The so-called “Canaanite” woman whose daughter Christ healed in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 is often held up triumphantly by Christian universalists as “proof” that Christ came to save everyone — not just Israelites:
“Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.”
But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.”
–Matthew 15:21-28
In the Mark 7 version of this episode is told somewhat differently — and those differences will help us better understand this woman’s identity:
“Jesus left that place and went to the region of Tyre. Not wanting anyone to know He was there, He entered a house, but was unable to escape their notice.
Instead, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit soon heard about Jesus, and she came and fell at His feet.
Now she was a Greek woman of Syrophoenician origin, and she kept asking Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
‘First let the children have their fill,’ He said. ‘For it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.’
‘Yes, Lord,’ she replied, ‘even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’
Then Jesus told her, ‘Because of this answer, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.’ And she went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon was gone.”
—Mark 7:24:30
So naturally, the Christian universalists — ignoring the complete backstory of this episode — jump to the conclusion that,
“See! Even though the Jews see us gentiles as dogs, as long as we accept our status as dogs and have faith in their Messiah, Jesus, He will condescendingly save us too!“
However, this episode is impossible to understand without taking into account the entire context of the New Testament — and its relationship to the Old Testament — and we know that Christian universalism can work only when verses are taken completely out of context to suit their “feel-good” egalitarian interpretation of the Bible.
Historical Context
Around 900 BC, the united tribes of Israel became split into two separate factions — arising from a dispute over who was the rightful king of Israel.
The tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi sided with Rehoboam, King Solomon’s son and rightful heir — while the ten northern tribes of Israel sided with Jeroboam, Solomon’s rebellious servant — a split that was prophesied in 1 Kings 11:11-13, 29-39 because of Solomon’s sin.
Thus Israel became split into these two warring kingdoms — with separate kings and prophets — the southern kingdom comprised of Judah, Benjamin and Levi — and the northern kingdom comprised of the remaining 10 tribes of Israel — who would become the so-called “lost tribes” of Israel.
After this split, both Houses of Israel fell into sin — so much so that God sent the northern kingdom into Assyrian captivity — and the southern kingdom into Babylonian captivity as punishment.
While the Israelites of the southern kingdom were released from Babylonian captivity after only 70 years and returned to their land in Israel, the northern tribes of Israel remained dispersed under Assyrian rule.
However, in 612 BC the capital of the Assyrian Empire — Nineveh — fell and the empire was destroyed — as foretold by the Israelite prophets (Isaiah 10:12-19, Zephaniah 2:13-15, Nahum 1:14).
Even though the 10 northern tribes were no longer under the boot heel of Assyria, many remained “scattered abroad” (James 1:1) — some returned to their ancestral lands of the northern kingdom while others migrated up into Europe and elsewhere.
However, the historical enmity — the hostility — between these two factions of Israel remained even through Christ’s lifetime — while the Israelites of the southern kingdom kept their faith and practiced the rituals of the Law, they regarded their fellow Israelites of the dispersion as pagans — as, yes, low-status “dogs” — the objects of contempt.
This historical enmity between these two factions of the Israelite people cannot be dismissed or underestimated — and Christ’s entire ministry was dedicated to healing the Israelite nations — reuniting them with equal status under His righteous and legitimate kingship.
And we see throughout the New Testament how difficult it was first with Christ — and then with the apostle Paul — to convince these hostile enemies to give up their long-standing enmity toward each other and “love thy Israelite neighbor as thyself” for the sake of Jesus Christ and His offerings of mercy, grace, and salvation.
Setting Of Matthew 15 and Mark 7
In Matthew 15:21 we are told that this encounter between Christ and the “Canaanite” woman [or “Syrio-Phoenician” woman in Mark 7] took place in the area of Tyre and Sidon.
These two cities were located in the northwest part of the northern Kingdom of Israel on the coast of Phoenicia — originally part of the “Land of Canaan” prior to when the Israelites migrated into this area after the Exodus.
This entire coastal area of Phoenicia had fallen under control of Assyria — and the Israelites who lived there remained in captivity even after the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC.
As we can see from the map below, each of the northern tribes of Israel settled in different parts of the northern kingdom — and the tribe of Asher settled along the Phoenician coastline where the cities of Tyre and Sidon are located:
So it’s safe to conclude that at the time Christ passed through this region in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 there were still many “lost” Israelites from the tribe of Asher dwelling there.
However, from the perspective of the Israelites of the southern kingdom — which would include Christ’s disciples, such as Matthew and Mark — these “lost” Israelites along the Phoenician/Canaan coastlines would not have been accepted as true Israelites — as they were “uncircumcised” — that is, they did not practice the true faith of their Hebrew ancestors because they had fallen into idolatry during the Assyrian captivity.
Some might object here and point out that there were also ethnic Canaanites still living in this region — and that is true.
We know from Deuteronomy, that God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the pagan tribes who occupied the Land of Canaan prior to occupying that land:
“Only, of the cities of these peoples which your God YHWH is giving to you [for] an inheritance, you do not keep alive any [that are] breathing; for you certainly devote the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as your God YHWH has commanded you, so that they do not teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you have sinned against your God YHWH.”
—Deuteronomy 20:16-18
We know that the Israelites failed to obey God’s command and did not destroy these pagan tribes prior to settling in the Land of Canaan — so they did live along side these tribes — and many did fall into idolatry and worshiped the strange gods of these non-Israelites.
But to suggest that there were no ethnic Israelites living in that coastal region at the time of Christ is simply untenable — they were “scattered” everywhere through the lands surrounding Judea — and there were far more Israelites from the 10 northern tribes than there were Israelites from the three tribes of southern kingdom still living in the small province of Judea.
What Evidence Is There That the “Canaanite” Woman An Ethnic Canaanite?
If we look at Strong’s Concordance for Matthew 15:22, we see that “Canaanite” (Strong’s #5478, transliterated “Chananaios” in Greek) means,
“Canaanite, a Biblical and archaic name for Phoenician.”
To this day many mainstream historians will claim that the Phoenicians were “Canannites” — but they most certainly were NOT racial Canaanites. There’s plenty of reason to believe that the Phoenicians were indeed Israelites, but that’s a subject for another essay.
And under “Usage”, Strong’s states,
“The term “Chananaios” refers to a descendant or inhabitant of Canaan, the land promised to Abraham and his descendants. In the New Testament, it is used to describe people from the region of Canaan, which includes the Phoenicians and other ancient peoples. The term is often associated with the historical enemies of Israel, as well as with the Gentiles in the context of Jesus’ ministry.”
So even the universalist-biased Strong’s concedes that the term “Canaanite” does not necessarily mean an ethnic or racial Canaanite — but rather primarily means anyone who lives in that region of historic Phoenicia — and would most certainly include those descendants from the tribe of Asher and other Israelites.
Strong’s also mentions that “Canaanite” refers to the “historical enemies of Israel,” which not only includes the ethnic Canaanites but also includes the Israelites of the northern kingdom — who had been enemies of the Israelites of the southern kingdom for the previous 900 years.
Adding to that, Strong’s says that “Canaanite” can also refer to so-called “gentiles” — which as we have shown in many of our articles actually refers to the “lost” ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel — the so-called “uncircumcised.”
But when we look at the corresponding verse from Mark 7:26, we see that this woman isn’t described as a “Canaanite” at all:
“…the woman was a Greek, a Syro-phoenician by race. She begged him that he would cast the demon out of her daughter.”
But depending on the translation of this verse, the woman is described as a Syro-phoenician by race, origin, birth, nation or nationality, kind, etc. — as it is translated from the Greek “genos” (Strong’s #1085) meaning,
“From [the Greek] ginomai; “kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective) — born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.”
And “ginomai” (Strong’s #1096) adds context to the meaning of “genos” here:
“1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth” (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God’s actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).”
So the context suggests that this woman “came into being” — or was born in Syro-Phoenicia — and doesn’t necessarily strictly imply or identify her racial origins.
Moreover, Mark 7:26 here also describes the woman as a “Greek” — which Strong’s derives from the Greek Hellénis (Strong’s #1674) — meaning “a Greek woman” — however, its usage does not necessarily have a racial or ethnic connotation:
“The term “Hellénis” refers specifically to a Greek woman, often used to denote a female of Greek ethnicity or cultural background. In the New Testament, it is used to distinguish Greek women from Jewish women, highlighting the cultural and religious differences between the two groups.”
This analysis makes sense because in the New Testament “Hellénis” is often mistranslated as “gentile” — such as Romans 2:9-10 — but we know that “gentile” refers to lost Israelites from the ten northern tribes — many of whom were indeed “Greeks” — such as the Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.
And so from what we’ve seen here there is no evidence that should lead us to believe that this “Canaanite” woman was, in fact, a racial Canaanite — and given the historical context, she very well could be a hellenized Israelite from the lost northern tribes, as there is nothing to exclude or contradict that possibility.
Was the Canaanite Woman Called A “Dog” Because She Was A Non-Israelite Racial Canaanite?
Ironically, certain Identity Christian circles and Christian Dispensationalists have one thing in common when reading this verse:
“The woman came and knelt before Him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said. But Jesus replied, ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.’ ‘Yes, Lord,” she said, ‘even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.’
Matthew 15:25-27
Some Identity Christians merely assume that she is compared to a “dog” here because she is some sort of racial mongrel — as many of the ethnic Canaanite people were at the time.
And many Dispensataionalists will agree this epithet is proof that she is a non-Israelite “gentile” — that is, a “non-Jew” — as if Israelites would never be compared to dogs. But is this really the case?
That said, the fact of the matter is that Jesus never directly calls her a “dog” here as many Christians assert — rather He tells her what the prevailing custom is among the Israelites of Judea to see their fellow uncircumcised Israelites from the northern kingdom — falsely called “gentiles” — as unclean and of lower status.
No, Jesus never calls this woman a dog. Let that sink in.
Throughout scripture — yes — Israelites are compared to dogs in order to emphasize their low status:
This fact goes far to explain why the Israelites of the southern kingdom who kept the faith would view Israelites from the northern kingdom who had fallen into paganism to be of low status — and thus deserving of the epithet “dogs”.
Also, throughout the Bible the term “dog” is also used as an epithet for the enemies of God — and yes, those enemies of God are largely found among the Israelite people themselves — the most important example foreshadowing the suffering Christ in Psalm 22, as King David laments:
“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”
–Psalm 22:16
King David then entreats God to deliver him from these Israelite dogs who threaten his life:
“…But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.”
–Psalm 22:19-20
We see King David’s tribulation fulfilled in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ who was murdered at the hands of his fellow Israelites — as we are told in Acts 2:
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
–Acts 2:22-23
So it was these Israelite unbelieving “dogs” — not Canaanite or Edomite dogs — who threatened King David — and would ultimately kill Jesus Christ who inherited the throne of King David.
In 2 Samuel 9, we read a foreshadowing of dogs eating from the Master’s table when King David comforts Saul’s Israelite son, Mephibosheth:
“And David said unto him, ‘Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually.’ And he bowed himself, and said, ‘What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?‘
–2 Samuel 9:7:8
This metaphor of “dogs” and crumbs of bread at the Master’s table is repeated in the parable of Lazarus the Beggar, which Christ relates in Luke 16:
“There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried.”
–Luke 16:19-22
The hellenized name Lazarus here may derive from the Hebrew Eliazar, which means “the help of God” or similarly from the Hebrew “lo azer”, meaning a low-status “helpless person” — again resonating with the situation with the woman from Canaan and her sick daughter.
Like with the “Canaanite” woman in Matthew 15, Lazarus — an Israelite — does not demand to be fed from the table but rather is willing to be fed with crumbs that fall from the table — surely not a coincidental detail.
This parable of Lazarus the Beggar — with the low-status outcasts feeding on crumbs at the Master’s table — is about how the lost sheep from the ten northern tribes of Israel who had been cast out by God and sent into Assyrian captivity initially must settle for spiritual crumbs from God’s table because the blessings of grace and salvation through Christ were first offered to the circumcised Israelites of the southern kingdom who had kept God’s laws.
And like the rich man who shows no compassion for the beggar Lazarus, Christ’s Israelite disciples show no compassion for this low-status woman from Canaan — who is content to eat crumbs that fall from Christ’s banquet table which He initially shares with His “first fruits” — circumcised Israelites of the southern kingdom in Judea.
Clearly, the “Canaanite” woman understands the meaning of Christ’s figurative language — and He spoke this way so that only His fellow Israelites who accept Him as the Messiah would understand their true meaning — as Jeremiah 31:31 foretells — that the New Covenant with all of Israel will be inscribed on their hearts:
“But 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.”
–Jeremiah 31:33
The idea that a racial Canaanite who did not have the truth written in her heart would understand the meaning of Christ’s figurative language about dogs that the table — and acknowledge Him as “Lord” — and know that He is the “Son of David” is simply hard to believe.
Is The “Canaanite” Woman A Foreshadowing Of The Woman At Jacob’s Well?
Because of the ancient enmity between these two factions of Israel, Jesus told his disciples,
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, having given command to them, saying, ‘Do not go away to the way of the nations, and do not go into a city of the Samaritans, and be going rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'”
–Matthew 10:5-6
It is significant that Jesus tells his disciples to take the gospel to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” instead — in this context referring to those circumcised Israelites of the southern kingdom who were “lost” because they had yet to hear and accept the gospel of Christ.
And while Jesus tells his disciples to avoid lost Israelites of the northern kingdom — falsely called “gentiles” in most translations — He himself did interact with them because He didn’t have any of the ancient enmity toward these Israelites they way many of his disciples still did.
That is why when traveling through Samaria on His way to Galilee, He stopped at Jacob’s well and privately spoke to the Israelite Samaritan woman — who knew of the ancient hatred between the Israelites of the southern and northern kingdoms, as she said to Him:
“The Samaritan woman therefore says to Him, ‘How do You, being a Jew, ask drink from me, being a Samaritan woman?’ For Jews have no dealing with Samaritans.
Jesus answered and said to her, ‘If you had known the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, Give Me to drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.’
The woman says to Him, ‘Lord, You do not even have a vessel to draw with, and the well is deep; from where, then, have You the living water? Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and himself drank out of it, and his sons, and his livestock?’”
–John 4:9-12
[CFT Note: Most translations erroneously render the Greek “Ioudaios” (Strong’s #2453) as “Jew” — when, in fact, it should be “Judahite” — because Christ was an Israelite from the tribe of Judah. “Ioudaios” can also refer collectively to the three tribes of Israel of the southern kingdom — Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.]
This episode between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well is important because it helps explain the true meaning of His private interaction with the “Canaanite” woman in Mark 7 — why He was “not wanting anyone to know He was there.”
Evidence That The “Canaanite” Woman Was An Israelite
In Mark 15, when the woman pleads with Jesus to heal her daughter, His disciples urge him,
“Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
–Matthew 15:23
Jesus does not send her away — instead He responds to them:
“He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.‘”
–Matthew 15:24
This statement is not some random non-sequitur — Jesus is reassuring His disciples that the pleading woman is, in fact, a lost sheep of the house of Israel — which is why He then proceeds to test her understanding of His figurative speech about “dogs” at the Master’s table — and the traditional tensions between the two factions of Israel.
However, if we were to merely assume — or take for granted — that this “Canaanite” woman is a non-Israelite racial Canaanite — as most universalist and certain Identity Christians insist — then why did Christ go against His own stated purpose of coming only for Israelites — and heal a non-Israelite — especially a racial Canaanite, from a tribe that the Israelites were told to wipe out?
The short answer is that Christ wouldn’t do that — and He didn’t do that.
The account in Mark 7 tells us,
“…A woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit soon heard about Jesus, and she came and fell at His feet.”
