaicius but never read any of this material.
ok , very good stuff I must say .
his “Mysteries of hidden inheritance ” and God’s Chosen are top notch material every White Christian needs to read.
He is also an excellent Bible commentator.
Thanks Patriot, I had not heard about him, but a search provided some links.
“Books Written by Robert Alan Balaicius”
https://sacredtruthministries.com/books/written-by-rab
—>
Review:
“One of the major foundations of our nation (the knowledge of our heritage), once it was undermined, precipitated the fall of our Republic. It has been said, “If a person does not stand for something he will fall for anything.” Americans don’t even know what they stand for any more. They have forgotten their heritage and slowly conditioned into adopting the customs of foreign peoples. Once Americans had been fooled into forsaking their very heritage (who they are), they were then easily conned into accepting the greatest level of government corruption, abuse, regulation, repression, and unconstitutional taxation to which any free people have ever been subjected in the history of mankind. The nation that was one the most prosperous in the world, is now filled with good honest citizens who cannot even make a living; who feel like foreigners in their own country….”
https://sacredtruthministries.com/books/%E2%80%94-1-uncovering-mysteries-your-hidden-inheritance-foundational-work-book-start
—->>
“Indisputable Proof of the Identity of the 12 Tribes of Israel”
[… based on the work by Robert Balaicius and his book called Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance.]
https://altcensored.com/watch?v=DIy5u4cSx0M
—
https://altcensored.com/channel/UCh0VSMtHv6yka0hi8kbJPkQ
From his book : “The Greeks of Antiquity—not the modern Greeks who are mostly Turks (Hittites)—descended from the Israelites; and the Romans of Antiquity—not the modern Italians, who also are greatly Turkified—descended from the ancient Greeks.”
Why is literally every Identity Christian preacher so retarded on genetics?
What are we supposed to say then to the English because 50% of all blacks and mulatto men in England have a White wife? and all those English with indian ancestry (like Princess Diana and her children)?
Many of you don’t seem to understand that being sligthly tanned and not having blue eyes doesn’t mean being 80% african.
Also Hittites were European and not turks, a population born thousands of years later.
If we’re being honest, we refer to Numbers 25 and point out that Zimri and Cozbi were both White.
Perhaps Hosea 2:18 could soften the blow? I’m unsure. What I am sure about is that all of these black/paki/etc hybrids, and the Whites making them, need to get deported stat.
The Whites of Anicent India were genocided by the brown hordes that they ruled over. Hopefully future historians won’t discover that the same fate befell Britain.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say with Numbers 25 and Hosea 2:18 , I don’t rejoice in the genocide of the White people in Britain, what I am saying is that the author of those books knows nothing about genetics and lineages and therefore harms the Identity Christian message by lying like that.
P.S. I also saw that the author promoted the false ideology of jews being edomites
Numbers 25 shows that when God forbids mixing, there are no exceptions.
Deuteronomy 23:2 forbids mixing. Leviticus and Exodus propose the only Biblical solution that I know of to the problem, and it is put into practice in Numbers 25.
Anyone who has been “touched with the tar brush” is out. Depending on how Hosea 2:18 is read, there might be an alternative option for them.
You asked what we should say to those in Britain who are some shade of mulatto, or descended from pajeets etc. If anything, perhaps we should say to them that they should try their black and brown ancestral religions, in the lands where they are practiced natively?