[Note: we have updated and expanded this previously published essay with improved links and explanations.]
Here we present Chapter 10 of Charles Weisman’s book Is Universalism Of God?, which demonstrates how ignorance of who the Samaritans were — both biblically and historically — is misused by Christian ministers to promote modern Marxist ideas of racial egalitarianism and Christian universalism, which contradict and undermine the original intent of the Gospels.
Weisman writes:
The Samaritans
In the New Testament there are several different verses involving the people called “Samaritans” which are often used to support the idea that Jesus was promoting the concept of a multi-racial church — while condemning ethno-centrism. This is so, it is said, because the Samaritans were [supposedly] a mixed-blood people not of pure Hebrew stock — or non-Israelites all together.
Those making these universalist claims always refer to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-36); to Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4:5-26); the healing of the Samaritan leper by Jesus (Luke 17:11-19); and the preaching of the disciples in Samaria (Acts 1:8; and Acts 8:5:14). These verses are used to show that God is now changing His plan to include all races in the New Covenant.
Before we examine these verses, we need to first ascertain the racial identity of the Samaritans at the time of Christ by examining the history of the people and land of Samaria.
The History of the Samaritans
Scripture states that Samaria was an Israelite province, which was formed by the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel. It was conquered by Assyria in 721 B.C — who had then deported its inhabitants and replaced them with aliens [as related in the Book of Kings]:
“And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.”
—2 Kings 17:24
Although the king of Assyria (Sargon) deported a great portion of the population, it is evident that he left many Israelites in the land [see John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1935, p. 671]. On the walls of the royal palace at Dur-Sarraku, Sargon of Assyria recorded the fact that he deported 27,290 inhabitants from the “city” of Samaria, which he rebuilt and repopulated with other peoples. [However], it says nothing about a deportation of all the cities or region of Samaria.
Speaking on this matter the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary states,
“It seems clear that the policy of deportation applied particularly to Samaria as a city and not as a region. Jeremiah 41:5, for example, seems to imply that a remnant of true Israelites remained in Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria a century later, so a substratum, or admixture of Hebrew stock in the later composite population must be assumed.”
–Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed., M.C. Tenney, Zondervan
The policy of deportation was to take the more prosperous citizens. The total number of Israelites deported from the northern kingdom is unknown, but it probably was a majority as seems to be indicated by 2 Kings:
“Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight. For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin. For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them; Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.”
—2 Kings 17:18-23
[Note: One Bible authority says, “It has been calculated that not more than one in twenty was taken captive.” Peake’s Commentary, p. 353; however this amount seems to be too small.]
This could be numbers up to a few million. However the number of Israelites left in Samaria was also significant. After the Assyrian captivity king Hezekiah of Judah (c. 710 B.C.) sent runners:
“Throughout all Israel and Judah” asking them to come to Jerusalem to keep
the Passover and return to the LORD God — and “then He will return to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria” (2 Chronicles 30:6).
The messengers went through regions of Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun, and Asher (verses 10,11). In the reign of king Josiah (c. 612 B.C.) various tribes of Israel in Samaria still existed (2 Chronicles 34:6-9). Thus a significant portion of Israelites remained in Samaria along with the alien people.
Regarding this mixed population, one Bible authority states:
“These [alien peoples] intermarried with the Israelites left, and were joined by another group in the reign of Asshurbanipal (650 B.C., Ezra 4:10). The Israelite element, however, proved the strongest in influence and was possibly the strongest in number.”
–A New Standard Bible Dictionary, ed., M. Jacobus, Funk & Wagnalls Co., N.Y., 1936, p. 805.
The mixed population resulted not only in some mixed blood types, but a mixed religion. At first the people “did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them” (2 Kings 17:2). This is a punishment which God would bring upon only Israelites.
So later they asked the king of Assyria to send them an Israelite priest to teach them the ways of God. The king (Esarhaddon) granted the request, and also sent some of the other Israelites and foreigners (Ezra 4:2). When Babylon conquered Jerusalem and took the people captive, they also left Israelites in Judah (2 Kings 25:12).
