A recent sermon we posted by Sheldon Emry on what happened — and did not happen — in the Garden of Eden raised some questions among our readers about the identity of non-Adamic peoples in the Bible. To help answer some of those questions, we are offering here for your consideration a sermon by Bertrand Comparet titled, Man And Beast.
We are not posting this sermon because we agree with or endorse everything that Comparet asserts here — and the same is true for Sheldon Emry’s work. Rather, we believe that some of his observations are fundamental to understanding the identity of Adam and his true descendants — and those outside of the Adamic creation — and how they are identified in Scripture.
As Comparet demonstrates, the notion that all “races” of people are descendants of Adam — or that the term “Man” refers to all peoples of the earth — is simply not supported by a close reading of Scripture.
It should be noted here that Comparet seems to be suggesting that many of the ancient White Empires — Persia, Greece, and Rome — were “beast” empires, created by non-Adamic peoples — and this is obviously not the case. These could be deemed “beast nations” for being God-less pagan nations — rather than being equated racially with non-Adamic nations.
Also, we must keep in mind that Comparet was a man of his own generation, and thus he had a habit of interpreting scripture and prophecy through the lens of the events in his own lifetime — such as concerns about the United Nations, communist Russia, and the Cold War — none of which are much factors anymore on the world stage. But we shouldn’t allow this bias from undermining his larger thesis — Adam versus “beast nations” in the Bible.
You can listen to Comparet’s sermon, Man And Beast here.
Here is our transcription of the sermon, picking up at the 7:11 mark.
Bertrand Comparet:
…Several different Hebrew words have all been indiscriminately translated man or men in the commonly used King James Bible — although in the Hebrew some very important differences of meaning show clearly on the face of these words.
First let us consider the word which denotes our White race. The Hebrew word Awdawm — called “Adam” in your Bible — is from the root word which means “to be of a ruddy complexion, to show blood in the face” — something obviously not applicable to negroes or mongolians, but only to the White race. When used to denote the first White man — Adam — the Hebrew always says “the Awdawm”. When used of his descendants, the Hebrew just says Awdawm, but your King James Bible translates it merely “man”.
Another word used in contrast to Awdawm is Enosh. It is always used in a derogatory sense. Its root meaning is “mortal” and implies weakness — physically or morally — wretchedness. It is applied to the non-Adamic races, which are, of course, all of them — pre Adamic.
It should be noted that the pre-Adamic races are not limited geographically to just certain parts of the earth — although they do predominate in certain parts of the earth, but some of them are also found mingled among the Adamites.
A third Hebrew word indiscriminately translated “man” is ish — literally, it means a male person or a husband. It is used for mankind in general and can be applied to either an Adamite or a pre-Adamite. The feminine form is isha — the plural of which is naw-sheem. This is so similar to the plural of Enosh — Anashim — that they often have been confused, and this has led to many mistakes in translation.
There are three other closely related words used in the Hebrew of the Bible — gheh-ber, gheb-ar and ghib-bawr — which are all derived from a root meaning “to be strong” —and these are usually translated “a mighty man” or “a warrior” — these last three can cause no confusion, so they need not concern us further.
Now, let us note a few examples of the use of these words in the Bible so that you will get an accurate meaning of the Hebrew. In place of the English word “man” I will in its stead use the Hebrew word which was used in the original:
Ezekiel 34 verse 31, “And ye my flock, the flock of My pasture, are Awdawm, and I am your God, saith the Lord God.”
Psalm 115, verse 16, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s but the earth hath He given to the children of Awdawm.” But note how God uses Awdawm and Enosh in contrast.
Take Psalm 90, verse 3, “Thou turnest Enosh to destruction; and sayest, return ye children of Awdawm.” While destruction is visited upon the pre-Adamite Enosh for their persistent wickedness, God leads the children of Awdawm back to Himself in repentance.
He similarly distinguishes between Awdawm and Enosh in many places. For example Psalm 8, verse 4, “What is Enosh, that thou are mindful of him? And son of Awdawm, that thou visitest him?” Note that while God is mindful of what the Enosh do, it was the sons of Awdawm that God visited when Jesus Christ came to earth. Both racial groups must be disciplined for their sins, but the distinction is kept clear even there.
Isaiah 2, verse 11 says, “The lofty looks of Awdawm shall be humbled and the haughtiness of Enosh shall be bowed down and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.”