–Mark 7:25
How this woman responded to hearing about Jesus confirms what He said in John 10:
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”
–John 10-27
Only an Israelite with the truth of the Covenant inscribed on her heart would have understood the meaning of Christ’s comments about how His children — His Israelite followers — His “first fruit” should receive His blessings first — and how lost Israelites from the 10 northern tribes must be content to accept the spiritual “crumbs” that fall from the Master’s table.
This reading also explains why Christ insisted on entering the house in Tyre in private:
“…Not wanting anyone to know He was there, He entered a house…”
–Mark 7:24
As noted earlier, He had told His disciples to take the gospel to their fellow circumcised Israelites of the southern kingdom — and to not attempt to evangelize Israelites of the northern kingdom so as to avoid unnecessary hostilities between the two factions — but Jesus himself was not obligated to follow that pragmatic command.
We see evidence of this — as previously noted — when Jesus traveled through Samaria and spoke to the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well — privately, away from His disciples — so as to avoid stirring up that jealousy and ancient enmity among His followers.
Parallels Between the Conversion Of Cornelius and the “Canaanite” Woman
After the death of Christ, we see this prohibition of evangelizing to Israelites of the northern kingdom lifted among his disciples — when Peter receives his vision from God about the unification of all Israelites in Acts 10 — then visits the household of Cornelius, the Roman centurion:
“And he said to them, “You know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come to, one of another race, but God showed to me to call no man common or unclean.”
–Acts 10:28
There are three commonly used translation errors in this verse that make the meaning obscure and can lead to a false universalist reading.
First the Greek word “athemitos” (Strong’s #111) is mis-rendered as “unlawful”, but Strong’s says,
“athemitos: an adjective, derived from 1/A “not” and themis, “a custom, what is acceptable because accepted”) – properly, not acceptable based on the prevailing custom or ordinary practice (used only in Acts 10:28; 1 Peter 4:3).”
This distinction points to the actual issue at hand — the “prevailing custom” was for Israelites of the southern kingdom not to have any interactions specifically with the “unclean” Israelites of the northern kingdom — not with just any random “non-jewish” peoples.
Also, the Greek “Ioudaios” (Strong’s #2453) is again mistranslated as “Jew” — when, in fact, it should be “Judahite” — or an Israelite of the southern kingdom.
And the use of “race” here is also incorrect — as it is translated from the Greek “allophulos” (Strong’s #246) which means,
“From allos and phule; foreign, i.e. (specially) Gentile — one of another nation (or tribe).
Correcting the translation here is important because it makes the meaning of the episode much more comprehensible and internally consistent — as Peter tells Cornelius that it is now acceptable for Israelites from the southern kingdom to bring the gospel to Israelites of the northern kingdom — and that they are no longer seen as “unclean” — no longer seen as low status “dogs”.
Peter goes on to explain how he now realizes that God is not a respecter of social status — or from which tribe of Israel someone descends:
“And Peter having opened his mouth, said, ‘Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him; the word that he sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming good news — peace through Jesus Christ, this one is Lord of all.”
-Acts 10:34-36
Universalists jump all over this verse and use it as prima facie “proof” that Jesus came for literally everyone, but to claim this you must completely ignore the context, which we have thoroughly described above.
Indeed, God does not show favoritism, but only among His Israelite children — their social status and their tribal affiliations is irrelevant to Him when it comes to bestowing His blessings, but to suggest that this impartiality extends to any other people, nations or tribes contradicts the clear language of the prophet Amos:
“Only you I have known of all families of the land, Therefore I charge on you all your iniquities.”
–Amos 3:2
So God does indeed show partiality and favoritism toward Israel among all the tribes of the world — but He does not show partiality among those Israelite tribes. That is the true meaning of Peter’s words in Acts 10:34-36.
When Peter refers to “every nation he who is fearing Him,” he is not violating Jeremiah 31:31 by extending any blessings beyond the 12 Israelite nations — rather he is acknowledging that the ancient enmity and schism between the southern and northern kingdoms of Israel has been healed under Christ — the sole purpose of His ministry.
Conclusion
To believe that Christ would heal the daughter of a non-Israelite is to believe that He completely contradicted himself when he reassured His followers who urged Him to ignore her,
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
–Matthew 15:24
Given the setting and context of this episode with the woman from Canaan, we can now see why it was important for Jesus to ignore the protestations of His followers and test the woman’s spirit — and approving her — and heal her daughter.
Just imagine the chaos that would have followed if a racial Canaanite told everyone she knew that Jesus healed her daughter — how would Jesus explain this to His disciples? He couldn’t.
Or imagine if the Pharisees had gotten wind of Jesus healing a racial Canaanite — they would use it to totally discredit Him.
The fact is, how Jesus treated the woman from Canaan was a foreshadowing what was to come after His death and resurrection — as we see with Peter’s experience with Cornelius, the Roman centurion — all the Israelite tribes would be offered the opportunity to be saved — not just the Israelites of Judea — a radical idea that the Pharisees rejected — and caused them to conspire to have him killed.
The Pharisees believed that their circumcised Israelite flesh alone would ensure their salvation without the mediation of — and faith in — Jesus Christ.
Remarkably, there are many Identity Christians who believe just as the Pharisees did — their white flesh will ensure their salvation, regardless of their behavior in this life — even regardless of whether or not they even accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
No wonder many of these same Identity Christians also believe that Jesus would have healed a racial Canaanite’s daughter — just as the universalist judeo-Christians believe — that Jesus broke the promised New Covenant with Israel described in Jeremiah 31 and bestowed His holy blessings on someone outside that covenant — something He would never do.
Jesus was consistent — His actions never contradicted His direct words.
Now, if the woman from Canaan was, in fact, a “lost” Israelite from one of the northern tribes, do we know which tribe she descended from?
The short answer is no, not definitively — but as we can see from the map above, the city of Tyre is located in the ancient land apportioned to the tribe of Asher of the northern kingdom.
Just like the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, we know she was an Israelite, but we can’t definitively say what tribe she belonged to — then again, looking at the map above, we can see that Samaria was the ancient land apportioned to the tribe of Manasseh.
But it doesn’t matter which tribes of Israel these women were from — as all Israelites, regardless of tribal affiliation, were offered salvation for their faith in Jesus Christ.
That was the entire point of Christ’s ministry — to regather all Israel — to “break down the middle wall of partition” between the two kingdoms — and unite all 12 tribes of Israel under faith in Him (Ephesians 2:14).
We don’t expect most people who already believe the woman from Canaan was a racial Canaanite to change their minds and accept that she was an Israelite — despite the fact that Mark doesn’t even call her a “Canaanite” — but rather a “Greek” from “Syro-Phoenicia.”
We have written this article because the “Canaanite” woman often comes up among our readers in the comment sections of our articles — and it has created confusion and conflict — which shouldn’t surprise us considering this same woman created conflict among the followers of Jesus 2,000 years ago.
For those who still have an open mind, we hope this article will help you follow Paul’s advice:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
—1 Thessalonians 5:21
CFT i said nothing objectionable in the two responses to mimi that you didn’t publish
Mimi, Catholic identitarian and any other denominational churchians here on CFT
I urge you to read the message of Jesus to the church of pergamos, churchianity is essentially the error of the nicolaitans taught in varying degrees.
Sorry, a little off topic but YouTube is overflowing with AI black African Israelites.
Here’s just one to kick it off revealed from an opened vault in Iran. AI will net all those ‘truthers’ for sure.
https://youtu.be/6PedM-t4ans?feature=shared
Followed by a load more. Of course you know whose behind it. There’s just one question they’ll have trouble answering… where were all those Christian churches located in Africa? Why did all those Christian missionaries go to Africa instead of coming from Africa? (crickets)
CFT how can you refuse to publish my comments which kindly explained to dante where hes going on judgement day?
OWPAH,
We have repeatedly corrected you on your claims about “mamzers” but you’ve ignored that correction, so at this point you’re just repeating yourself without proof. So it’s pointless for us to post your unfounded and incorrect assertions.
OWPAH
I usually go on Christogenea and read the comments. Sometimes, they say that non-Adamics have no soul and therefore sleep forever; then, they say that hell is a place of suffering for non-Adamics. Anyway, they are contradictory. Anyway, from Adam until today is at least 6,000 years. How do you know that any ancestor of yours was not Adamic? And if you hypothetically discovered that you are not pure blood, what would you do?
Different people have different opinions, we basically all agree that non adamics will be annihilated though, if I found out I was a non Aramaic I would accept I’m going to the lake of fire
OWPAH wrote, “…we basically all agree that non adamics will be annihilated though…”
We do not believe that non-Adamics “will be annihilated,” whatever that means. Please don’t speak for us, as I doubt you can find any essay we’ve written where we say we believe that.
The Bible isn’t about non-Adamics, and it is not explicit what their fate will be, regardless of the few verses you’ve quoted claiming to know.
Whatever God wants to do with non-Adamics is His prerogative, and we do not presume to know what that prerogative is because it is not clearly spelled out in Scripture, regardless of what the babylonian two-seedliners may claim.
Yes, two-seedline came out of Jews in Babylon. Fact. That’s why two-seedliners quote the jewish Targums as “proof”.
Nor are we obsessed with the fate of non-Adamics in the way you seem to be — we should focus on our own Christian life, our own salvation, and the salvation of our fellow Israelites, not the destiny of those outside the Covenant.
when i say we i meant christogenea
i am not “obsessed” with the fate of non adamics, i am giving dante the facts, even if serpent seed is false, as i have pointed out, the non adamics would still be corruptions. God created the horse and the donkey, but he did not create the mule.
Do you want to conveniently ignore the law of kind after kind, which all creation is subject to?
we dont just rely on the aramaic targums, which are by the way in accord with Nehemiah 8:8. – of course we dont recognise the early church as any authority but they are a historical record, the early celtic church for example held to serpent seed.
please listen to the christogenea response to charles weisman (by the way weisman with one s is a jewish name)
https://emahiser.christogenea.org/system/files/resources/Genesis_4-1_Hexapla.png
On the Internet there are two large volumes, of 900 plus pages each, of fragments which have survived entitled Origenis Hexaplorum – Volume #s 1 & 2 in PDF which can be downloaded. Fortunately, there is notable evidence from useful resources to support this position concerning Gen. 4:1 thus:
Genesis 4:1 from the HexaplaWilliam Finck, in referring to my essay The Problem With Genesis 4:1, interprets this evidence thusly:
“The image in the above replica shows the various translations of part of the text of Genesis 4:1 into Greek. I am not yet ready to ascertain exactly why the entire first half of the verse is wanting, however the Hexapla did not survive to us completely. This is a volume of fragments, and it is written entirely in Latin, in which I am not proficient. The author reproduced both the Hebrew and Latin texts at the beginning of each verse, and then gave all of the readings from various Greek translations. Translating the various Greek interpretations of the Hebrew into English, the following readings are found (all translations are my own, possible variations are in brackets):
“Latin: ‘I got a man to help Yahweh’
“First Greek reading: ‘I have acquired a man through [by] God’ (Definite article indicates ‘the God’, or a particular God.)
“Second Greek reading: ‘The Hebrew and Syriac: I have acquired a man with [by] a god.’ (No article would indicate no particular god, indefinite article added.)
“Third Greek reading: ‘I have acquired a man with a lord’ (Again, no definite article, no definite Lord, indefinite article added.)
“Fourth Greek reading: ‘I have acquired a man, a lord’ (the two nouns each being singular and in the accusative case with no prepositions are both the object of the verb, and therefore they refer to the same object, a man, a lord)
“While these readings do not directly support Clifton’s entire thesis presented in his paper, they do support theassertion that the text of Genesis 4:1 was rather problematic to the earliest translators of the Hebrew into Greek. For that reason, Clifton turned to the Aramaic Targums for an indication of how the Hebrew scribes of thatsame era (Page #1 of 2)understood the passage.” Thank you William for this revealing evidence.
There you have it; five more ancient fragments that are older than the manuscripts which our present Bibles are trans- lated from, and Adam is missing from all five!
If one will notice in the inserted portion of the Hexapla, the four letter Hebrew Tetragrammaton, including the vowel points (meaning Yahweh), is clearly visible immediately at the right side of #1. The second word is “man” (ish in Hebrew). The third word contains “get/getting” in the Hebrew. Of course, Hebrew reads from right to left. Therefore the rendering of “I got a man to help Yahweh” must be somewhat plausible. If this is close to what Eve was saying, the proverbial “serpent” must have passed himself off as the Almighty Yahweh Himself! Either that or the proverbial “serpent” may have claimed to be a superior being higher than Yahweh. Hence, the Greek renderings to English of “God”, “god”, and “Lord” or “lord” is typical of transliterating Hebrew to the English. Implications are: Adam IS NOT the father of Cain!
OWPAH
The names that could refer to non-Adamic people would be Behemah, Enosh, Mamzer, and Nephilim. Now, tell me which verse in the Bible talks about any of these groups I mentioned going to the lake of fire? It simply doesn’t exist.
As for Cain being the son of the serpent, I’m not sure, but God told Cain (who supposedly broke the law of kind after kind) that he would have been accepted if he had chosen to do good.
At the end of this age, upon the return of Christ, the False Accuser, or devil, which is the Adversary, or Satan – all jewry and all of those who opposed Christ – are cast into the Lake of Fire. The Adversary, the beast, and the false prophet are no more. There are several parables given by Christ and recorded in the Gospels which discuss this same thing, and they must be included in the discussion here.
The explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares, in part, from Matthew 13: “37 … He sowing the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 now the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. But the tares are the sons of the Evil One, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the False Accuser, and the harvest is the consummation of the age, and the reapers are messengers. 40 Therefore just as the tares are gathered and burn in fire, thusly it shall be at the consummation of the age. 41 The Son of Man shall send His messengers, and they shall gather from His kingdom all offenses and those creating lawlessness 42 and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth! [If this were a purifying fire, as many fools pronounce, then the enemies of God would be glorifying Him rather than gnashing their teeth.] 43 Then the righteous shall shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He having an ear must hear!”
The children of God can sin, but they do not create sin. The fallen angels and their progeny are the authors of sin. They planted the tares at the foundation of the world, which is the Adamic society.
That is the meaning of another parable, which is found in Genesis chapter 3. 1 John 3:9 states: “Each who has been born from of Yahweh does not create wrongdoing, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to do wrong, because from of Yahweh he has been born.”
As David said, and Paul quoted, “blessed is the man to whom Yahweh will not impute sin”, and that describes only the children of Israel, the legitimate seed of Abraham.
The parable of the net, from Matthew 13:“47 Again, the kingdom of the heavens is like a net having been cast into the sea and it gathers from out of every race, 48 which when it is full, bringing up upon the shore and sitting they gather the good ones into vessels, but the rotten ones they cast out. 49 Thusly it shall be at the consummation of the age, the messengers shall go out and they shall separate the wicked from the midst of the righteous 50 and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth!”
In this parable, Yahshua Christ informs us in the Gospel itself, that He foresaw universalism, but that He will not accept universalism! The antithesis to universalism is defined, where the bad fish are not sent back into the sea, but are rather cast into the furnace of fire. Again, if this were a “purifying fire”, rather than a destructive fire, there would be rejoicing, and not a weeping and gnashing of teeth. The sea in prophecy often refers to the great mass of the world’s people as a whole.
Revelation 21:1 says that “the sea is no longer”, because it is no longer needed: all the fish are gone!