This body of people came to be called “Samaritans” named after Israel’s capital city of Samaria. Upon the return of the Judahite exiles from Babylon, a great amount of antagonism and rivalry existed between the Samaritans and Judahites. This perhaps started with the division of the kingdom with each setting up their own capitals — Jerusalem and Samaria. When the Judahites returned to Jerusalem, the Samaritans wished to help them in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, saying:
“Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither. But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.”
—Ezra 4:1-3
But their offer was rejected by the Judahites, to which the Samaritans took offense; and from this time on the Samaritans threw every obstacle in their way:
“In the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.) the Samaritans obtained permission to destroy the walls of Jerusalem just being constructed by Ezra. Proceeding to Jerusalem they compelled the builders to cease building (Ezra 4:7-23), and burned the gates (Nehemiah 1:3). When Nehemiah fortified the city (444 B.C.) he met serious opposition from the Samaritans (Nehemiah 4 & 5); and they tried to assassinate him (Nehemiah 6).”
—A New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 805.
Hence arose a deep-rooted enmity between the two peoples which afterwards increased to such a degree as to become proverbial. Since the Samaritans were not allowed to have anything to do with the Temple, they built their own on Mount Gerizim at Shechem.
The Samaritans pointed to passages in their Pentateuch which gave them a strong case over Jerusalem as the proper site of the Temple. The Judahites claimed there were discrepancies and additions in the Samaritan text compared to their own text.
Thus for centuries both Judahites and Samaritans firmly believe that their own form of the sacred text was the right one — and the vested interests on either side were fiercely defended [see The Interpreter’s Bible, Abingdon Press, N.Y., 1952, vol. VIII, p.526.]
A controversy arose between the two nations when the son of the high priest of Judah married the daughter of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. For this offense Nehemiah had him
expelled (Nehemiah 13:28):
“In the reign of Darius Nothus [405 B.C.], Manasses, son of the [Hebrew] high-priest, married the daughter of Sanballat, the Samaritan governor; and to avoid the necessity of repudiating her, as the law of Moses required, went over to the Samaritans, and became high-priest in the temple which his father-in-law built for him on Mount Gerizim. From this time on Samaria became a refuge for all malcontent Jews [Israelites]; and the very name of each people became odious to the other.”
—The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, ed., Rev. Samuel Fallows, Howard-Severance Co., 1908, vol. III, p. 1512.
Thus from this time on Samaria became a refuge for the Israelites in Judah which were either dissatisfied with the policy of the Israelite leadership — or were rejected by them. These Israelites naturally had animosity towards their former nation of Judah, as did the Judahites towards them. This further added to the reproach and dissension between the two nations.
Around 330 B.C., Alexander the Great had taken over the land of Palestine by defeating Darius, the last king of Persia (1 Macabees 1:1).
Alexander “had greatly honored the Jews,” and when he “had thus settled matters at Jerusalem, he led his army into neighboring cities.” He visited the city of “Shechem” which was then the “metropolis” or capital of Samaria, which was “inhabited by apostates of the Jewish nation.”
— from Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book. XI, chapter VIII, sect. 6
The Samaritans in Shechem — seeing that Alexander honored the Israelites — determined to profess themselves to be Israelites. Josephus says that when the Israelites of Judea were in prosperity or victorious, the Samaritans claimed that they were kinsmen of the Israelites, and derive their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph; but when the Judahites were in adversity, they declared that they had no relationship to them, but were sojourners, that come from other countries [see Josephus, Antiquities. book. IX, ch. XIV, sect. 3; book. XI, ch. VIII, sect. 6].
This was easy for the Judahites to do — for the Samaritans were made up of apostates, malcontents, and other sorts of Israelites, as well as many mixed blood Israelites and aliens.
The population of the Samaritans was also enlarged by Israelites who converted to paganism under Antiochus:
“The [Samaritan] sect was later reinforced by the accession of converted Jews [Israelites] under
—A New Standard Bible Dictionary. ed., M.w. Jacobus, Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1936, p. 805
Antiochus Epiphanes 175 B.C., when, by denying their affinity with the Jewish religion, the Samaritans were exempted from persecution.”