In 2 Samuel 7, verse 14 we read, “I will be his Father and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of Enosh, and with the stripes of the children of Awdawm.” If these were not different races, there would be no point in using the different words.
The Enosh were wicked and are so spoken of. Deuteronomy 13, verse 13 warns us:
Certain Enosh, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and worship other gods, which ye have not known.
When they gain power, they are brutal oppressors. So Psalm 10, verses 17 to 18 says,
Lord, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: Thou wilt prepare their heart, Thou wilt cause Thine ear to hear: to judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the Enosh of earth may no more oppress.
The Enosh races have no spiritual understanding — that is the reason for their continual wickedness.
Proverbs 28, verse 5 says, “Evil Enosh understand not judgment: but they that seek the Lord understand all things.” This distinction is still in effect today — for Daniel 12, verse 10, speaking of the time of the end, which is our own time today, says, “None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.”
But this is not all — some races God classifies as animals — their nations are symbolized as beasts in numerous prophecies. Do you say that this is not what you have been taught to believe? Well, then let’s look into this a bit and see what the Bible actually says about it.
For example, when Jonah finally went to Nineveh with his prophecy that God intended to destroy the city for its people’s wickedness, they believed him. This is not as surprising as it may seem — for the people of Nineveh worshiped Dagon, the fish god. Since they had heard that a great fish had delivered Jonah on the shore, they thought he must be a prophet sent from Dagon, and they were ready to believe him.
Now the third chapter of Jonah says that the King of Nineveh was worried. And it goes on,
And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Ninevah by decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily unto God; Yea, let them turn every one from his evil way and from the violence that is in their hands. And God saw their works, and as they turned from their evil way and God repented of the calamity that He said that he would do to them and He did it not.
Now what kind of beasts were these — who put on sackcloth, and cried to God, and turned from their evil way? It says this was the command for man and beast and that they did so. Is your dog that well-trained? Then who was the Bible calling “beasts”?
Let’s look into this a bit further. In the ninth chapter of Genesis, God promises Noah and his family protection. In the 5th verse God says, “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it and at the hand of man.” These beasts that have hands like a man — but, there weren’t any monkeys in that region, so these beasts with hands must have been “men”.
Again, in Exodus 19, verses 12 and 13 — when the people of Israel were gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai while Moses climbed the mountain to receive the ten commandments from God — God warned him
And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall surely be put to death. There shall not a hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live.
Again we find that whether it be beast or man, it must not touch the mountain with a hand.
The second chapter of Genesis tells us that God is looking for a suitable wife for Adam and brings in review before him what your King James version of the Bible calls “every beast of the field” to see if a good wife for Adam could be found among them. Now do you really think that an all-wise God had to carefully look over a female scorpion, a female toad, a female giraffe and a female elephant to decide whether one of these would be a suitable wife for Adam? Of course not — and Moses didn’t write any such foolishness when he wrote the book of Genesis — this is purely the work of translators.
In the original Hebrew, the account makes good sense, and it tells us much about these other races. There are two closely-related Hebrew words used here — khah-ee and khaw-yaw — each of which means “a living creature”. And the meaning is far too broad to be translated merely “beast” or “animal” — for it includes all living creatures — from microbes to men. Where the King James version says “beast of the field,” the word is always either khah-ee or khaw-yah. So a correct translation would be “the living beings” in the country.
That these “living beings” include varieties of “men” is clear from the same word being applied to Adam himself. You have read Genesis 2, verse 7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” In the Hebrew it reads, “Then Yahweh God formed the Awdawm out of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the Awhwam became nephesh khaw-yah — that is, a breathing creature having life. So the “beast of the field” — the kaw-kaw-yah of the field — or more correctly, “the living beings in the countryside” — actually included “men” — the pre-Adamic races.
Now Genesis 2, verses 18 to 20, makes sense. God saw that Adam needed a wife and — not condemning anybody without a fair chance to make good — God carefully looked over the pre-Adamic races — which were the African and the Asiatic races — to see if one of them could be found who was suitable to be Adam’s wife and the mother of the new race, but he couldn’t find one — because of woman from one of these races could only bear children who were half-Negro or half-Mongol.
In the Hebrew this reads thus:
And Yahweh God said, Not good for the Awdawm to be alone. I shall make him a helper, as his counterpart. And God formed from the ground every living being of the fields and every fowl of the heavens and bringeth in unto the Awdawm to see what he doth call it; and whatever the Awdawm calleth “nephesh kahw-yaw” — [that is, a breathing creature having life] — that is its name. And the Awdawm calleth names to all the cattle and to fowl of the heavens and to every living being of the fields, and to him hath not been found an helper as his counterpart.