The parable of the sheep and the goats, from Matthew chapter 25: “31 And when the Son of Man should come in His effulgence and all the messengers with Him, then He shall sit upon His throne of honor. 32 And they shall gather before Him all the nations and He shall separate them from one another just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And He shall indeed stand the sheep at His right hand, but the goats at His left hand. 34 Then the King shall say to those at His right hand: ‘Come, those blessed of My Father, you shall inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of Society! 35 For I hungered and you gave Me to eat; I had thirst and you had given Me drink; I was a visitor and you had taken Me in; 36 naked and you had clothed Me; I had been sick and you watched over Me; I was in prison and you had come to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous shall respond to Him saying: ‘Master, when have we seen You hungry and nourished You, or thirsting and had given drink? 38 And when have we seen You a visitor and had taken You in, or naked and had clothed You? 39 And when have we seen You being sick or in prison and had come to You?’ 40 And replying the King shall say to them: ‘Truly I say to you, for whomever of the least of My brethren have you done one of these things, you have done them for Me!’ 41 Then He shall say also to those at the left hand: ‘Go from Me, accursed, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the False Accuser and his messengers! [The goat nations have the same fate as the fallen angels.] 42 For I hungered and you did not give Me to eat, and I had thirst and you had not given Me drink; 43 I was a visitor and you had not taken Me in, naked and you had not clothed Me, sick and in prison and you had not visited Me!’ 44 Then they themselves shall also respond saying: ‘Master, when have we seen You hungry or thirsting or a visitor or naked or sick or in prison and had not served You?’ 45 Then He shall respond to them saying: ‘Truly I say to you, for whomever you had not done one of the least of these things, neither have you done them for Me!’ 46 And they shall go off into the eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
One thing most commentators miss when assessing this parable, is that the goats are judged for how they have treated the sheep! For Yahshua said “for whomever of the least of My brethren have you done one of these things, you have done them for Me”. From the start, in verses 32 and 33 the division between the sheep and the goats is made upon ethnic lines, and not upon behavioral lines.
The sheep were chosen to be His servant people, and the goats cannot be His servant people. It is whom He chooses, not whom men choose – and thus there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, because He chose only the sheep!
In any of these examples, there is no third alternative, one is a sheep or a goat, a wheat or a tare, and of the good race of fish or of a bad race of fish. As Paul said in Hebrews at 12:8, one is a son, or one is a bastard. There is no other choice. There is no third alternative anywhere. Those who offend, the offenses of Matthew 13:41, are the bastards, and they must be, since they were created by man in violation of the Genesis law of “kind after kind”. The apostle John explains in the fourth chapter of his first epistle that there are those who are from of God, and there are those who are from of the world. Their origin is in the world. Christ exclaimed in Matthew 15 that “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted!” While Yahweh created all things, He only created all things which He created! The things which man created are only mere corruptions of the creation of Yahweh, and these things cannot ever be restored to Yahweh. The so-called “restoration of all things” is only a restoration of all things which Yahweh created, and there are clearly many plants here which He did not plant! The goat nations are goats and not sheep, because they are bastards and not Adam. There is no third alternative which can be found honestly and explicitly in Scripture. Those who pretend to have found a third alternative, have invented it for themselves and with their words they deceive themselves, and seek to deceive others.
OWPAH,
You’re not saying anything new here — we know the two seedline argument better than you do — after all, we believed it like you, but after much independent reading and study, we rejected it, on many grounds.
First the entire doctrine hinges on Genesis 4:1, which is a very difficult verse to get around because it explicitly states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceiveth and beareth Cain, and saith, ‘I have gotten a man by YHWH;”
They claim that the verse is corrupted — and even the ones you offered here do not preclude this proper reading. Two seedliners presume that the verse CANNOT mean Eve knew Adam and she bore Cain, so they suggest what it MIGHT mean to substantiate their two seedline theory.
This is a logical fallacy called “begging the question” — assume your reading of the questionable verse is true because your two seedline doctrine is true.
If two seedline were true, the verse would start, “And the Serpent knew Eve, and she conceived and bore him Cain,” but it doesn’t say anything like that.
Instead you have to assume the ambiguity or corruption of the verse must somehow fit your doctrine. That assumption is merely self-justifying, nothing more. A logical fallacy.
To suggest that the Serpent somehow impersonated YHWH is preposterous, laughable, and desperate — and is yet another example of “begging the question” — if the Serpent or Eve had never seen God — and there is no proof he did — how could he impersonate Him?
It is indisputable that the verse says that Eve bore a son for YHWH, regardless of whether or not the verse explicitly includes Adam in these incomplete fragments you mention.
And by the way, in Genesis 4, Cain is repeatedly called Abel’s “brother”, and if you bother to look up the meaning of the Hebrew word for brother — “ach” (Strong’s #251) — it’s very first meaning is “born of the same mother (and father)” with a strong emphasis on “kindred”, and if Cain is a mamzer born of the Serprent, he would not be Abel’s “kindred”.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/251.htm
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest — a fact that plagues most people who read the Bible with an agenda — especially an occult or gnostic agenda.
And the fact of the matter is, as even Dante understands, that Genesis 4:7 refutes two seedline, despite all their twistings of its meaning:
“Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'”
So if Cain had done well, God would have accepted his offering, but he didn’t do well. God would never have said this to Cain if Cain were the son of the Serpent. God doesn’t play mind games with mamzers, or lie to them, or sadistically taunt them, nor does He pretend that their sin offerings are potentially acceptable. That’s what a jewish rabbi would do.
God’s rejection of Cain’s offering is a foreshadowing of Jacob and Esau, both of whom were the legitimate sons of Issac and Rebekah. Like Cain, Esau was the first born, but did not inherit the blessings of God. That parallel would make no sense if Cain was not Adam’s natural born son.
The Bible and our interpretations of it must be internally consistent, and two seedline makes it inconsistent, except in the minds of two seedliners.
OWPAH
This example of the goats makes it very clear that they were condemned for something they did or didn’t do and not for something genetic. You can’t even interpret what it says.
OWPAH
Different people have different opinions.
True, but even your cult leader, William Finck, says that non-Adamics evaporate after death, and later he says they will be judged and condemned. I think it’s only possible to choose one or the other.
You people at Christogenea are evil; you just don’t go around killing anyone who isn’t Adamic for lack of opportunity. But if you believe God is with you, why don’t you go ahead? I imagine that in your doctrine, eliminating a fallen angel would increase your reward in paradise.
Dante
Finck worked as a prison guard and was involved in the murder of a Latino man in that prison. He was charged with being complicit with the murder and he spent many years in prison.
In prison he discovered CI and two seedline and he used these ideas to basically justify his involvement of the murder of a “tare”. His whole ministry is self-justification of that death of a non-white, just like the jews in the Talmud that say killing a “goy” is nothing because they are animals.
No soap
They are lunatics and if they have power they will probably kill even white people who disagree with them, they even celebrated the “Christy Sheats” case
OWPAH
And where is the irrefutable evidence that the fallen created a race of humanoids? Using the canonical Bible as a basis, you would, at most, have the example of them copulating with the Adamic people and creating giant men, with nothing to do with the pre-Adamic peoples.
The Babylonian fanfic (Book of Enoch) says something about them mixing their seed with common animals, but it’s all a bit vague because the book doesn’t detail what kind of creature came out of this mixture. Perhaps it’s the creatures of Greek mythology, like the chimeras or Medusa.
OWPAH
As for non-whites in the Bible being B’hemah or chayyat, I’m not sure, but in Jonah 3:7–8, God hears the prayers of both men and animals, and the word used in Jonah is B’hemah.
You can argue that the non-Adamic B’hemah, at that time, was pure-blooded and had not broken the Law of species by species. But do not forget that Blacks had already interbred with other species of hominids (in the case of Homo erectus).
If these B’hemah were Asian, they would also be mixed with the Denisovans. Therefore, it is very clear that God does not punish—or at least, not so severely as to torment them for eternity or deny someone’s right to exist—for something they had no choice in.
It is even said that children do not inherit the sins of their parents.
OWPAH changes his mind pretty quickly as his mood fluctuates; he’s probably mad at me. First, he wrote:
“When I say BBQd, I’m not saying there’s an eternal, conscious hell. I’m using poetic language, which is why I pointed out that it will be as if it never existed.”
then
“The Son of Man will send his messengers, and they will gather out of his kingdom all the evildoers and those who do iniquity, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth! [If this were a purifying fire, as many fools claim, then God’s enemies would be glorifying Him instead of gnashing their teeth.] 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear!”
and in the end
The nations of goats have the same fate as the fallen angels.]
Now, if the goats have the same fate as the fallen angels/Lucifer, then will they be incinerated for eternity? Because the Bible makes it very clear that, unlike men who would be annihilated, the angels would suffer for eternity. You change your mind very easily.
the fallen angels will not suffer for all eternity. The smoke of their torment rising forever means they will be totally destroyed, it must be understand in the sense if the language used for Sodom and Gomorrah. They will be totally destroyed.
Regarding Rev 20:10
Aionos does not mean forever – it is referring to the intermediate state. The lake of fire obviously is destruction as death and hades are thrown into it, death and hades are not people who can be tromented.
I did not change my mind,
THAT SAID God would be just in sending everyone to eternal conscious torment in hell even if we did nothing wrong, God is not even obliged to make us let alone to make us in a state of happiness. I hope nobody would deny this fact – Romans 9:22.
I am not angry with you i am angry at you, so is God, why? because your very existence is a violation of the law.
The law of eden was not only thou shall not eat of the tree but also KIND AFTER KIND
mamzers like you violate that law, it is a crime which you are committing. Remember romans 9, the fact you made such conjectures proves you arent human and are a broken cistern unable to carry the sirit of Yahweh. Thats my 2 cents.
OWPAH wrote, “I am not angry with you i am angry at you, so is God, why? because your very existence is a violation of the law. The law of eden was not only thou shall not eat of the tree but also KIND AFTER KIND. Mamzers like you violate that law, it is a crime which you are committing.”
Virtually everything you wrote here is wrong because you ASSUME that everyone knows the biblical injunction against mixing, specifically race mixing. Yes, God prohibits mixture for his Adamic people.
However, 99% of Christians and White non-Christians are completely ignorant of this Law — they literally believe that race mixing is NOT a sin, and none of their priests, pastors, or ministers — or even parents — will tell them it is a sin.
And certainly the non-White parent of a mixed race person is not under this Law, or even aware of it, so you have two partners unaware of this Law who create a corrupted, mixed race child.
There are two types of sin — intentional sin, which is knowing the Law but violating it anyway without repentance — which leads to death, physical and spiritual (the second death) of he who commits the sin:
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17)
And there is sin out of ignorance or lack of knowledge — Paul himself admits that he himself had committed sin out of ignorance:
“Though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief..” (1 Timothy 1:13)
“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” (Acts 3:17)
“They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” (Ephesians 4:18)
“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)
Therefore, when an Adamic person violates the law of “kind after kind”, he or she does so, in the vast majority of the time out of ignorance — and therefore will not be judged as harshly as those who sinned knowingly.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say that a mixed race individual will be judged for their parents’ sin out of ignorance of the Law. You made that up. And it would be pointless for God to punish a mixed race person who was created out of ignorance — that would be sadistic.
You have been shown that your babylonian two seedline theology is wrong — and your belief that mamzers will be punished for being mamzers is wrong, so you cannot plead ignorance any longer.
You willfully ignore and argue against all evidence that contradicts what you have been falsely taught. Therefore, you now stand to be judged far more harshly than those who accept those doctrines out of ignorance:
“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)
Unlike mamzers, White Israelites are under the Law — and if they promote false doctrines and lead fellow Israelites into sin — such as making them believe that they will be saved just because they are White — the punishment they face is far more severe than any judgment that a mamzer faces because his parents sinned out of ignorance.
Humble yourself — stop being obsessed with the fate of mamzers and look in the mirror and concern yourself with your own sins and how you fall short every day — as even Paul himself acknowledged.
Consider the possibility that God led you here to have your false beliefs challenged in order to save you from a grave error — not to convince us who may have once believed what you do but now have rejected them through close study and humble repentance.
OWPAH
If God doesn’t impute sin to the Adamic, why does the Bible talk about the various types of sinners who won’t be saved?
According to your doctrine, a white person can kill at will, and the only consequence is being a second-class citizen in paradise.
If it were that simple, the Bible would simply say that those who break the Law of species to species do not inherit the Kingdom.
There’s no point in making excuses. The doctrine you follow can lead many white people to condemnation.
And as for me not being human (maybe I’m not biologically so), I try to act with decency, which is one of the meanings of the word “human,” unlike you and your gang of lunatics, who want to torment people for something they’re not to blame for.
— Mimi —-
Hi Mimi,
I have so much to say – but I presume my thoughts, ideas and questions are pointless.
You and I simply do not “hear” the same Spirit.
I will say this though —– Mimi, your explanation of the origin of the separate races i.e., Kinds of peoples on the earth was very typical. You spoke many words, but said literally nothing. It comes down to trusting in some Esoteric Idea without proof. Simply have “Faith” in something that defies logic and reality. Unless you are claiming the diversity of races is a Miracle …… I ain’t buying.
Going back to my own experience — I was your kind of “Christian” for many years. All of my adult life up to the age of 34. I left your brand of Christianity because from my perspective, it was empty. It lacked power. What I was learning in Church and from Christian books and Christian Colleges — was not making any sense in real life.
I have investigated the so called “Orthodox” Church. I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but there is quite a bit of differing views and beliefs within your own religion. I talked to several Orthodox Priests from different parts of the earth. Hardly a man was in agreement with the other. They also could not address and answer my questions and concerns with clarity and unity.
And this is not even about the Jewish Question or “Who” the Israelites are and who they are not.
I have other doctrines that I take issue with —- Soteriology being the main one. The very nature of Salvation. Why did Jesus have to die? What really is the Atonement all about. Etc., etc.
My second biggest issue is the Doctrine of “Marriage”. HOW does one marry and WHO is eligible. 98% of “Christians” are married or planning on marrying. This subject should be of utmost importance.
The Scriptures are very clear —- Adulterers and Fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
So — it would behoove every “Christian” to earnestly desire to know what exactly constitutes an adulterer or fornicator. How does a man or a woman know if their marriage bed is undefiled??? Simply trust the Priest, the Pastor or the Officiant? Within Christendom, there is no consensus. “Sin” does not scare Christendom. And that is a huge problem for me. Why I want nothing to do with organized christianity. The “Falling Away” is complete, in my opinion.
Within “Christendom” and even your Faith —– Remarriage is something that is completely over-looked. Remarriage happens almost every week within Christendom. There is ONE provision for the remarriage of a woman — the Death of the man. That’s it.
How many Churches; Orthodox or not, is upholding this Natural Law from God? Zero.
Anyway …………….
You wrote to me — “…..Human diversity is an icon of the Trinity—unity in essence, diversity in persons……”
This is Gobbledygook.
Gobbledygook — language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
Your entire explanation is gobbledygook. And I’m supposed to be inspired by it.
Don’t worry, you are very much not alone. The whole of Christendom speaks just like you about this topic i.e., Race. You are in popular company.
I do have a couple questions if you are still engaged —
Are you a White/Caucasian/European person with no non-white admixture? Are you married?
Second —- you said you came here because of the information about International Jewry. Do you agree with the main thesis here that —
The Scriptural Israelites are the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred people. Only they have fulfilled every detail of Biblical Prophecy and World History concerning the descendants of the man once known as Jacob, and later surnamed Israel. This chosen line makes up today’s Christian Nations. (Genesis 35:11; Isaiah 62:2; Acts 11:26)
Do you agree with this? I’m just curious what actually we have in common.
I’d be happy to talk to you about how Orthodoxy is preaching “another jesus” — 2 Corinthians 11:1-4.
My email is — geoffreygodwins at proton.me
Peace to you Mimi. It was very educational, but in a different way i.e., it strengthens my own faith. Thanks. I do respect your courage.
West,
Mimi has no choice but to believe in universalism. It is interesting that other mixed race people can accept that Christianity is not universal, but she cannot because without it, she is lost, so she puts all her faith in the Orthodox priests who tickle her ears.