Around 168 B.C., King Antiochus made an expedition against Jerusalem — and while pretending peace, got possession of the city by treachery. He slew many of the inhabitants, plundered the Temple, burnt down the finest buildings, and built an idol altar upon God’s altar, and sacrificed a swine upon it. He also issued a decree requiring the Judahites to worship the pagan gods and to abandon their law (1 Mac. 1:20-64).
The Samaritans seeing the sufferings of the Judahites, no longer confessed they were kindred to them, but told Antiochus they were a colony of Medes and Persians. They followed his commands, and thus were spared from his onslaught.
Many Israelites — out of fear of the penalty that was upon them — also complied with the king’s commands and converted to the new religion as did the Samaritans [see Josephus, Antiquities, book. XII, ch. V, sect. 4-5].
After Antiochus died, these Israelites were rejected by the patriotic Israelites. And so the Samaritan population increased with the addition of these Israelites who converted to the pagan religion.
First Century Samaritans
By the 1st century A.D., the territory of Samaria and Judea increased in size so that the two regions overlapped, and had no real definitive boundary between them [see map inset]. In fact, both Samaria and Judea were one Roman province.
The history of the Samaritans shows that by the time of Christ, a considerable number of them were Israelites — they were not just a mixed blood people. It also shows that the hatred and enmity that the Judean Israelites had for the Samaritans was not due merely to their alien and mixed population. There were many centuries of religious squabbles and political disputes between them.
However, by the time of Christ their religion became more in line with the Judeans, perhaps due to the Israelite influence among the Samaritans:
“The Samaritans….boasted of being Israelites, and with some degree of justification, for there was probably a considerable Jewish [Israelite] element in the population. Their worship, originally a compromise with heathenism, was now purely Jewish. They kept the sabbath, and the Jewish feasts, and observed circumcision and other traditional ordinances.”
–J.R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Macmillan Co., 1960, p.781
The majority of the population of Samaria was probably of mixed-blood or alien types, but to say it was entirely so is wholly unwarranted. It would not be unreasonable to say that it was
composed of 60% non-Israelites and 40% Israelites. It would not be justified to assume that someone in Samaria was a non-Israelite — any more than it would be to assume that someone from Detroit, Chicago or Atlanta was non-white just because 60% to 75% of the populations of those cities are non-white.
It is also true that Judea — though mostly inhabited by Israelites — contained some mixed-blood people — Canaanites, Edomites and Syrians. And while Israel had always mixed with foreign people when they were living in the same area, the extent of such inter-marriages never reduced the population of Israelites to any significant degree — while at the same time, it always did increase the number of mixed breeds.
When Christ had a debate with the Judean people, they called Him a “Samaritan” — “Thou art a Samaritan” (John 8:48). Here these Judean people were looking right at this perfect example of an Israelite and said he was a Samaritan — which proves that the Judeans did not perceive a Samaritan as one of another race or a non-Israelite.
To them the use of Samaritan meant “heretic, a person unworthy of credit” [according to Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, vol. 5, p. 581]. The term “Samaritan” was not used in a derogatory manner due to one’s racial status — but rather as to one’s religious status. The Judean people did not like Christ’s preaching or theology — and that was the basis for the schism between them.
Thus the presumption or insinuation that Samaria in the 1st century A.D. was composed of l00% mixed-blood and non-Israelite types is a rather unsound and outlandish notion.
The Samaritan Woman at the Well
The Samaritan woman with whom Jesus conversed at Jacob’s well is a particularly revealing story. Jesus not only asked her for a drink from the well, but explained to her things about eternal life and how to worship God.
When Jesus spoke of giving the woman “living water” instead of the water in the well, her response indicates she was an Israelite. She said to Jesus,
“Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well?”
—John 4:12
She not only asserted that she was descended from Jacob — referring to him as her “father” — but by the use of “our” she was acknowledging that she was of the same racial stock as Jesus. These are not words that a mixed-blood person could make.
Note that Jesus did not rebuke or correct her in this regard — nor did He refer to her as a “dog” as He did concerning the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:26.