That is, God recognized that Adam’s wife must be his counterpart — having the same qualities of spiritual understanding to be able to transmit to her descendants the same qualities for which God specially created and placed Adam in the world. But God could not find even one out of these pre-Adamic peoples who was Adam’s counterpart having these necessary qualities.
Now before someone gets the idea that I hate other races, let’s look at this thing a little closer. The Black race has been on earth at least 40,000 years — for identifiable negroid skeletons have been discovered which can be scientifically dated by the radiocarbon and other radio processes as that old. Yet in all these 40,000 years there has never been a Negro civilization. Yes, I know that a few Negro tribal chiefs have conquered other tribes and built themselves up a larger kingdom. But it takes more than the brutal tyranny of a successful war chief to make a civilization — and that was all they had.
Don’t speak of Egypt — Egypt was in Africa but never negroid. The beautiful portrait sculptures left by the ancient Egyptians show them to have been clearly a pure White people. In the days of Egypt’s greatness, any Negro found north of the first cataract of the Nile River was summarily killed on sight.
It has been proved that you can either teach either a Negro or a chimpanzee to ride a bicycle, but all the eons of time have never sufficed to teach either a Negro or a chimpanzee to invent a bicycle. We don’t hate Negroes — we want them to be well-fed, well-clothed, comfortably housed and in no danger of being eaten by other Negroes — and that’s something they have never had except in a civilization created and maintained by White men.
Despite all the propaganda that you hear, every Negro in the United States is far better off than those in Africa. Just try to find any Negro here who wants to go back to any Black nation in Africa. But neither Negroes nor Whites will have the blessings of civilization in a nation which is reduced to Black standards of thinking. If they were capable of producing a civilization at all, 40,000 years is long enough to do it.
Yes, I know that in Asia — 2,300 years ago — Confucius taught some high ethical principles, but without a word of religion in them. And I know that the Ming Dynasty saw the production of some nice pieces of porcelain, but what did either of these do for the Asiatic people? Did it ever teach them how to produce enough food to fill those fine porcelain bowls? Shouldn’t 2,300 years of Confucian philosophy be enough to develop something more than poverty, filth, disease and misery? Again, the Asiatic mind lacks the true spiritual understanding which God saw was needed. Aren’t the Asiatics who live in the United States better off than those who live in Red China, Korea or Southeast Asia? We don’t hate them, but we don’t want them to reduce us to their level. That’s what God was talking about in the second chapter of Genesis when He said that the other beings who lived in the country round about Adam could not produce a suitable wife for Adam as his counterpart.
Because of the spiritual understanding which God put in the Awdawm, today the White race has the highest civilization, the greatest freedom — the highest standard of living in the world. They are the so-called “have nations”. We haven’t hated the other races — we’ve tried to help them, to show them our ways, but all of them — without exception — have hated us. In the centuries when we were very few against their many, they repeatedly tried to conquer and destroy us. And only God’s watchful care over His people kept that from happening — although several times they came dangerously close to success.
In lands rich with minerals, they sit in wretchedness and poverty, too lacking in enterprise to mine the enormous wealth beneath their feet. In lands where the fertile soil and ample rainfall cover the land with lush growth, they live in perpetual hunger because they are too dull to clear the land and plant it to food crops. If we provide the capital to pay them for clearing their land for planting and harvesting the crops, or for digging and refining the minerals in their soil, they curse us for exploiting them. But if we don’t, they curse us for being indifferent to their misery. Now, through the United Nations — where they out-number and out vote us — they plan to rule us, plunder us, enslave us, reduce us to their level. Well did God classify them as Enosh, lacking utterly in the spiritual understanding necessary to follow God’s ways.
Now perhaps some of you may say, “You’ve quoted these from the Old Testament, but the New Testament proves that God was all wrong and He had to change His mind and make up some new rules.” Well, that isn’t true.
So let us see what the New Testament says about them. In his epistle to Titus, chapter 1, verse 12, Paul says, “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own said, The Cretans were always liars, evil beasts.” The word “beast” here is the Greek word therion, which means “a dangerous animal.”
Jude 10 says,
But these speak evil of those things they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
And 2 Peter 2, verse 12, says,
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.