She has memorized their script, never challenging it, and ignores any evidence to the contrary. Par for the course, even with most confirmed mainstream Christians who are White.
She has millions of White allies to reassure her she’s right.
The truth is the truth, but accepting it is another story. Only someone crazy or masochistic would accept that God is indifferent or hates you.
— Dante —
“…Only someone crazy or masochistic would accept that God is indifferent or hates you….”
Elaborate? Not sure what you mean in CONTEXT to the comment you are replying to.
West
I’m sorry if I said something negative about white people, but I believe that actions speak louder than words. I assure you that I’m pro-white people. I even made a donation to Return to the Land, and in the future, when I have better conditions, I intend to donate again. I just don’t help more at the moment because I have a sick mother, and I’m her only son.
CFT
AISBS means all israel shall be justified, by faith.
Not only noah but also 7 others were preserved. Or are most of earth’s animals also going to the lake of fire now?
OWPAH wrote, “AISBS means all israel shall be justified, by faith.”
You don’t even know your own doctrine. That’s not what they believe. They believe that they will be saved by race because they are born Israelites.
And, no, Paul contradicts what you claim — he says all Israel can be justified by faith, but not all Israel will be justified by faith.
The “Lake of Fire” isn’t what you think it is — it is NOT a repository just for mamzers, as Revelation 21:8 tells Israelites to fear God’s judgment:
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
And the “lake of fire” is NOT a literal lake of fire — the Hebrews never believed in a literal burning hell — which is a pagan, babylonian idea.
Fire in the NT is almost always used figuratively or metaphorically — and it often represents the purifying action of God’s truth and spirit (1 Peter 1:7) — that “the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire” (2 Peter 3:7) — not a destructive fire but rather purgative and transforming fire of God’s presence.
Paul says Christian believers’ works will be revealed with that fire (1 Corinthians 3:13).
Christ tells us that He brings the fire of God’s spirit on earth: “I have come to ignite a fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49) — again confirming what Peter tells us.
The Lake of Fire is God’s final judgment — and those who are unrepentant, knowing sinners will experience the “second death” — which is not just physical death, but spiritual death — which means no chance for resurrection and salvation — and their destiny is the eternal grave cut off forever from God, not a literal Catholic “burning hell”.
Why would God offer final judgment to “mamzers” when they are not under the Law? And if they are not under the Law, what’s the point of eternally punishing them in a Lake of Fire just for existing?
Listen and learn something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fYd6xpYecg
— Dante —
“….I’m sorry if I said something negative about white people….”
Whoa. I have no idea what you are referring to. My question had nothing to do with your reply just now. Let’s just shelve this one. You must have a lot going on.
Peace.
Dante,
People reject the God of the Bible because He is not who they want Him to be — so they either choose to simply become atheists or they reinterpret Scripture and make Him into a god they like and can accept.
The third option is to choose another religion, which many do — such as eastern mysticism, which reassures us that “we are all one” and that everything in the world, good and evil, is inter-connected to the “divine” energy of the universe.
No one said it’s easy to submit to the One True God on His terms, not your own.
CFT/West
It doesn’t seem like it takes much to be Christian when you’re white, but for me, who doesn’t even know if I’m God’s creation, it’s different.
Even if I’m His creation, it doesn’t seem to make much difference. Following another religion wouldn’t be coherent because there’s only one God; if there’s another, they’re demons, and I don’t believe that demons have any kind of empathy for someone who has animosity toward their favorite servants, the Jews.
Dante,
It certainly doesn’t take much effort for Whites or any other races to be “Christian”. The Christianity they observe is lukewarm. Their pastors tell them if they believe in Jesus, they are automatically saved, and their resurrection is assured through infinite Grace. Pew sitters.
And some Christian Identity groups literally preach the same false doctrine — if you’re White, you will be saved, even if you don’t live as a Christian in this life. That is as easy as it gets.
We don’t believe anybody’s salvation is guaranteed, especially Whites. Your White skin will not save you.
For Israelites, the bar is set high, and it’s not for the faint of heart or the lazy. The gate is as narrow as it gets. It isn’t easy at all.
— Dante —
I’m confused as to this new line of thought. What point are you trying to make?
You wrote in a different comment — “…“…Only someone crazy or masochistic would accept that God is indifferent or hates you….”
You never followed up on what this means.
You seem to care a great deal about knowing and pleasing God. I don’t understand why you just don’t do that and have faith in that and let everything play out as it will.
It seems to me …. this is just my opinion …… you have a dichotomous view towards us. Some comments are supportive, others are not. Supportive and Adversarial.
I hope you can find some Peace.
CFT, please don’t misrepresent All Israel Shall Be Saved
“This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that all Israel shall be saved, that all Israel shall be justified, that every Adamic soul shall ultimately share in the salvation of the tree of life. (The citations for these statements are Romans 11:26, Isaiah 45:25 and Genesis 3:22.)
If we judge our brother harshly, Yahweh shall judge us harshly. We have done, or thought to do, many of those same things for which we judge our brother. But to remit, or forgive, a man’s transgressions, the man must be repentant in the first place, repentance includes a cessation of the sinful activity we are repenting from. One need not forgive a sinner who is unrepentant. For this reason Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 6:
“9 … Do not be led astray: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor rapacious shall inherit the kingdom of Yahweh. 11 And these things some of you may have been, but you have cleansed yourselves; moreover you have been sanctified, moreover you have been deemed fit, in the name of Prince Yahshua Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
Paul also explained in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 that unrepentant sinners are to be put out of our community. However once a brother repents, he can find forgiveness with God, and we must also forgive him.”
from – https://cipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Salvation
OWPAH,
How have we misrepresented the “All Israel Shall Be Saved” doctrine?
The context of Romans 11 is clear — not just the Israelites of the southern kingdom who kept the faith shall be saved — but also the ten northern tribes of Israel who fell away from the faith shall also be saved. That’s what Paul meant. All Israel, not just the Israelite Judeans.
This phrase reflects God’s desire — not what will actually happen because, as Paul says, many Israelites who are offered salvation will fall away through unrepentant sin.
The “AISBS” crowd believes even unreprentant Israelite sinners will be saved — claiming that when Christ returns they will be given a “second chance” to repent — “every knee shall bow and confess Christ” — a complete misinterpretation of these verses.
Read these essays carefully — thorough counter arguments to the AISBS doctrine — and read the comments which includes many from AISBS believers — they clearly don’t know the totality of Scripture and its context:
Does ‘Every Knee Shall Bow’ And ‘Confess Christ’ Mean That All Israelites Shall Be Saved?
https://christiansfortruth.com/does-every-knee-shall-bow-and-confess-christ-mean-that-all-israelites-shall-be-saved/
Will There Be An Eternal Resurrection Unto ‘Shame And Everlasting Contempt’ For Some Israelites?
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-there-be-an-eternal-resurrection-unto-shame-and-everlasting-contempt-for-israelites/
If all Adamic people will be saved, why did God destroy so many of them in the Flood? Not just the mamzers were killed in the flood, as the AISBS crowd claims.
God saved Noah for TWO reasons — he was pure in his genealogy AND he had the faith of Abraham and lived a sinless life.
Noah is a foreshadowing for the preservation or salvation of Israelites — who are pure in their genealogy AND have lived a sinless life according to faith in Christ.
1. When I say BBQd I am not saying there is a eternal conscious hell I’m using poetic language, which is why I pointed out it she’ll be as if they never were
2. I agree all Israel will be saved by grace because they are born Israelites, which is itself something which occurs according to the eternal decree of God, but they they will be justified THROUGH faith. You are not saved by being the subject of Abraham’s faith but by being the OBJECT. Read Isiah 49.
3. Yahweh does not punish his enemies he takes vengeance upon them, however they and all things are in fact under the law of the Edenic covenant – kind after kind. And they live in direct violation of that law. Their very existence is a violation of the law of God. Even if you wish to argue demons do not exist as Mark Downey did, you would still have to acknowledge that the nonwhites are the result of some form of corruption – they are not the beasts of the field, whenever they are called beasts it is behmah not chay, they are not from genesis 1:26, since the man created on the sixth day is Adam H120.
I am aware many believe that AISBS means regardless of what they do, that is because they believe in free will and similar errors
OWPAH
Being judged or becoming the target of revenge for something you have no choice over makes no sense at all, and if we non-Adamites have no soul and cease to exist after death, it is quite clear that the people mentioned in the Bible, being judged and condemned to hell (oblivion/ceasing to exist), are Adamic, whether you like it or not.
Now, you can argue that we, who are not Adamic, are Nephilim, and the Book of Enoch says that when the Nephilim died, their soul or spirit was trapped on earth, meaning it could be judged on Judgment Day, but the Book of Enoch is clearly a fanfic of the Babylonian Jews.
Loving God with all your heart, soul and mind seems easy when there is no Cost.
God asks throughout His Word — How much are you willing to lose?
And the irony — He isn’t asking much IF we would have listened from the beginning.
Now in 2025, having been removed SO FAR from His Ways … it is difficult.
CFT, you are right (although the comparison with a religion that relies on victimism is unfair), however, Im not using what I said as an argument. The Orthodox Church has endured through time, through the hardships of communism and misery, blessed be the Orthodox faith!
If you believe this to be brainwashing, there is nothing I can do but pray for you. As much as you believe I am lost, that is exactly how much I believe you are lost. However, as West said, I am not alone.
God bless you. It was a good debate, And I appreciate, CFT, the decorum so far.
— Mimi —
Some advice, I hope you take it —
Why not actually READ/STUDY a few articles here.
Start Here — https://christiansfortruth.com/israel-the-true-identity-of-the-christian-church/
You don’t know CFT’s position on anything because you don’t read Articles. You are only gleaning information based on the Comments Section.
Lastly — it is not easy to find Christians For Truth. God brought you here. Don’t ignore that. That was a gift. Don’t take it for granted.
The church was persecuted and mocked by kings, emperors and demons, none of them remained. The church did.
May God bless you.
Mimi,
You could say the same thing about Jews and Judaism, but does that prove they are right?
They literally use that same argument to prove that they must be “God’s chosen people.”
It’s a logical fallacy in both cases.
— mimi —
Are you now defending the Roman Catholic Church as having the Spirit of Truth?
I thought you were Orthodox.
It seems to me that you care more about the teachings of men, the consensus of men and the approval of men, more than you do the Absolute Scriptural Truth.
It should frighten you that you cannot explain the diversity of Races/Man. But rather you simply put trust and faith in the so called “Church” — whatever that is, at any given moment — who also can’t explain it Scripturally.
I would have more respect for you if you simply declared that the diversity of Man was a Miracle of God. But then you have to have some logical reason for “Why”.
God confused “Languages” among the People of Genesis 10 as a miracle. That makes sense and the Scriptures explain the “why”. But to suggest that God performed a MIRACLE and changed a homogenous People into a diverse gene pool — placing Whites at the top of the Genetic Lottery and Negroes at the bottom …………………… Why? Doesn’t seem very fair.
You just accept the Diversity of Man with no reasonable explanation.
As I said, I did too, but I didn’t know why, nor did I care. Too busy living for my self. I was my god.
Mimi,
Synod of jerusalem basically taught that God isnt God by denying his soverinty, you arent even theists, let alone Christians. Now you have even ordained a woman to your pagan priesthood.
Mimi
Do you now believe in the IC? Are you a pure-blood white? Do you think that non-whites are God’s creation or are they the creation of the fallen?
Dante,
Race Realism Explained
https://youtu.be/2L7I-J9yQUw?si=6ci_lRpAdhUxu-rX
Mimi
Being a racial realist does not imply being a CI. Amren’s realists, for example, believe in differences, but in the eyes of God, everyone would be equal in dignity.
Dante,
I have never been, am not now, and will never be, even in my short life, part of that small group that believes in CI. Period.
Also, I do not assume such dangerous things frivolously. The enemy does not create. The only Creator is our Lord God. To Him belong all honor and glory.
If, for you, the enemy “created” something, then you are calling him a creator, and I will not be even minimally diplomatic with you on that.
Stop writing things you may bitterly regret in the future. Be more careful with your words. Peace. I will not answer anything further if it is, once again, an insult to my God.
Mimi wrote, “I have never been, am not now, and will never be, even in my short life, part of that small group that believes in CI. Period. The enemy does not create. The only Creator is our Lord God. To Him belong all honor and glory. If, for you, the enemy “created” something, then you are calling him a creator, and I will not be even minimally diplomatic with you on that.”
You seem to not be paying close attention to what this thread is about — it should be clear to you by now that “serpeent seedline” is a controversial, much-disputed doctrine within CI which is NOT what the majority believe among Christian Identitarians.
Serpent Seeliners may be the most vocal, strident and dogmatic, but are not in the majority. And it’s rather new idea, arising in America in the late 1940s — while CI — the idea that White Europeans descend from the lost sheep of the house of Israel — arose in the 1600s, then gained a lot of momentum in the 1900s when archeological discoveries in the Near East confirmed its truth.
Do not conflate Christian Identity with “serpent line” — that’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Many “Serpent seedliners” are so “certain” of this babylonian doctrine that they will actually smear anyone who rejects it as a “universalist” or worse — a Jew.
It should be clear to you, if you are paying attention, that CFT would agree with you — that all life comes from God — and to suggest otherwise is merely putting forth a strawman argument.
Now that we’ve clarified that, where do you think the White Europeans originate? Have you read our numerous articles on this crucial issue? Read them and try to dispute them:
https://christiansfortruth.com/?s=lost+tribes+of+israel
If you cannot reject or refute these articles, then you have no legitimate reason to reject all CI.
CFT,
It is a good thing not to believe in the serpent seed doctrine, because that is literally blasphemy. Orthodoxy does not recognize that, nor any system of a “chosen race.” We are not Jews. To reduce salvation to a matter of blood or skin color is not only theological error, it is idolatry: it turns the flesh into an idol.
That said, I do acknowledge that we are all different, and that certain ethnic groups thrive best among their own, and that multiculturalism ultimately destroys cultures.
Mimi,
“To reduce salvation to a matter of blood or skin color is not only theological error, it is idolatry: it turns the flesh into an idol.”
No, it’s not idolatry at all. Your belief would imply that the House of Israel contained blacks, Asians, Indian peoples, Arabs, Amerindian peoples, Polynesians, Europeans and Aborigines – because Yahushua was sent only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel – Mathew 15:24.
If you believe that all people, in this world, can find salvation in Yahushua, then that makes you a Christian Universalist and if so, I suggest reading the articles on this site that completely debunk this false doctrine.
Mimi wrote, “Orthodoxy does not recognize that, nor any system of a “chosen race.” We are not Jews.”
We here are not concerned with what Orthodoxy thinks or what any mainstream denominations think — we care only what the Bible actually says,
Nowhere in the NT does it say that we Christians should sit in a church pew and believe everything a priest says just because he say it. Paul tells us to “study [the OT and NT] to show ourselves approved by God the Father and His Son. It is our responsibility to discern what we hear against what the Bible actually say. We cannot blame the priest because we trusted him — the blame is ours for trusting him.
No one in Christian Identity would ever say that “We are Jews” — that’s what our detractors claim, that we want to be Jews.
The vast major of people in CI do NOT believe that today’s Jews are real Israelites from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, Israelites from the southern kingdom. They are impersonators. (Revelation 3:9, Revelation 5:9)
We believe Europeans are the true descendants from the 12 tribes of Israel — whether you acknowledge racially exclusivity or choseness, doesn’t change reality –the Bible was written by, for and about Israel, an God acknowledge He has know only one race– Israel (Amos 3:2).