The woman of Samaria is “not a reference to the city of Samaria, which was too far away, but to the territory of the Samaritans” [see The Wyclffe Bible Commentary, ed., C.F. Pfeiffer, Moody press, I966, p. 1080]. The city of Samaria probably had a greater portion of mixed race and alien races in it than the smaller villages and rural areas. Just as is the case with many of our major cities in America today — cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago are predominantly non-white, but the outer suburbs and rural areas are mostly white. Likewise there was a difference between the city or cities of Samaria, and Samaria itself [compare Matthew 10:5 and Acts 1:8).
When the woman came to the well to pull out water, Jesus asked her for a drink. The woman is surprised by the request on account of the tension and schism between Judeans and Samaritans:
“Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Judean, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.”
—John 4:9
The Good Samaritan
In Luke 10, a lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, so Jesus asked him what is written in the law. The lawyer read the law (Deuteronomy 6:5; & Leviticus 19:18) which says to love God with all of your heart and soul — and your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said he had answered correctly.
But not being satisfied the lawyer asked “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus proceeds to tell the parable of the good Samaritan, in which a man traveling falls among thieves, is robbed, stripped of his clothes, wounded, and left half dead. A priest came by and walked around him — a Levite did the same. But a Samaritan man bandaged his wounds, put him on his own animal, and took care of the man.
Jesus then asks, “Which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” The lawyer’s reply was, “he who showed mercy on him,” Then Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:30-37).
This parable is often used by universalists and humanists to promote the idea that Christ viewed all races as standing on the same footing — and that a person of any race can be our neighbor. The basis of this idea rests upon the erroneous belief that the Samaritan man was a non-lsraelite or person of mixed blood.
There are several problems with this interpretation. The first is the false assumption that the Samaritan was of a non-Israelite race. Christ knew of the age-long conflict and enmity between
the Judeans and Samaritans. He knew that a Samaritan could be a non-Israelite or an Israelite. He thus used the Samaritan as the one who was a “neighbor” knowing that the lawyer would not normally pick him as such over a priest or Levite.
Secondly, the concept of “neighbor” that was being discussed was originally derived from Leviticus 19:18 which qualifies a neighbor as a kinsmen:
“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD”
—Leviticus 19:18
The concept of “neighbor” included only those who were of “thy people.” The previous verse says, “Thou shall not hate thy brother.” Christ was further qualifying the concept of “neighbor” by showing that social status alone is not what make one a “neighbor.” The lowest and most degraded Israelite who is helpful to others is a “neighbor.” However, one is not a neighbor merely because of their high-class standing in the community — which is the true meaning of Acts 10:34,
“And Peter having opened his mouth, said, ‘Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.”
[See our essay How The Error Of Unconditional Love Of ‘Thy Neighbor’ Subverts Christianity]
Another problem with the universal perspective on this matter is that it disregards or transcends other conditions, circumstances or qualifications prescribed by the law of God. The Universalist, in effect, says that anyone under any circumstances can be our “neighbor” — as long as they do a “good” deed or even has the potential to do so. And so a person of any race, creed, religion, or moral character can become your “neighbor” since doing a “good” deed is the only condition or qualification to be considered.
Based upon this universalist position a murderer, rapist, arsonist, prostitute, burglar, sodomite or pirate who does a “good” deed or is helpful to others would qualify as our “neighbor.” A Buddhist, idolater, witch doctor, communist, or Satanist will at times do “good” deeds. It could then be said by Universalists that they are our “neighbor” — and we should not be bothered by their presence among us. They should be welcomed as part of our congregation or community.
If a “neighbor” is without any qualification other than that of doing a “good” deed, it will result in many contradictions with the whole word of God. If God condemns murder, prostitution, theft, idolatry, homosexuality, divination, and witchcraft, then those that engage in such acts cannot be regarded as our “neighbor” — even if they may do some “good” deed or help someone. It also cannot be said that because a witch, a sodomite or Baal priest does a “good” deed that we should not discriminate against all witches, sodomites or Baal priests.
Likewise, if God commands segregation of his people — and He most assuredly does — then other races cannot be our “neighbors” — even if some of them do a “good” deed.