All in CI believe that both the Old and New Covenants were made ONLY for Israelites (Jeremiah31:31-33)
Mimi wrote, “To reduce salvation to a matter of blood or skin color is not only theological error, it is idolatry: it turns the flesh into an idol.”
We agree with you — you cannot believe anyone can be saved by race lone, by misreading and misinterpreting “All Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26).
The Pharisees also believed that merely believing that they are the “seed of Abraham”and thus entitled to salvation merely because they were Israelites — and Christ rebuked them for it. (Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8).
That’s why Christ told the Pharisee, Nicodemus, that Israelites had to become a new creation or “born again” in the spirit of Christ to achieve salvation — and we agree with Christ — not with the Pharisees or the Serpent Seedliners.
So you see we share some of your rejection of certain CI groups, but you avoided a direct question that we posed to you — so please, to be fair, provide us with an answer:
We wrote you, “…Where do you think the White Europeans originate?”
What is your proof that Europeans are not and cannot be direct descendants of the lost tribes of the house of Israel?
Have you read our numerous articles on this crucial issue?”
Read them and try to dispute them:
https://christiansfortruth.com/?s=lost+tribes+of+israel
CFT
Without delving into the merits of which denomination holds the monopoly on biblical truth, it is claimed that the scriptures are not subject to free interpretation. Protestantism, including the IC, is the result of free interpretation. Even within the IC, there is no unity. Christogenea, led by William Finck, for example, believes that the other IC groups are led by crypto-Jews. I also know of an IC channel that claims that the Anunnaki were actually white men who later crossed paths with the hominid Homo erectus, giving rise to the black race. This is obviously a lie, for the simple fact that Homo erectus had already become extinct long before the first white people existed.
Dante,
“I also know of an IC channel that claims that the Anunnaki were actually white men who later crossed paths with the hominid Homo erectus, giving rise to the black race. This is obviously a lie, for the simple fact that Homo erectus had already become extinct long before the first white people existed.”
You either believe in Christianity or you don’t Dante. Believing in Paleontology means you are not a Christian as it puts life on earth in concordance with the Big Bang theory. Do you not see the deception? If they promote the belief man comes from monkey Christianity can’t exist.
On the other hand, HUMANS (non white) come from monkeys, as promoted with Nephilim in 1 Enoch. Moreso, Darwin actually wanted to classify Black’s as another species altogether.
I have already told you about where all the different skills come from which you continue to ignore. They are proof of ‘backcrossing’. Backcrossing is the prices of mixing one species with another that after a certain number of crosses (8-10) almost all of one species’ traits are negated, if that is you continue the cross, consistently, with the other species – Nephilim/mankind mix with monkey creates chimera offspring and that offspring continues to mate only with Nephilim/man.
They have lied about everything in order to deny creation. They control what is taught in universities and schools so everyone gets Darwin, palaeontology and Big Bang. This is further promoted on the MSM and entertainment systems – the Big Lie is in full swing, which now becomes the truth and the truth the lie.
Carbon dating is another of their many lies.
Dante,
Excuse my mistakes. I wrote this on a mobile phone and predictive text wrote other words than what should have been.
Corrections:
“I have already told you about where all the different SKULLS…”
“Backcrossing is the PROCESS…”
Thank you
Marcus
As far as I know, dating back more than 6,000 years or 50,000 years uses potassium 40 uranium 235 or uranium 238. Each day of creation could be a thousand years or more. The Bible doesn’t specify much on this issue.
As for dinosaurs and fossils of different hominids, they say they are a hoax.
Marcus
Regarding the Nephelins’ ability to procreate with common animals in nature, there is a certain tribe in South America whose name I don’t remember that has six fingers, a typical characteristic of the supposed Nephelins. Why aren’t they able to impregnate common monkeys?
And were the Nephelins all male, or were there some females among them?
Dante,
Yes, I know that a day could be an eon and much longer than an actual day and this makes sense, but as I stated, all of the different ‘human’ evolution stages are simply back crossing evidence. Dinosaurs are a hoax.
They’ve been making chimeras in labs for decades now, Dante. More so, they’ve also found sheep born with human faces as well as other animals as well. They tell us it isn’t possible but it very much is. If it becomes public, they tell us the usual – a genetic mutation. That’s their answer for everything. I’ve seen videos, on the internet, of chimeras. It’s disturbing and I hate to state it, but it doesn’t happen in the west, more in the ‘stan’ countries.
And as for the ‘daughters of God’, yes, they were created as well. I’ll go into this more on a ‘later’ date as I can’t at the moment.
(If adamic) Mimi has a choice
Revelation 18:4
A Jewish View on the Pre-Adamic Question
https://youtu.be/7ckGiRYtNqU?si=Fx8TrcXUtMIwe_fP
Race Mixing and the Bible:
In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: “You will not mongrelise.”
https://odysee.com/@louismarschalko:2/Race-Mixing-and-the-Bible:4
You’ve definitely made me think differently about the cainanite woman as I was on the side of “she couldn’t have been an Israelite” before your explanation.
I’ve been into ci for a few years now and go to many different sites for my education — as well as reading my Bible everyday — and I must admit that I’ve heard this — “all Israel will be saved” — and it just doesn’t sound right to me, as I’ve read in my Bible that once you accept Christ your behaviour/works must reflect that you are a follower, within reason as we all fall short from time to time.
I always tell my children, belong (you have to be his), believe (accepting Christ) and behave like you belong and believe. Bit corny but keeps it simple.
Sean wrote, “…I must admit that I’ve heard this — “all Israel will be saved” — and it just doesn’t sound right to me, as I’ve read in my Bible that once you accept Christ your behaviour/works must reflect that you are a follower…”
It doesn’t sit well with a lot of people because no one’s salvation is assured by race — that’s what the Pharisees believe (and still believe).
Romans 11:26 (“and all Israel shall be saved”), like every verse has a context, and context of Romans 11 is reuniting all 12 tribes of Israel an offer all salvation under Christ, where Paul uses the parable of the Olive Tree to illustrate this concept:
The ‘Wild Olive Branch’ Of Romans 11 – Who Can Be Grafted Into Israel And Who Cannot
https://christiansfortruth.com/the-wild-olive-branch-of-romans-11-who-can-be-grafted-into-israel-and-who-cannot/
But Paul is very clear here that the offering of salvation is NOT guaranteed or assured — those who live in sin will “not be spared” and will be “cut off”:
“Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will certainly not spare you either. 22Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.” (Romans 11:20-23)
If an Israelite is “cut off” from the Tree of Israel through sin and unbelief, Paul tells us, God will not spare them. You lose your status as an Israelite through sin and unbelief. And if you are lose your status as an Israelite, you cannot be “spared” or saved.
Anyone who tells you your salvation is unconditionally guaranteed by your race is deceiving themselves — and putting your salvation in jeopardy if you fall for it.
That’s why James tells us that false teachers will be judged more harshly by God — because of the grave damage they can do to their blind followers.
The disciples go to the dogs
The story of the Canaanite woman is one of Jesus teaching the disciples a lesson for not following his command “go not unto the gentiles” as described in Matthew 10. So now, against Jesus’ command, the disciples bring him a gentile woman, pleading with Jesus to get the women off their backs.
Initially Jesus refuses to even address the woman. This silence makes the first clear statement to the disciples, “Didn’t I say stay away from the gentiles”? One can imagine the exasperated look on Jesus’ face as he thinks, “What part of do not go unto the gentiles wasn’t clear?” However, when the woman pleads her case for her demon possessed daughter, Jesus relents his silence saying, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”.
Now what is overlooked and misunderstood is that Jesus was addressing the disciples as well, who were looking on, by repeating his original command of which the woman was unaware. The woman, desperate for a cure for her daughter, kneels before Jesus pleading. “Lord, help me!”
Jesus replies, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” Again Jesus is clearly addressing the disciples because he is using familiar terminology to the Jews of that era who referred to gentiles as “dogs” the same way Jews today refer to non-Jews as “goyim” or cattle. Note the use of the word “children” to denote the Jewish Temple followers Jesus’ ministry (if I may use that word) was aimed at addressing.
Picking up on the slight, the woman answers, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
No doubt amused at the woman’s clever response, Jesus says, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
Here again Jesus addresses the disciples indirectly with the inference, “You bring me a gentile woman, a dog no less by your own cultural standards, who has greater faith than you who ignore my commands. Now get back to work and next time remember my command, STAY AWAY FROM THOSE GENTILE DOGS!”
It is instructive to note that Jewish women in first century Judea were considered chattel, as such they had no rights. Women had to belong to a male to get any form of representation in legal matters as they could not own property and they could not enter into a contract. So women and children (boys up to the age of nine) were basically enslaved to their male representative be it a husband, uncle, son or some other male that could answer for them. Women could not divorce their husband, but a husband could divorce his wife simply by posting a notice of the divorce in a public location. Thus gentile women’s dog status. Today we would say “bitch”. Note the frequent Bible stories of women, like Tamar and Rebekah, that manipulate males in an effort to make sure they will have a son that represents their interests.
I am always puzzled by Christians who, like the disciples, do not heed Jesus’ command, i.e “go not unto the gentiles.”
Arch Stanton,
Nice to see that you are still around checking in.
By the way, great name — from Sergio Leone’s “The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly”.
As our article points out the use of “gentile”, “jew”, and “jewish” are confusing and misleading translations of the original Greek — and will inevitably lead to misreadings of the text.
You seem to imply that today’s “jews” are the same people that appear in the Bible 2,000 years ago — and as you are probably aware, we reject that idea.
You seem to imply that Jesus’ disciples disobeyed Him and went to evangelize the “gentiles” — but that’s not what happened here. As He traveled through Tyre, the “Canaanite” woman sought Jesus out through His disciples. They tried to put her off because they knew she wasn’t an Israelite of the southern kingdom, which is what Jesus told them to do, no?
I read in the bible a man could only divorce his wife if she had been unfaithful.
— Sean —
Yes, that is the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles.
If you think about it — “Divorce” is a man-made instrument. It is not a Natural Law, as Marriage is i.e., the Joining of Two Flesh Becomes One.
Divorce is better understood as “to put or send away”. Basically — the man just walks away from his wife because of adultery.
God’s Natural Law is that only the Death of the man, frees the woman/wife to take a different or second husband — 1 Corinthians 7:39/Romans 7:2-3.
Jesus says “Moses permitted”. I suspect Moses “overlooked” remarriage. because it is not written into the Law as many claim.
just my opinion.
Hello CFT Team,
I am a non-Adamic person, and I would like to tell everyone who believes in Christian identity that we can be good and decent people, and we are not demons because demons are created only to do evil. If you go outside and talk to some random non-white person, you will realize that we’re normal and sane people just like you.
Owen,
We have never said that non-Adamic people are demons, nor have we said that some of them cannot be decent people. Where did you get the idea that we make those claims?
I wrote this because I have encountered many Christian Identity supporters who despise non-Adamites and even want to kill them all. Many of them also consider us demons. What do you think about this?
Owen,
No, we do not “despise” non-Adamites, nor do we wish them any harm, nor do we see them as “demons”. Demons, in the Bible, are false teachers who possess people with their false doctrines.
We focus on the love of our own people, their repentance, and salvation. Yes, other races with ill intent can cause us to stumble and lose our way, but that often happens merely from the lack of knowledge about who we are.
The gospels tell us to be a separate and holy people — which is why many believe in racial segregation. And the Bible tells us that God does not approve of mixing, because you cannot serve two masters, and it creates confusion and dual loyalties.
White people are the only race in the world not allowed to have racial identity and self-interests — when we do it, it’s called “racism” — when others do it, it’s called “pride” (one of the seven deadly sins, by the way). What does that tell you?
Do you have any social media accounts or anything? I want to talk to you somewhere more private. Plus, I feel kind of uncomfortable commenting on a pro-white site as a non-white person.
Owen
Are you talking to me?
I don’t currently have social media. I deleted my Facebook a while ago because I received threats and had my address leaked.
I angered some people by talking about many points presented by Christian identity, such as the existence of people before Adam. And unlike the United States, my country has strict laws regarding speech involving race.
CFT even wrote an article about a Brazilian pastor who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for talking about Jews.
I think the police haven’t knocked on my door because I’m not a prominent figure on the internet. But anyway, someday I’ll return to talking about some of the ideas of identity Christianity, because no matter how painful the truth is, it shouldn’t be censored.
Hello, reading your comment made me curious. What about people who are already mixed race?
Would you consider a white child (in terms of skin tone, but with a asian, black or etc father) as Adamic?
The maternal side has an entirely white lineage, while the paternal side is mixed.
—- Mimi —-
“…Would you consider a white child (in terms of skin tone, but with a asian, black or etc father) as Adamic?….”
Such a child would be half-adamic i.e., mixed race.
“…The maternal side has an entirely white lineage, while the paternal side is mixed….”
Again — such a person is mixed race.
I feel there is a larger Question here that you did not ask.
Please ask.
Are you a Christian? And is this a real example — or just a hypothetical that you are trying to work-out.
Hello, West,
Thank you for your reply
I’m an Orthodox Christian and relatively new to navigating this site, which is, in some ways, interesting. But I’ve been left with quite a few questions regarding the Adamic idea, which I was familiar with in a very different way.
My hypothetical question is more about this: what should a so-called “half-Adamic” person do when it comes to reproduction? It’s stated on this site that mixing blood (interracial marriage) is considered a serious genetic corruption, and that non-whites are, in a way, seen as inferior and even lacking a soul or the possibility of salvation (if Im not mistaken).
(I don’t mean to provoke or being rude, but doesn’t this sound oddly similar to what Jews say about non-Jews?)
So, if this “mixing” occurs, what is supposed to be done after that?
I appreciate your patience in advance.
Mimi,
The Bible describes the status of children born from illicit or forbidden unions:
“A bastard does not enter into the assembly of YHWH; even a tenth generation of him does not enter into the assembly of YHWH.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
The same verse is also rendered,
“The corrupted shall not come in to the gathering of Jehovah; also the tenth generation to him shall not come into the gathering of Jehovah.”
The English word “bastard” or “corrupted” is translated from the Hebrew word “mamzer”, which means someone of mixed origins, mongrel race, or from forbidden unions:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4464.htm
Some claim “mamzer” means a child born of a prostitute, but the context of the verse seems to exclude that reading, as the next verse, Deuteronomy 23:3 holds the Philistines up as an example of “mamzers” — and while the Philistines originally descended from Mizraim, they had eventually become mixed with other forbidden races.
You are correct, today’s “Jews” do hold some of these views on mixing, but considering they themselves are a mixed race people, it’s rather hypocritical. The “Jews” have taken many ideas from the Bible and corrupted them, but that doesn’t mean they are “jewish” ideas originally.
The “Jews” are an example of a race mixed people who marry other similarly race mixed people (mamzers) and claim they are “pure”, which is absurd — but we would encourage “Jews” to take only other Jews as spouses because they are similarly mixed.
The first law of the Bible mentioned in Genesis is “kind after kind” — meaning, no mixing. If children, through no fault of their own, are created in violation of this law, their best course is obey the law the best they can and find another similarly mixed spouse, so as not to create more confusion — and to not corrupt another bloodline that is not mixed.
CTF,
Hello, how are you?
Thank you for the patience you showed in explaining this; I truly appreciate it and found your response quite interesting. However, I still have some lingering questions:
First of all, may I ask what your religion is? I understand the website might be managed by more than one person, so I’m asking regarding all of you collectively.
You used an interesting word in your explanation: Jehovah. That leads me to believe you might not be part of the apostolic faith, such as the Orthodox Church. In our tradition, none of our Church Fathers ever used the name Jehovah to refer to the Lord, which already makes our communication a bit more difficult. Still, I look forward to your answer so I can better adjust my “compass” to understand your position.
As for your response itself, let me share the Orthodox and personal perspective:
The verse you used as your main argument was Deuteronomy 23:2, along with the term mamzer. CTF, where did you get this interpretation from? What references do you use to study the Bible, especially Hebrew? (This is a genuine question out of curiosity.)
The word mamzer (מַמְזֵר), in Rabbinic Judaism, indeed has a somewhat similar rhetoric to what you mentioned, but it applies specifically to Jews themselves (which is why I said your rhetoric is similar).
However, in Christian interpretation, this word was never adopted as a theological or spiritual category.
This term does not enter through the New Covenant — it is only those who follow only the old testament who continue to use it.
God does not show partiality or favoritism, as is clearly stated in Acts 10:34: “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:”
Another important passage in Acts is when Peter tells the Lord he has never eaten anything unclean according to Mosaic law (Leviticus 11), and the Lord replies: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” (acts 10:15)
Later, in the house of Cornelius, Peter affirms: But God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Acts 10:28
The original Greek phrase “οὐδένα ἄνθρωπον” (oudena anthrōpon) literally means “no man,” or “not a single human being,” exactly as translated!
So, I have two more questions:
Where do these so-called non-Adamic people come from? (I searched through your site but couldn’t find a clear explanation.)
Are all white people considered Adamic in your view?
Once again, thank you for your response and for your patience.
Mimi,
All good questions, and we will do our best to answer them, although some have already been addressed in this article, especially vis a vis your question about Peter’s vision in Acts 10, which we covered and explained in context.
You asked, “You used an interesting word in your explanation: Jehovah. That leads me to believe you might not be part of the apostolic faith….”
We are Bible-first Christians who do not follow any denominations, which truly makes us “apostolic”, as we strictly adhere to what Jesus and His apostles actually said and believed, not what some monolithic, self-perpetuating Church tells us to believe.
The Orthodox Church believes that only their priests should read and interpret the Bible — because they claim that lay Christians do not understand it, and their interpretations are unreliable. This stance is completely anti-gospel, anti-Scriptural. The Catholic Church has the same policy.
We believe that we do not need a priest class to interpret the Bible for us — otherwise, Paul would never have encouraged ALL Christians to “study and show thyself approved.”
We didn’t use the word “Jehovah” — the translators of that verse did. Other translators render it YHWH, and others Lord, and others God. It matters not — we are talking about the same God.
You asked, “What references do you use to study the Bible, especially Hebrew?”
We don’t use any single translation because they ALL have flaws. In the above comment to you, we told you which source we used for Deuteronomy 23:2….
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4464.htm
We prefer Literal translations as they tend to not rely on doctrinal bias. Then we judge all translations by context and internal consistency — God will never contradict Himself, but Bible translators contradict themselves all the time. One verse cannot contradict another verse.
Of the word “mamzer” you wrote, “This term does not enter through the New Covenant — it is only those who follow only the old testament who continue to use it.”
Really? How do you know this? The New Covenant was with the same people — the House of Israel — as the Old Covenant. Read Jeremiah 31-33 carefully. Every Christian pastor and priest ignores this verse.
And Christ completely contradicts what you say — that the New Covenant somehow nullifies the old. Christ said, “‘Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 15:17)
What Christ did away with were the rituals of the Law because the Israelites proved that they could not keep those laws — and as Paul said, if you are guilty of transgressing any of those laws, you are guilty of transgressing them ALL.
You wrote, “God does not show partiality or favoritism, as is clearly stated in Acts 10:34: “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:”
We are perplexed by this comment because we explained the meaning of this verse in the article. We wrote, “So God does indeed show partiality and favoritism toward Israel among all the tribes of the world — but He does not show partiality among those Israelite tribes. That is the true meaning of Peter’s words in Acts 10:34-36.”
You referred to Galatians 3:28 as proof of universal salvation, but we wrote an entire article demonstrating that it means no such thing:
Did Paul Write The Book Of Galatians To Israelites Or To Everyone?
https://christiansfortruth.com/did-paul-write-the-book-of-galatians-to-israelites-or-to-everyone/
Of Cornelius’ conversion you wrote, “The original Greek phrase “οὐδένα ἄνθρωπον” (oudena anthrōpon) literally means “no man,” or “not a single human being,” exactly as translated!”
Again, we showed the context of Acts 10 — we didn’t cherry-pick a verse out of that context and universalize it as you did. The context is all 12 tribes of Israel — and how Jesus had to convince Peter that the lost sheep of the House of Israel — the 10 northern tribes who did not keep the faith and did not circumcise, were not “unclean” and therefore were acceptable for salvation.
You asked, “Where do these so-called non-Adamic people come from? (I searched through your site but couldn’t find a clear explanation.)”
You must have missed out essay on this subject:
Pre-Adamics In Genesis: Adam Was Not The First Man
https://christiansfortruth.com/pre-adamics-in-genesis-adam-was-not-the-first-man/
Since the Bible isn’t about non-Adamic people, but rather about “the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1), it doesn’t explicitly spell out where they came from — though there is evidence that there were “Pre-Adamic” peoples created before Adam, who was a unique creation. Clearly Cain did not marry Adamic women — and the Bible does not include his descendants or their genealogies, nor are they included in the Genesis 10 nations.
You wrote, “Are all white people considered Adamic in your view?”
It depends on what you mean by “white”. If you mean simply having white skin, then, no — white skin is a phenotype, and even Japanese, Turkish, and Lebanese people can appear to have white skin. If you are a White person of northern European stock on both sides of your family, with no family lore of admixture of other peoples, then chances are pretty good you are unmixed Adamic.
We emphasize northern Europe because many of the southern European lands were conquered by Muslims and Turks — and you see evidence of this in southern France, Spain, and Italy — a darker phenotype with olive skin, dark curly hair, and dark eyes. Same is true for many of the Balkan nations and Greece in southeastern Europe, which were conquered by the Turks.
— Mimi —
If you don’t mind sharing —
How did you find CFT?
And what kept you “curious” enough to ask a question?
The “Search” function works very well.
Ex — “Adamic” gets you — https://christiansfortruth.com/pre-adamics-in-genesis-adam-was-not-the-first-man/
My recommendation —
https://christiansfortruth.com/israel-the-true-identity-of-the-christian-church/
CFT,
Hello, how are you?
Once again, thank you for your patience in answering my questions!
I really liked your response (I truly did), especially regarding “who are” or “how are the Adamics classified” — it was very well written. I must also thank you for the small notes regarding minor details that had gone unnoticed or forgotten in relation to the article itself.
I quoted Acts 10:54 precisely because your reading of Acts does not hold up in context, just like several other citations you use in other articles. You say Acts 10:35 might refer to the scattered tribes of Israel. However, in the NT and in the LXX, the word ἔθνος is broad and always appears in inclusive contexts (e.g., Romans 1:5, “all nations” — ἔθνη).
Again, you suggest that the term “mamzer” is still applicable in the context of the New Testament, but it finds no clear support. Our New Testament emphasizes grace and salvation as the basis of redemption. If the Adamic theory were true, don’t you believe Jesus came to redeem these souls? (As well)
CFT, the theory of pre-Adamites can be dangerous in a certain sense, because the Lord does not make mistakes and the devil does not create. What would be the function of the non-Adamics in this case? Wouldn’t the existence of these pre-Adamites represent death before sin? I understand that you mean the Bible is Adamically guided, but the Bible is very clear when it refers to original sin, the first sin. Otherwise, there would be room for doubt in any language — be it Greek, Hebrew, or English.
As for mālē’ (מָלֵא, Genesis 1:28) implying “replenish” — that is actually a mistranslation that entered English versions likely through archaic English. In Hebrew, mālē simply means “to fill,” without any connotation of refilling or replenishing. (I recommend learning Hebrew and Greek — it’s the closest we can get to the Bible and it’s truly fascinating, believe me). Genesis 1:28 in Hebrew says:
“פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ”
Translated as: “Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.” Nothing related to “refill.” We can also examine this passage in Greek or in the Latin Vulgate if necessary.
In one of your articles, I believe you also hold a mistaken view of what Adam means in Hebrew (Genesis 1:26). Adam (אָדָם) in etymology comes from its root (אֲדָמָה, adamah) which means, in simplified terms, “earth,” “soil.” However, in the Bible, it uses אָדָם (Adam) as a common noun simply meaning man or humanity — nothing related to the capacity to blush, even though the word has a connection to “red.”
The verse in Hebrew says:
“וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה”
“And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground (min-ha-adamah, מִן־הָאֲדָמָה) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Adamah means, as previously stated, earth, soil (fertile and tillable); it is the root for the name Adam, which suggests man’s connection with the earth. If it were in reference to his skin or ability to blush, other words with different roots would have been used. The arguments used to support that interpretation lack linguistic or biblical foundation.
Also, I was expecting a bit more knowledge regarding the Orthodox Church beyond the basics, since the path you all seem to follow is one of independence, without liturgy. I gently invite you to learn more about the Orthodox faith!
The Orthodox Church truly values apostolic tradition and interpretation guided by the Church Fathers, but it does not forbid laypeople from reading the Bible. It actually encourages reading, especially under spiritual guidance to avoid individual interpretations taken out of the faith’s context. The heart is deceptive, and people use the Bible in many ways to validate their own beliefs.
Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk said: “When we read the Gospel, Christ speaks directly to us. It is a letter from the King of Heaven to us. We interpret Scripture through the Church, not in isolation. Our approach is one of obedience, not hermeneutic independence.”
This means we do not treat the Bible as a book of secret codes or as a tool to validate theories. The Church interprets Scripture based on the Holy Spirit, the councils, and the lives of the saints — not on modern assumptions.
Therefore, regarding the subject itself, I have no further questions. Thank you for your patience.
Best regards.
West,
Hello, how are you?
I came across the site through a recommendation. I share many of the same views expressed here regarding a certain group of people (if you know what I mean) which is what initially brought me to explore the content more deeply.
However, the theory regarding the Adamic lineage raised some questions for me. I noticed a few inconsistencies that led me to revisit some articles in order to better understand the reasoning behind them.
I decided to ask questions not to argue (or start a debate), but simply to clarify whether I had correctly grasped the direction the author(s) intended to take.
While I do have several reservations, I must say the site is impressively well organized and thoughtfully put together.
Mimi,
We have respect for the Orthodox Church — and believe it is superior to the Catholic Church — but they both share many of the same views on universalism and dispensationalism.
We do admire the work of Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, who is an Orthodox Nationalist — writing extensively on the strong European ethnic identity which many prominent Orthodox figures support:
https://theorthodoxnationalist.wordpress.com/
We get it — you are a confirmed universalist, and you recite all the universalist talking points, which we are very familiar with, considering many here grew up in universalist churches, so we know all your points and could, if we chose, to defend them even better than you.
And we understand why you personally have no choice but to side with universalism, which makes this discussion less than productive than it could be.
On the other hand, we have nothing personally invested in either side of the issue except the truth — for us to believe in the exclusivity of the Bible does not personally benefit us. If anything, it makes our lives and faith more difficult.
But when making an argument for universalism, you have no choice but to ignore what are obvious limiting factors in Scripture, such as Jeremiah 31:31-33, which clearly states the New Covenant will be only with the same people as the Old Covenant — Israel. No one else. This is a limiting factor that all universalists must ignore or explain away.
Another obvious limiting factor is Matthew 15:24 when Jesus says, “I come only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” No one else. He didn’t say, “I come for all nations, people, and kinds.”
Universalists also cannot logically argue how all races come from Adam, and they completely ignore another limiting factor — Genesis 5:1 — “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” This verse implies there are people who are not of Adam, and this book is not about them.
Another limiting factor is John’s vision of the Kingdom of Heaven in Revelation 21:12, “Having also a wall great and high, having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve messengers, and names written thereon, which are those of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.”
There are are no other gates through which non-Israelites can enter — and if others could enter, then through which gate would they enter?
Your reliance on phrases such as “all men” or “all nations” is a cornerstone of universalism and dispensationalism — they love the word “all” as it justifies their views. But it doesn’t mean what you think it means. The same is true for “the world”, another favorite universalist catch phrase.
Read our essay on that subject:
How The Phrase ‘All Men’ Has Been Misused To Promote False Universalism In The Bible
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-phrase-all-men-has-been-misused-to-promote-false-universalism-in-the-bible/
What ‘The World’ Meant In The Bible’s Apostolic Age Is NOT What It Means Today
https://christiansfortruth.com/what-the-world-meant-in-the-bible-and-apostolic-age-is-not-what-it-means-today/
—– Mimi —–
I will piggy back on CFT’s recent reply, as it was very thorough and not much more can be added, except …….
I myself was just like you — a racial Universalist for most of my adult life. I wasn’t specifically taught racial Universalism, but it was just something my family and close friends believed as our entire congregation believed. Again, it was never a Bible Study or a specific Sermon on a Sunday. It was always just something in passing. We just “assumed” all the races of peoples come from Adam and Eve, and by default, Noah and his sons.
My Question to you is simple —– EXPLAIN IT.
Now, meaning “today”, I understand why Evangelical Judeo-Christianity believes in “all one blood” — but I’d like to hear it from you.
Please explain it to me. We know Absolutely that Adam and Eve were exactly the same. We could say they were Homogenously One Kind. Adam is in God’s image and Eve is directly from Adam. Whatever race Adam and Eve were, their children were also.
So ……….. given that — take it away for me. Please fill in the blanks.
I’m positive you believe in a Global Flood which is estimated to be around 2500 bc.
By the time of Christ, I think it is a very safe to say that there were 4 or 5 very Distinct people groups (races or kinds) on the Earth, as archaeology and anthropology prove.
If Adam and Eve were homogenous and Noah and his sons —- how in the world did we get 4 distinct groups of people just 2000 years later?
You would agree that this “Phenomenon” that you will describe to me, does not still occur, right?
A homogenous black couple will always conceive a black child. A homogenous White couple will always conceive a White child.
A White man copulates with a Red woman and we get what we know today as a Mestizo i.e., a Mexican. A mix of white and red.
A mix of black and white is what we call today a mulatto.
What will NEVER happen from a mixed race population, is then to have 1000 years later — DISTINCT races of people.
One theory for racial universalism is that Adam and Eve contained all the genetic material to produce the 5 distinct races — yellow, black, red and white. If this were true — Why did we THEN get 4 very distinct races of people? If Adam and Eve were mixed to begin with ……… it doesn’t make sense. Everyone on earth today would be brown. How did we get White peoples??? How did we get black peoples??? These two people groups are totally opposite from each other. Like comparing cats with dogs. Cats did not come from dogs or vice versa.
Back to my Question — Please explain to me how we have 4 or 5 VERY distinct people groups 1000 years ago. I understand that since the advent of the Ship and transatlantic sailing across oceans, we now have more people groups i.e., Arabs as an example. But, 1500 years ago, Anthropologist are very much in agreement that 4 or 5 very distinct classifications of people existed — Yellow, black, red and white.
Go ahead. Teach me how we all came from Adam.
Thanks.
Ps…. the only logical theory is — a Miracle. God performed a Miracle and changed a homogenous people into separate people groups. That is it. This is the Tower of Babel explanation.
Mimi
The Christian identity generally believes that we non-Adamites are the beast of the field. For example, in the book of Jonah, chapter 3, verse 8, it says that animals cry out to God for mercy. It makes no sense for a dog or horse to cry out to God because they have no consciousness or thoughts. I wish it were all a mistake, but I can’t find a plausible explanation. What is your view, or that of orthodoxy, on who the beast of the field is? Here are some other biblical references on this issue: Joel 2:22; Exodus 19:13; Jeremiah 31:27; Leviticus 20:15; 2 Peter 2:12-14; 2 Peter 2:12.
“…for us to believe in the exclusivity of the Bible does not personally benefit us. If anything, it makes our lives and faith more difficult….”