If, at the time that Israel was entering the promise land, and one Canaanite did some good deed (as did Rahab), that could not be used as a pretext to leave all the Canaanites in the land and nullify God’s commandment on the matter. [Note that Rahab was allowed in the land by contractual agreement (see Joshua 2:12-14)].
But a Universalist or an egalitarian would use this to establish a new rule to have all Canaanites remain in the land as equals. To say that the good Samaritan was or could be one of another race is no different from saying he could be a murderer or and idolater. That is not the point Christ was trying to make.
It is interesting to note that this concept of “the good Samaritan” is used by the anti-Christ Establishment as a psychological ploy to promote and to get white Americans to accept pluralism, integration, equality, and multiculturalism.
On nearly every TV or radio talk show they will at some time have a guest who is regarded or labeled as a “racist” or “white supremacist.” They then will use their good Samaritan concept to show the “error” and “foolishness” of racial separation and inequality. They will ask the white “racist” guest hypothetical questions such as:
“If you were drowning and a black man saved you, wouldn’t you be grateful?”
“If you were injured and the only ones around to help you were a black M.D. or white man not versed
in medicine, which one would you want to come to your aid?”“If a Chinese man discovered the cure for a deadly disease you had, would you take his treatment?”
“If your wife was threatened to be raped by a white man, and a Mexican came and warded off the white man, which of these two men would you want to live in your neighborhood?”
“Would you rather do business with a dishonest white man who has cheated you, or an honest black man?”
Of course, in all of these hypothetical cases you are forced to be in favor of the non-white person because he is the “good” Samaritan. He is acting as a “neighbor” and you must regard him as an equal — one who can marry your daughter — and who can never be the subject of segregation or discrimination.
This distorted universalist perspective on “the good Samaritan” always leads to racial integration. After all, how do you tell a “neighbor” that he has to leave the neighborhood? It can’t be done. He cannot be excluded from the nation, for the concept of a universalist “neighbor” is similar to that of citizen — anyone who is a member of a nation.
[See our essay Who Are ‘The Nations’ In Scripture — And Who They Are Not — And Why It Matters]
Just like the Universalist and humanist Christians, the anti-Christ Establishment uses a rare exception to undermine and destroy the rule. It is not what one black or Mexican person has done, but what are the average characteristics of each race. How productive or burdensome are they to society? How much crime do they cause? What is the moral and intellectual level of each race? How much does each race support true Christian and American values?
The distorted “good Samaritan” argument keeps us from looking at — or even acknowledging — these facts and statistics. The reason for doing so is obvious — as it would show the striking differences between the races, and the higher state of the white race.
The viewpoint that the good Samaritan was a mixed blood individual — and that such a person can or should be our “neighbor” — always leads to integration and inter-racial mixture. The mixing of the white race with the colored destroys what the white race has been for thousands of years. That is not an average — it will happen 100 percent of the time.
[See our essay Geneticists Discover Adam’s Original White Skin Gene — Traced Back To One Man In Middle East About 10,000 Years Ago]
The universalist argument will further allow all undesirable individuals to be our “neighbor” which naturally results in social distress, crime, moral debauchery, socialism and multi-cultural laws which restrict individual rights and free enterprise.
The dangers and pitfalls of this distorted perspective of the good Samaritan parable should be obvious. It is clearly going far beyond what Christ was trying to teach. Christ was not trying to teach that the good Samaritan was a mixed blood person — and that as a result of this we should have multiracial and pluralistic congregations, neighborhoods, communities or nations.
The meaning of the story is clear — it is simply inculcating the duty of benevolence we are to give to persons of all kinds — not just friend.
This was an incredible and well written essay. Its truly an inspired piece of work.
Universalism is impossible to justify unless they cherry-pick verses from the NT and ignore all context.
Every single Gospel was written by, for, and about their fellow ISRAELITES only.
You cannot quote one single verse from the Gospels and apply it to anyone but Israelites or their descendants.
Tell most Christians these facts and their eyes will glaze over.
—Tom S. —-
Thank you Tom!
Quick Question — are you a Pre-adamite theorist as it relates to the origin of the non-white races? Or, do non-whites emerge into existence in some other way.