Such a great and poignant point!
My family “proves” their theology over mine because they have happy fulfilling lives based on the number of friends they have and all the fun stuff they get to do with their church.
Modern Christianity is just one long party with tremendous earthly benefits.
Besides having the confidence of Eternal Life and the exciting knowledge that my blood has a very rich and exciting History ….. living “Christian Identity” is not a lot of fun. I’ve lost my family and friends over it. And I now don’t get invited to too many parties and activities.
West,
“Teach me how we all came from Adam,” you ask me. Of course, I can present to you my views from an Orthodox Christian perspective. There is no problem in doing so, but before that, I recommend that you get to know the Orthodox Church a bit (there are some very good and informative videos on YouTube). If you truly knew our Church, questions like this would be unnecessary.
But let us begin:
It is not necessary to resort to modern “theories” to understand the creation of human beings and the diversity that followed. The Bible itself, when read as the Church has always taught, provides the answers. Beginning with Genesis, the book says that all humanity arose from a common denominator, so to speak.
Genesis 3:20 in Hebrew:
וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה אֵם כָּל־חָי
“And the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”
Did you read my other replies? I hope so, because it will make it easier to understand why I included the Hebrew here.
In the middle of the sentence, there is a very curious word: kol-chai (כָּל־חָי), which means “all the living,” “all who breathe with life.” It does not say “of one people,” nor “of a pure lineage.” The word means exactly what it says: of all living human beings.
“If all descend from Adam, why are we not all the same?”
West, again, if you knew at least a bit about the Orthodox faith, questions like this would not be necessary. But I will answer as clearly as I can, though I encourage you to seek for yourself what the Church (the Orthodox one) teaches on the matter.
It is worth remembering that God is the Creator of all things. God is the Creator of ordered diversity. No sunset is ever the same, snowflakes do not all have the same shape, birds are not all identical, the colors we see are not all the same. Our Lord is the Creator of heaven and earth. For the Orthodox faith (I must clarify: this is my view based on my religion), human diversity is an icon of the Trinity—unity in essence, diversity in persons.
That said, are all races equal? No. Not really.
But does grace reach all those who truly believe and seek? Yes.
You mentioned the Tower of Babel, and I was honestly confused. Indeed, there was a miracle—the miracle of the confusion of languages, not the creation of “races.” I wonder what leads someone to associate Babel with that idea.
My response to CFT contains a small paradox, which I must invite you to read. That said, let me emphasize what I implicitly told you there:
Any doctrine that divides humanity into “spiritually superior” and “inferior” based on the flesh is disguised gnosticism.
Hebrews 2:14 (in Greek):
Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον.
“Since the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”
I hope this response was enough to clear the doubts in your heart.
CFT,
I appreciate the respect shown toward the Orthodox Church, CFT, but I must emphasize that the universalism of grace does not necessarily mean placing all races on equal footing. I read what you wrote very carefully, and while I understand where the intention comes from, there are several doctrinal and hermeneutical errors in the arguments. Scripture interpretation goes beyond isolated verses—no letter is read sentence by sentence in isolation. If that’s the case, the message becomes distorted.
Shall we go step by step?
Genesis 5:1
“This is the book of the generations of Adam.” (ה֣וּא סֵ֔פֶר תּוֹלְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם)
Do you remember what I said about the meaning of “Adam”? To understand the end of a poem, we must read its beginning (I recommend revisiting my previous comment about Adam). Let’s break it down lexically and contextually:
זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם – Zeh sefer toldot Adam
Sefer = book, record, scroll
Toldot = generations, offspring, lineage
Adam = mankind in general (ha-adam), or Adam as an individual (context defines)
This phrase refers to the introduction of a messianic genealogy. It excludes nothing, and includes nothing by itself.
You cite Jeremiah 31:27 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.” twice. I was hoping you would define what reasoning you used to interpret Jeremiah and tie it into the Adamic theory. However, I will analyze Jeremiah as well, as that is fair:
In Hebrew:
כִּ֣י הִנֵּ֣ה יָמִ֔ים בָּאִ֛ים נְאֻם־יְהוָ֖ה וְזָרַעְתִּ֣י אֶת־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְאֵ֥ת בֵּֽית־יְהוּדָ֖ה זֶ֥רַע אָדָֽם וְזֶ֥רַע בְּהֵמָֽה׃
זֶרַע אָדָם – zera adam = “seed of man” or “human offspring”
זֶרַע בְּהֵמָה – zera behemah = “seed of livestock/domesticated animals”
This verse is speaking about agricultural and pastoral restoration. CFT, what led you to believe this referred to something beyond that? God is promising to bring fertility to Israel and Judah. Nothing more than that. “Zera behemah” in no way refers to a different human species. The Bible uses poetic language all the time, especially regarding the promises the Lord makes to His people.
I was genuinely excited when you cited the Book of Revelation, because your interpretation was quite good and nearly irrefutable. Yes, the gates bear the names of the twelve tribes!
In Greek, Revelation 21:12:
“ἔχουσα τεῖχος μέγα καὶ ὑψηλόν, ἔχουσα πυλῶνας δώδεκα, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν ἀγγέλους δώδεκα, καὶ ὀνόματα ἐπιγεγραμμένα, ἅ ἐστιν τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ.”
“And it had a great and high wall, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.”
But do you remember what I said about reading a letter as a whole in order to grasp the message? The NT interprets “Israel” spiritually, as the people of God—not according to the flesh. Romans 9:6 says:
“For they are not all Israel, who are of Israel.”
And in Revelation 7:9 it says:
“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues…”
There’s no translation error here. We can analyze it in Greek if needed.
Returning to 21:12—yes, the city has 12 gates, but it also has 12 foundations!
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14)
Now, regarding the Adamic theory itself. It creates a dangerous paradox, in my view:
– If God created people who are “non-Adamic” and thus incapable of redemption, then He created defective human beings destined for damnation. = This implies that God failed in creation (i.e., heresy).
– If there are humans who do not descend from Adam and were not created by God, then they were created by another, perhaps the devil (or another creature) = This would make Satan a creator of life, even if not spiritually elevated, which elevates the devil to a divine role (i.e., blasphemy).
– If Christ died only for a specific racial lineage, the Adamites,then His work is not universal. However, 1 John 2:2 says:
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (To deny this = heresy)
– The Adamic doctrine rejects words like “all,” “the whole world,” or “whoever” in Scripture. Yet John 3:16 says:
“For God so loved the world… that whoever believes in Him…”
(οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον… ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων…) — in Greek. We can break this down too, if needed.
– If this is not literal, if John 3:16 isn’t literal, then are the Scriptures lying? (Blasphemy and heresy)
-Revelation 21:24 says:
“καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτός αὐτῆς”
Translation: “and the nations will walk by its light.”
The Greek text doesn’t say “some nations” or “the Adamic nations” (which wouldn’t make sense, as already explained), but “τὰ ἔθνη” — all the nations.
And Revelation 7:9 again mentions:
“a great multitude… from all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages… before the throne and the Lamb.”
If that “all” is not truly all, we return to what was stated earlier, then the Bible is lying (again: heresy and blasphemy).
Jesus said:
“Go and preach to all creation”
(Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα, κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.)
κτίσις = creation, that which was made by God.
So if Jesus said “preach to all creation,” but “not all creation can be saved,” then:
Did Jesus lie? (Blasphemy)
Did the apostles disobey Christ by preaching to non-Adamic people? (Heresy and slander against the saints)
Has the Church been wrong for 2000 years, and a modern group is the true people of God? (Heretical pride, schism, and false revelation)
I truly appreciate your site and the way you devote yourselves in detail to defending your ideals, but I must warn that the line here is very thin.
Beyond this, I have nothing more to add.
(I commented on the wrong thread)
@Mimi
======================================
“Where do these so-called non-Adamic people come from? (I searched through your site but couldn’t find a clear explanation.)”
======================================
The Bible does not directly address where they come from. It does not address their salvation either. And that should be understandable.
If you were living in Israel in 800 BC, should it be important for you to know where Tamils come from?
Just consider the context.
I’ve been following this thread with some intrigue, but I still didn’t see you reconcile or address some of the key points raised.
What led you to believe the word “replenish” was used, when all the evidence points to the latter? This seems to be a settled matter with the etymology.
And why would God create faulty Non-Adamites capable of nothing other than being a general nuisance to the wider Adamite population? Did Satan create them? That’s off the cards as well, Satan can’t create anything and death didn’t exist before Adam anyway?
Why didn’t God just exterminate them in the flood if they were almost or equally as bad as the Nephilim? Or better yet if interracial relationships were forbidden with them, why didn’t God in his infinite wisdom not just make the relationship sterile like a Mule or some GMO seed? That they wouldn’t be able to reproduce. This wouldn’t be complicated.
And it goes by no magic a human can’t reproduce with any “beast of the field” other than another human being. Did God forget to patch this design flaw? It’s seems like a major oversight if it was such a pet peeve of his? The reason God commanded against interracial marriage for the Israelites was that people of other races were worshipers of false gods and that the Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshipers, pagans, or heathens. This is exactly what ended up happening in Israel according to Malachi 2:11. This would mostly a mute if everyone was following Christ it seems apparent?
Now that goes to say not all breeding is beneficial obviously or preferable or even necessarily good. We can look at dogs for example. Some breeding is favourable vs unfavourable depending on the breed it’s being crossed with. And they all have different adaptations that they were bred for much like we all have evolutionary factors that we adapted to as well. But in much the same way they all have characteristics of a dog. They’re all dogs. You’re not going to confuse a komodo dragon with a dog, nor will one be reproducing with it anytime soon. All the dogs go to Adamite dog heaven and the bad ones don’t. I don’t see how this wouldn’t logically apply to humans? They’re an “Adamite” subspecies.
Personally anyway, I don’t think accepting universalism is the death blow you think it is and it’s also what differentiates us from by the Sword with Islam and by “Blood” with the Talmudists as they so boldly like to claim if they even a drip of it left it’s besides the point I’m trying to make.
I don’t think we need to follow the “Magic Jew blood” bandwagon because naturally it always leads Pharisaical like behaviour and Idolatry in the end when it’s elevated above everything else which it has a tendency towards, though I do knowledge you have somewhat stated not just blood will be enough, you still make it seem like it still might as well be regarded as Wonka’s Golden ticket it seems to enter the Kingdom with little to no “free will” in the matter if you’re unlucky, like some Calvinist or Mormon because your father was fortunate or unfortunate enough to have took some spicy foreign Christian lady who’s actually touched a Bible before over the obese atheistic feminist “Adamite” woman.” who’s consumed all the manner of Jew slope you can imagine under the sun literally and figuratively. I think if that was his greatest crime, then he’s not doing too bad for himself the Male “Adamite”.
I write this facetiously of course, but in frankness I’ve witnessed far more Christian Adamite behaviour and identity outside the West among “Non-Adamites” than what currently resides in it regardless of Jewry being stronger or not in the West. that’s not to say that its perfect, debauchery exists on both sides.
But I also I want make it clear I’m not saying it’s irrelevant or it’s not important Ethno-Nationalism it’s the White blood cells of any nation or culture but like the body too much of it or too little of it is deadly.
I believe evils exists in their extremes usually, as Maximus the Confessor said paraphrased “Food is not evil, but gluttony is. Money is not evil, but avarice is. Glory is not evil, but vainglory is. Indeed, there is no evil in existing things, but only in their misuse.”
Ethno Nationalism cannot be put above Christ but I also don’t think it should be discarded either which leads me back to the topic of Universalism specifically. I don’t think it’s the death blow to Ethno Nationalism that you think it is. We can still accept it, but it doesn’t mean I want a foreign entity in my backyard nor do I have to accept it, nor the organised systemic genocide of the white race taking place in the west and it also doesn’t change the fact of crime statistics, IQ and among certain racial groups being “different” or the fact of different genetics for Height, weight, eye colour, skin colour, metabolic rate, as well as intelligence etc.. are all determined by genes for the most part will breed natural differences that one would have to be delusional to ignore, but I think it’s necessarily has to be the Kool-Aid of Universalism. To further add race is just one element as well as class and economics etc.. that divide and separate people either separately or all together at once. Universalism isn’t going to change the reality of that.
I feel it’s just trying to state is the one thing we’re all unified in is Christ. And all men embrace Christ ideally. Or you can at least accept first among equals as the Romans said. You can move towards this in alignment with the Logos. (Universal objective standards for all and the eternal law primarily a metaphysical phenomenon rooted in the mystic depths of man’s spiritual nature.) or you can move away from this from what seems to me towards some Calvinistic Mormonistic determinism/predestination with little to no free will or choice for more than half of the worlds population is just heretical and idolatry and this doesn’t just apply only to Whites but all the races.
I’ll stress again we’re still going to tend to your own kind first as is natural before any other tribe Universalism or not, and it doesn’t mean you need to commit egalitarian suicide on the altar of progressive Jewry neither. Because I’m under the impression you think if we accept Universalism it’s some pathological altruism and egalitarian suicide to Non-Adamic Orks with the late Pope Francis dancing and praying in a mosque spewing the joys of Universalism “One Religion as good as another, all one God” mudbloods and that we must all embrace “Liberation Theology” and the concept of race or especially the white race is abolished with no racial, social or capital existing anymore in this “Utopia”.
Or alternatively some Mega Church with drag queens and black trannies running around inside spewing the joys of Universalism how they’ve progressive we’ve all become now on the corpse of the White race with some Goldstein rubbing his hands in the background. It’s either that or we’re all the SS and arguing with blacks khazars about Who Wuz the Real Kangz as the only choices on sale here.
To conclude I think Universalism with some nuance and caveats is the right approach than the either/or scenario extremes here. And look it’s true and I understand Whites are under attack systematically at every turn by the Khazarian mongrels and genocide is occurring without question and they’re also the only race criticised or denied their own ethno-nationalism compared to every other race it’s only natural and this option can look cucked or “Cuckainity” to just ignore it like it’s not going on but I think there’s a better way to approach this. There’s a place for it but it shouldn’t be made into an Idol like this because it’s just inviting Pride there’s no grace or humbleness any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1eEqMVlZ-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyoxDV5kvSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL1QV9ZK40Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PidAAOdwa0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A32M0-KYTu0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiV22pJYG7M
—- Kurt —-
You wrote a book. Do you have a Blog or a Website?
Are you affiliated with any Christian Denomination?
Let me just ask you one question, if you don’t mind —
Are you then saying you believe the Yellow, black and red peoples proceed from Adam?
I wasn’t sure if you reject the Pre-adamic theory.
Yes or No — We are all One Blood? Eve is the mother of all.
Thanks.
—- West —-
((You wrote a book. Do you have a Blog or a Website?))
My writing went on a little longer than I was expecting. Apologies for anyone that struggles with no paragraphs I included it but it seems it didn’t space as I was hoping. I’ve been lurking here awhile. I don’t have a blog or website.
((Are you affiliated with any Christian Denomination?))
I’m leaning Orthodox Christian now still learning, but before that I sort of was by the book only with a Protestant mindset towards it not by choice but default.
((Let me just ask you one question, if you don’t mind —
Are you then saying you believe the Yellow, black and red peoples proceed from Adam?
I wasn’t sure if you reject the Pre-adamic theory.
Yes or No — We are all One Blood? Eve is the mother of all.
Thanks.))
Likely or an Adamic creation if only in name. They demonstrate more traits of a human than not human, the best of them anyway and the best of them are not always strictly a mix or drips of “Adamic” in them. And as I’ve stated reproduction is possible, they’re closer to human than Tusken Raiders.
As for one blood? I’m not so sure. They seem to demonstrate no RH Negative bloodtype Non-Caucasians so it would indicate they’re not related but perhaps it’s genetic mutation. I’m not a biologist. Regardless it might not matter at least when it comes to Christ, it might have been meant metaphorically like the bread and wine. But sometimes literally of course it would seem. It doesn’t really matter anyway when we’re strictly speaking about Christ. Obviously it matters outside this or in non-spiritual questions and has it’s place as I’ve already stated.
It doesn’t really matter anyway when we’re strictly speaking about Christ and Free Will.
Obviously it matters outside this or in non-spiritual questions, and has it’s place as I’ve already stated.*
— Kurt —
“…I’ve been lurking here awhile….”
When you say “lurking here” ….. do you actually Study the Articles? Or do you just follow the Comment Section.
In regard to your First comment — you are aware that you offered ZERO Scriptural support to back up your “Opinion” or your “Feelings” about things i.e., Universalism.
For me personally ……………. I’m not interested in a Camp Fire Conversation such as this. I may have been 15 years ago. In fact, I can remember having some of the same questions and arguments you have way back in the day when I first discovered Race Realism and then Christian Identity.
I do have another Question —
What DO you agree with here at Christians For Truth?
Let’s figure out what we actually have in common. Not judging, but clearly we do not share a similar “Spirit”. And that is Ok. “Learning” is progressive. Most all of us regular readers have all been Universalists and judeo-christians at one point in time.
I am a big believer in the Power of the Holy Spirit.
Paul pleads with the First Century Believers to be ONE in mind, thought and Spirit.
I do believe that Christians who possess the Holy Spirit (the only way to be a Christian), should and will come to understand ALL things in agreement. With a Caveat — there are things or issues in the Scriptures that are somewhat vague. I believe Eschatology to be one of these issues.
Is Racial Universalism a “Agree to Disagree” issue? I think not.
At this point in History, in the Situation we find ourselves in, unless God Himself Intervenes in some Miraculous way — I don’t anticipate anything changing for us in terms of having the Power to make change i.e., pass Laws to further propagate the White Race. If anything … I see things getting worse.
This is part of my own personal opinions about Eschatology. The Last Days are compared to the days of Noah, where only 8 people were saved from Destruction.
Re-reading your first comment — I can’t relate at all to your feelings and opinions. Not sure if they are your Absolute Beliefs or not. You seem very vague about it all. A Fence Sitter. But that is Ok, if you are truly trying to work it all our in your Spirit.
The best way, in my opinion, is to ask Questions. You didn’t seem to ask very many questions, except preach what you believe to be true.
This kind of dialogue is never going to go well in terms of finding others to engage. ‘Preaching” to people who don’t believe as yourself, never works. Asking Questions …… works.
Ex: you bring up a point that I wrestled with for a time. And that is the Point that Whites and non-whites can create children i.e., procreate. You see this as a sign that race-mixing is Ok with God.
CFT has a very good article and articles about this discussion. I would encourage you to use the “Search” bar at the top of the page and really dig in and study many of the great articles on this site.
Start here — https://christiansfortruth.com/a-closer-look-at-exodus-2014-thou-shall-not-commit-adultery-or-adulterate-thy-blood/
I will answer questions, but I won’t respond to preaching, unless you have Scripture to support your position. I hope you are here to Learn and find Fellowship.
Cheers.
Ps — if you want to speak in private — [email protected]
West,
Hello West, I noticed that you mentioned that you are 34 years old and have been studying the Adamic theory for around 15 years.
My question is a bit personal, but what, besides studying the Adamic theory, have you done to save the white race (I’m assuming you’re white)? Do you have children? How many?
peace!
Identifying the Jews as the enemy of true Israel and identifying who the real Israelites are is doing more than 99% of all people out there:
https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/starship-troopers-gif-18102989
—- Mimi —-
I am currently 58 years of age. At the age of 34, is when I was awakened to the Heresy of Modern Evangelical Judeo-Christianity, and began my journey of discovery which led me to Israelite Identity.
If you want to talk in private — [email protected]
—- FM —-
Thank you. Her’s is a “tired” retort. Not original, for sure.
FM, You’re right, but we must come together and bear fruit. A strong Christian family is stronger than the greatest of demons! I’m not hostile to West, not at all. Don’t get me wrong. Peace!
—- Mimi —-
“…but we must come together and bear fruit. A strong Christian family…”
Such a beautiful statement/encouragement. Seriously. No one can disagree.
Paul said something interesting to the Corinthians —
“… For I am jealous for you with Godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! ….”
Spending years and years growing up in your typical Evangelical Judeo-Christian Church, the Pastor hardly ever spoke about “Deception” – “False Teachings” and the like.
We did have ONE resource — Dr. Walter Martin, the “Bible Answer Man” he was called. He was the authority that all pastors would refer to. Then the reigns were passed to Hank Hanegraff. What a saint (tongue and cheek).
Looking back, knowing what I know today — this Bible Answer Man exposed Low Hanging Fruit. Like Mormonism.
So, going back to your beautiful statement ……. What is “Christian”? This is a Rhetorical Question. It is a Thought Question.
Who decides? You see, this is the real problem. MAN has decided what it means to be a “Christian”. Now we have “Tradition”. Hardly a man questions Orthodoxy. Whatever that is. Orthodoxy is decided by the majority. Never the minority. The Ana-Baptists were hunted.
There is a famous Quote credited to Augustine — “…. In the Essentials Unity; in the non-essentials Liberty; and in all things Charity…”.
But is this Scriptural? Again, who decides what is “Essential”?
When I was growing up, I think the only doctrine they stressed as Essential was 1 Corinthians 15. This was it! This is all that you had to know in order to be a “Christian” — Born-again and a New Creation in Christ.
Raise your hand, walk down the aisle, recite a prayer and poof — all the way to Heaven is Heaven. You are in. You may as well accept you are already in Heaven.
But the Church ignores passages like Acts 20:29 — Savage Wolves. Or 2 Timothy 4:3 — the Tickling Ears of False Teachers and False Teachings.
Not to mention — most people believe we are living in the Last Days. What happens in the Last Days? The Great Falling Away. Deception Everywhere.
Yes, we pray and we desperately need a Strong Christian Family.
But what does that mean Mimi? Christianity is now over 2000 years old. How is it looking, these days? It is estimated there are 2.6 Billion Christians Worldwide.
Is the World a Reflection of Christianity??? I guess that depends on one’s definition of “Christian”.
West,
I’m surprised how a small set of phrases made you question so much.
You ask who decides what is essential in the faith, and you see this as the great problem. But I must give a cliché Orthodox answer, and you were certainly expecting it: in the Church, the answer does not come from the majority, nor from isolated men, nor from private interpretations.
Who decides is Christ and Christ does it through His Church, a living Body, guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, sustained by Tradition and the Sacraments. We must remember that the church came before the Bible and if you read it today it is because of the church.
Faith was not delivered to us as a set of opinions to be voted on or negotiated; this is not hot potato or koshki-myshki. It was entrusted to us, and we received it as a living inheritance, guarded with the blood of martyrs, the tears of monks, and the discernment of the Holy Fathers.
You mention 1 Corinthians 15, and yes, the Resurrection is the heart of the Gospel. But a heart lives in a whole body: the paschal proclamation is united with the call to holiness, obedience, and perseverance until the end. Acts 20:29 and 2 Timothy 4:3 are not forgotten; they remind us that the wolf does not sleep and the false teacher does not announce himself as such. Therefore, it is not enough to “accept” Christ once: it is necessary to remain in Him and let Him remain in us communion (koinonia), not just association.
Yes, a strong Christian family is like a wall against the darkness. As I said. But the strength of this wall does not come from numbers, but from grace. It comes when husband, wife, and children breathe together the air of prayer, drink from the same cup, feed on the same Body, and learn the same love. Not a family built on a false Christianity with a feminist abortionist woman and a weak effeminate man.
Look at the world and you will see many who call themselves Christians but few who live as disciples. This should not lead us to discouragement but to vigilance. The essential is not measured in statistics but in faithfulness.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
There are many Christians, millions, billions. But servants of God are few.
And faithfulness is not just about keeping formulas; it is about love. Love with the love that comes from God, which orders chaos, sustains in persecution, and unites the faithful of all centuries in one communion.
This love is living Orthodoxy: the truth that is Christ, dwelling in the midst of His people (true Christians, those who follow His words) until the end of times.
West, and I say to everyone here, nothing will save the white race more than unity. Identifying who the demons are is good work, but what next? Find a good wife, have 3 or 4 children and educate them at home (homeschooling is better than entrusting them to current schools). Love them and protect them from all left-wing ideology.
Peace
—- Mimi —
“…Who decides is Christ and Christ does it through His Church, a living Body**, guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, sustained by Tradition and the Sacraments….”
Question — Even when they are Wrong?
** I assume you mean actual People.
Email me and I will tell you how THEY failed since the very beginning.
West,
I understand your question. I believe I may have spoken with such fondness about the Church that it made you think I believe in it perfection. However, West, in the Church we deal with real people and real people are flawed (perfection belongs to God alone). The Orthodox Church does not deny this. History is full of bishops, monks, priests, and laypeople who have fallen into sin, error, and even heresy.
But Christ’s promise to His Church was never that every leader would be impeccable (perfection is only in God). His promise was that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The search for a “perfect church, free from mistakes” will only frustrate you. The guarantee is not in the personal perfection of the Church’s members, but in the constant presence of our Lord.
This is why the Church is more than the sum of it individual leaders (it would not be the Church if it were just that). Yes, there have been failures from the very beginning Judas was among the Twelve and betrayed Jesus, and Peter himself denied Christ three times. But these failures did not destroy the Gospel, because the truth they betrayed was never theirs to change. The same is true today: individuals may fall, but the Faith, preserved in the life of the Church, does not.
As for your invitation to discuss this via email, I must decline. I do not exchange private correspondence with other men, as a matter of respectful distance. Whatever you wish to say, you can say here, and I will do my best to respond.
Let’s face it. Most Christians are lazy pew sitters and just take for granted that their pastors know what they are talking about.
They take no personal responsibility for what they believe the Bible says or doesn’t say.
Not one of these pew sitters ever questions whether their pastor is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, despite all the warnings in the NT.
What is the reward for these blind followers?
Sadly, this is often true.
Thinking and questioning are things too few do.
They just take on faith the pastor knows what he’s talking about.
“…Not one of these pew sitters ever questions whether their pastor is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, despite all the warnings in the NT….”
This is just my experience…
Having grown up in a judeo-christian, highly evangelical church and community of churches, the reason for this phenomenon is that whether one became a “Christian” as a result of just growing up one, or raising your hand at an altar call — the very FIRST lesson you learn is that you are SAVED and will always be saved no matter how you live your life OR believe theologically.
if you have accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, “all the way to heaven is heaven baby”. (an actual quote by an OSAS pastor)
So, a verse like “Savage Wolves” does not concern you. (Acts 20)
You just won the Eternity Lottery and no one is taking that away from you. Not even the adulterous pastor working on his 4th marriage.
I know, because I was that person.
West wrote, “You just won the Eternity Lottery and no one is taking that away from you. Not even the adulterous pastor working on his 4th marriage.”
Very funny comment, and so true.
We have met many mainstream judeo-Christians who believe their salvation is absolutely ensured, and that when they die, they will absolutely go to heaven and be with Jesus — it’s like they are in a trance.
The idea of them not believing that their salvation is guaranteed is tantamount to not believing the all-powerful grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.
If you say you believe in Jesus, you are guaranteed salvation, not ifs, ands, or buts because Jesus forgives “all sins” and washes them away.
They ignore the fact that Jesus washes away only PAST sins if you truly repent and do not persist in sinning.
Nowhere does Jesus say He will wash away all future sins — rather He says, “Go and sin no more.”
Paul tells us in no uncertain terms in Romans 11:20-23 that believers who fall into sin (and therefore unbelief) “will be cut off”.
But then again, it’s much easier to pack the pews — and keep the cash rolling in — if a pastor reassures his flock that they have nothing to worry about once they’ve been “born again”.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes!
Ironically, I am still very much in tune to what they are teaching today. My mother continually sends me her latest Sunday “sermon” and so out of respect to her, I watch and listen. She might even send me a book, so I read it and respond. It is funny — I will listen, read or watch anything she sends me and reply. But when I send her something ….. I am off my meds.
When I’m in the car traveling a good distance, I will often tune in to Moody Radio or any of the many Evangelical Broadcasts you will find on the dial.
It is Frightening. It is getting worse than when I was involved over 23 years ago. I graduated from a Christian College. Attended Biola University as well. Went through Calvary Chapel’s Bible School. I was IMMERSED.
I have heard pastors say that “to Sin” is a sign of Grace. As if, if you don’t Sin, you are not honoring Grace. It is really sick.
“You can’t out Sin Grace” … I have heard as well. “Obedience” is not something you should make effort. It comes naturally. How does that work exactly??? They never say. I guess ….. whatever your heart’s desire, is God’s Will.
I could write/talk for hours.
And the “Chosen” is pushed like never before. Jews can never do any wrong. Truly sickening, especially considering most of these churches are 90% White.
Thank you, Christians for Truth, for this informative and helpful article.
It is a great read.
Cheers from Texas
So a non-Israelite cannot be blessed or have a prayer answered under any circumstances?
Dante wrote, “So a non-Israelite cannot be blessed or have a prayer answered under any circumstances?”
“Blessed” by whom?
Pleased provide an example from the New Testament where Jesus blesses a non-Israelite or answers their prayers, so that we can see an example of it.
Either way, proving that the “Canaanite” woman was an Israelite doesn’t necessarily mean that non-Israelites cannot benefit from trying to follow Christ’s example.
Don’t you have an example of why perhaps no non-Israelites asked for anything?
You say that if he healed an ethnic Canaanite, Jesus would have to explain himself to his disciples, but couldn’t he secretly bless or hear the prayer of a non-Israelite from heaven?
“In any case, proving that the “Canaanite” woman was an Israelite doesn’t necessarily mean that non-Israelites can’t benefit from trying to follow Christ’s example.”
Yes, I believe that, but the only benefit of that when you live in a jungle where most people trample on others is feeling good about yourself.
Genesis says that if Cain had done good, he would have been accepted, and he wasn’t an Israelite. So if a non-Israelite does good and controls himself, can’t he receive his blessing?
I understand that a non-Adamic person probably doesn’t have a soul and therefore shuts down after death, but if we are truly God’s creation, why would he be indifferent to the suffering of his creation?
Some might say he would be indifferent in the same way he would be indifferent to an injured stray dog, but it’s not the same thing; common animals don’t even know they exist.
My understanding from the Bible is that the “soul” is the animating life force that all living beings have, but it is not eternal. It dies when you die.
The “spirit” is the divine spark that God gave to Adam who was a unique creation, a different creation from all others. Unlike the soul, it is eternal because God is eternal.
If the spirit is eternal in the sense of being indestructible, then all Adamic people would live forever. This does not seem to be the case, as the Bible has several examples of sinners who will not be saved.
Some Christians, more specifically those of (Christogenea), use (Daniel 12:2-3 However, in my opinion, it only seems to indicate that there will be some kind of hierarchy in heaven where people who believed in Christ as their savior but did not have good works would be below those who believed and lived a holy life. This is not concrete proof of salvation regardless of what they do.
— Tux —
What passages of Scripture would you cite to support your first paragraph claim?
@Tux, Dante:
Matthew 15:24
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
What is so hard to understand from that verse who Jesus Christ came for?
You remind me of the crowd in Jesus’ time accusing Him of hard sayings. So I ask once again: What is so hard in understanding of Matt 15:24?
Bruce
I don’t mind harsh words, just trying to understand why we can’t be blessed or accepted because God is indifferent or hates us?
It makes more sense to say that he is indifferent or hates us because we are demons, don’t you agree?