Always curious what other like-minded peoples believe.
Appreciate anything you could add. Thank you.
This is the truth few want to hear. God has always considered the gentiles to be part of His Israel, which is why He tells us “All Israel will be saved”. He’s telling us those who are still imagers will be drawn to Him for salvation. A quick look at the Western world shows this to be true. John 12:32 is all about this. Why? Because Jesus sacrificing Himself to save His imagers is the ultimate perfect act of imaging the Father. And all true imagers know it. And all true imagers desire to also image perfectly.
Salvation is to repair broken imagers. If you aren’t an imager, which the nonwhites don’t appear to be, then you don’t need to be repaired.
Which brings us to the people who didn’t come from the garden of Eden, and had built cities that Cain found.
IMO, these other racial groups were created by the other elohim when God and the elohim/sons of god at creation decided to make man “in our image” (Genesis 1:26). God made the Adamites Himself, but the other elohim made their own attempts. With varying degrees of success. And possibly modeled more off themselves than God.
—- Creat —-
Creat, please define “Gentiles” as you understand the word.
You used some terms which I have not heard before — interesting words/terms like “Imagers”. Did you come up with this word on your own – or do others use it?
If I can presume for a moment, are you speaking of Adam and Eve and their descendants only as “Imagers”?
Non-whites are NOT Gentiles ……. is this what you are saying?
But “Gentiles’ are not limited to strictly Abraham’s descendants. (the Genesis 10 Nations)
Do I have that correct?
I have had the thought — “…When Abraham was chosen; surely there were millions of White Adamites living on the Earth. They were excluded from the Covenant with Israel. But they should still be INLCUDED into Eternal Life. I believe these men and women are the “Nations/Ethnos/Gentiles”. Although I do not like the word “gentile”.
Is this what you are essentially saying as well?
Clarification —
I wrote — But “Gentiles’ are not limited to strictly Abraham’s descendants. (the Genesis 10 Nations)
It should read — “But “Gentiles” are not limited to strictly Abraham’s descendants (Israelites), which would include the Genesis 10 Nations as well. I.E., non-Israelite White Peoples.
I’m using imager as it is in scripture ie Adamic man. The two signs of being an imager are rulership over the world/self and displaying the glory of God’s character and nature. Western man is so strongly this that even unsaved whites strive to create lovely, pure, excellent works as well as obey God (inspite of the fact only Christians can truly image as God desires). Outside, you don’t see much (if anything) that would qualify as imaging.
Gentiles here means descendants of Israel or reparable imagers, ie qualifying relatives. It explains Leviticus’ “people who are allowed into Israel that are not born Israelite”. These would functional sons of Noah. Functional being they are still capable of being repaired to fulfill the Adamic job of imaging.
Creat —
Thank you.
It amazes me that judeo-Christians do not notice how the woman at the well tells Jesus that Jacob is their father. I guess that’s meaningless to them.
They believe that the 12 northern tribes of Israel were permanently lost to the “mists of time” by that point.
They have to believe that to believe their universalist nonsense.
A good book on marriage in this regard is “Whom Has God Joined Together” by Dallas Jackson.
“It is also true that Judea, though mostly inhabited by Israelites, contained some mixed-blood people — Canaanites, Edomites and Syrians. Israel had always mixed with foreign people when they were living in the same area, yet the extent of such intermarriages never reduced the population of Israelites to any significant degree. But it always did increase the number of mixed breeds.”
With this historical reminder, how can we be sure that the particular Judeans who plotted to kill Christ (eg: Matthew 16:21) were indeed “non-mixed” Israelites, if they were even Israelites at all?
But Peter directly addressed those who killed Christ as “Ye men of Israel”. Why would he call them that if they were not real Israelites, or mamzers? He said,
“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)
To those same “men of Israel”, Peter then calls them,
“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.” (Acts 2:29)
Peter would call only his fellow Israelites “brethren” and state that their common patriarch was King David.
Then Peter affirms that the “house of Israel” should know that they crucified Jesus,
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)
How could it be that Peter is wrong about these men, these brethren, being Israelites?
Peter is addressing the common men in the streets of Israel, the “useful idiots” who were tricked into killing Christ (Matthew 27:20), and who then publicly took responsibility for this act (Matthew 27:25). Peter offers them a chance to atone, 3000 do so.
The Judeans that Christ said were plotting against him, the ones who tricked the masses of Jerusalem into killing Christ, were the chief priests, elders, and (Matthew 16:21) scribes.
Those who plotted against Christ, were they unmixed Israelites?
I have to agree with your perception of this event, I believe there were two groups of individuals, group one made up of cainanites, Edomites etc that did the main plotting to kill Christ and then group two that was made up of pure racial Israelites, and like you said, I could easily see a certain amount of Israelites being manipulated into and supporting the persecution and execution of christ. we only have to look at many times throughout history and even today when whites have been manipulated and encouraged to behave in destructive degenerate behaviour. This explains Pauls statement of Israelite involvement in Christ’s crucifixion and also Christs words of ” forgive them father for they know not what they do” while also acknowledging that certain judahites would never hear his voice because they were not of God but we’re from their father the devil.
Sean …
“…we only have to look at many times throughout history and even today when whites have been manipulated and encouraged to behave in destructive degenerate behaviour…”
Curious — What is your experience with the reception you receive when you Witness to our Fellow White Peoples about the teachings of Christian Identity???
Mine has not been favorable. In fact I think only ONE out of maybe 100 have received it. Many reject it with violent disdain.
When I first began to witness to all my White family, friends and associations, I thought for sure they would welcome the information like the cure for cancer or winning the lottery — as I did quite frankly. I was so excited! But I was very naïve back then, and was confused and dumbfounded how they not only rejected the information but turned on me as well.
Supernatural?
What has your experience been? Thanks.
Hi, West,
I grew up with no religious affiliation at all here in England and went through a slow change while ageing, throughout my childhood and teenage years I didn’t think of God much at all, through my 20s I was atheist, 30s agnostic and becoming a believer in my early 40s after my daughter brought home a bible that for some reason I just had to read.
A few years later I came across Christian identity and it all seemed to fall into place, even though I wasn’t religious when I was younger, I was most definitely racially conscious which was very rare back in the 80s 90s for someone of my age who had been born into an already multicultural society even though nowhere near today’s diversity.
The funny thing is, as I’ve explained Christian identity to family and friends who are racially conscious but don’t read or follow scripture they seem quite accepting, like somewhere deep inside they just know.
As for the few universal Christians I know, to be honest, I haven’t approached the subject as they stand side by side with all manner of racial aliens at their churches still utterly oblivious to what’s happening to white people, believing scripture is universal while denying that we are heading to our doom while following a universal Christianity and even worse welcoming millions of racial aliens that follow alien religions.
How can they not see that it’s suicide?
“The city of Samaria probably had a greater portion of mixed race and alien races in it than the smaller villages and rural areas. Just as is the case with many of our major cities in America today — cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago — are predominately nonwhite. But the outer suburbs and rural areas are mostly white. Likewise there was a difference between the city or cities of Samaria, and Samaria itself”
“It is also true that Judea, though mostly inhabited by Israelites, contained some mixed-blood people — Canaanites, Edomites and Syrians. Israel had always mixed with foreign people when they were living in the same area, yet the extent of such intermarriages never reduced the population of Israelites to any significant degree. But it always did increase the number of mixed breeds.”
These statements are conflicting with your previous writings where you said that middle-eastern populations back then were all Whites until the later arabic invasion.
Have you changed your opinion on that?
Bernard, this article is by Charles Weisman, not CFT. We do not endorse or agree with everything Weisman has to say about the Bible and history. For example, we believe that salvation is open to Adamic non-Israelite peoples from the original Genesis 10 nations, but he does not address that issue. And along those lines, he seems to suggest that most non-Israelite people in the Levant are not white Adamic peoples, and we don’t agree with that view either.
We post Weisman’s work because we agree with much of it, and we hope it generates some discussion. It’s not the last word on the subject most certainly. And we are open to changing our view on anything if we find the evidence persuasive.
I always find myself fine tuning what I believe, always updating my opinions as I’m confronted with new facts. Those who think they’ve found the last word on any subject dealing with the Bible have given up and are content to believe what they’ve discovered so far. But you have to keep digging until your last breath…..
It’s my understanding that the Assyrians were part of the Genesis 10 nations, and they were Adamic. If they were moved in to Samaria to replace the Israelites, those Assyrians would not necessarily be of mixed race origin.
Originally they probably were, but remember many of the Adamic peoples who should have been following God decided to rebel at Babel. This event is where God decides to cut a section of Adamites out that He will make sure meet His goal (in spite of themselves), and the next part is where we see Abram.
God’s response to apathetic and rebellious Adamites is to abandon all who refuse to listen and follow. This takes us through the old testament with God killing off Adamites that became hostel towards Israel, as that hostility is taken as hostility towards God. And all that time, these Adamites were engaged in all kinds of immorality (incest, race mixing, various occult practices, etc).
By the time we get to the new testament, the classical Middle East was mostly gone, vast numbers of whites had moved into Europe, and Christ was focused on the remaining Israelites and the “lost sheep” ie European Israelites. A little later, Paul would have a ministry to the gentile nations of Israelites.
In the context of the article, doesn’t mixed mean different bloodlines of Whites mixing?
The author stresses that Samaritans look identical to the Judean population and are the same race. However, they could still somehow visually distinguish Samaritan from Judean by sight.
How were they able to do this?
So many Christians believe the Samaritan woman at the well was a “gentile”, and when you point out to them that she specifically stated that “Jacob” was their father, their ancestral patriarch, they get a glazed look in their eyes, and stammer, “Yeah, maybe, but….”
The simplest answer is often the correct one. The woman at the well was an Israelite, and Christ treated her as such and did not challenge her or rebuke her for claiming Jacob as her father.
When Christ tells his disciples to not go into the towns of the Samaritans, it wasn’t because none of the Samaritans were Israelites, it was because of the long-standing hostility between the Israelites of Judea and and the Samaritans, which the historian Josephus explicitly mentions.
Some attempt to claim that all Samaritans were Israelites, but that’s not true, and the Old Testament explains how that can’t be true because of the deportations.
James tells us that he was taking the gospel to the ALL 12 tribes of Israel scattered abroad among the “nations” or among the “gentiles”. If you want to find scattered Israel, you had to go among the non-Israelite nations to find them, to bring them the “good news” of Christ and salvation.
Jesus COMMANDS his disciples to go not unto the gentiles and Samaritans. The reason for this is that these people had nothing to do with the Temple, its laws and the bloody sacrifice that Jesus rebuked. Jesus said he came only for the “lost sheep of Israel.” This clearly referred to Jews following the Temple’s sacrificial religion which Jesus and the Essene considered corrupted by the priesthood impostures that arose from the Hasmonean dynasty. There was no reason for Jesus or his disciples to waste any time talking to people not suffering the Temple’s onerous depredations upon its followers.
There is no question the Samaritans were a Jewish sect in the region. Jesus used the parable of the good Samaritan to demonstrate how these people, hated by the Temple priesthood, were actually more compassionate than the arrogant, elite Temple priests who crossed to the other side of the road to avoid the injured man, who was likely one of their own followers.
Arch…….
Just curious why you use the word(s) Jew and Jews.
I have seen you at this website for awhile now. The main premise of this website is that Modern Jewry have NOTHING to do with the Israelites of the Scriptures.
Words are important and how we use them are important especially in this day and age.
I am not trying to be hostile and this is not a rebuke or anything like that.
I’m just curious what you believe. I noticed you also use those terms on your website.
Have you read — https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/
There are plenty of other articles as well out there which describe and prove this same point.
The english word for “jew” should be translated one of a couple ways — Judean; a Judahite, Judea.
Modern Jewry are not Judahites, nor Isaelites. I hope you agree.
For further research — http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htm
and don’t forget Phinneas
https://archive.org/details/312626264HoskinsRichardKellyVigilantesOfChristendom
also the removal{s} of the mixed multitude….