These Enosh were commonly called “dogs” — both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. For example, Psalm 22 is recognized by all Bible scholars as being prophetic of Jesus Christ’s first coming and crucifixion. In the 16th verse it says
For dogs have compassed Me: the assembly of the wicked have closed Me in: they pierced My hands and feet.
God is certainly not complaining that some four-footed dogs barked at Him, and there is no record that any ever did. He is speaking of those who delivered Him up to be crucified — and the use of this word is common in the New Testament.
In Philippians 3, verse 2 Paul says, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers.” The four-footed dogs are no more evil workers than cats or cows. Paul and those to whom he wrote knew these “dogs” were the two-footed kind.
If you say, “Well, this is discrimination between races,” you are exactly right. Has someone told you that monstrous falsehood that “It isn’t Christian to discriminate between races”? Well, let’s nail that lie right now. Let’s see what Jesus Christ himself did. And certainly nothing can be as great an authority on what is Christian as Jesus Christ.
In Mark 7, verses 25 to 29 we read this:
For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of Him and came and fell at His feet: the woman was a Greek, a Syro-phoenician by nation; and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus Christ said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not right to take the children’s bread and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto Him, Yes, Lord, yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. And He said unto her, For this saying, go thy way: the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
Jesus Christ certainly did discriminate, and not until the woman recognized the righteousness of the discrimination did He help her.
She had first asked help of Him on the same basis as the Israelites who were true Awdawm — on that basis, she was not entitled to it. Jesus Christ told her, “Let the children first be filled with the bread of life.” Then they will establish the kingdom of God on earth and from this God’s blessings will be extended to such others as can understand and receive them in the proper spirit. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ did not hesitate to openly call the Enosh “dogs”. When the woman indicated that she understood that the blessings would come to others out of the abundance which God gave to His own children, then He told her that for this saying, He had healed her daughter.
Again, Jesus Christ carefully warned His disciples never to make the mistake of failing to discriminate — never to try to bring the Enosh — who lack understanding — into the kingdom of God on the same terms as the Awdawm. In Matthew 7, verse 6, He warned them,
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you.
Strong words those? — yes, but the direct command of Jesus Christ himself.
We have disobeyed Him, and we are now facing the tragic penalty. We have tried to treat the other races as equals. We have expected them to learn the same lessons from our religion that we do. We have expected them to behave with some self-restraint when they find power in their hands — just the very things that Jesus Christ warned us not to do, “Lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend us.”
To His disciples Jesus said in John 14, verses 16 and 17,
And I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever: even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you.
Therefore it was logical to speak of those whose minds lacked the spiritual capacity as beasts — because of their nature.
In the Book of Daniel, the prophet traces the rise and fall of four great world empires ruled by these people. First he interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great image, whose head was of gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and thighs of brass, and his legs of iron, as prophesying the successive dominance of four great empires. That is, Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon being the first of them — the golden head — and the others being Medo-Persia, Alexander’s Greco-Macedonian Empire, and Rome.
But in chapter 7, Daniel had a vision of four remarkable beasts rising one after the other out of the sea. We know that in prophecy, the sea is symbolic of mankind in general — all “people” — the great majority of whom are the Enosh, the pre-Adamic races. Out of them came the four beasts. The first — a lion symbolized Babylon like the golden head of the image. The second — a bear symbolized the great empires of Medea and Persia. The third — a leopard stood for the swift striking empire of Alexander the Great. And the fourth — a very terrible beast with iron teeth, ten horns and great strength symbolized Rome. This was exactly the same series — in the same order — as the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Its repetition was to confirm the first one as being true prophecy.
As further confirmation, in the book of Revelation we again find a beast representing these world empires, rising out of the sea. In Revelation 13, we are told that this strange beast had the mouth of a lion, the feet of a bear, yet was otherwise like a leopard, but it had ten horns — like the fourth beast which Daniel saw. The fact that the qualities of all four are now combined in one beast is to show that the four great world empires were all of one origin — all manifestations of satanic power — all arising out of the sea of non-Adamic races.
They came to power in secession — each gained enormous power over the people who lived in great areas. But the rule of each was harsh, tyrannical, brutal — each one more so than those before it. Man’s planning — man’s skill in putting his plans into effect — man’s ability to judge what was needed in ruling an empire — these they had. But the spiritual understanding — the capacity to receive the thoughts of God — the capacity to organize and rule a nation under God’s laws, these they lacked.
Revelation 13 shows that this composite beast gained its power from the dragon — Satan. Surely, these empires demonstrated their satanic character. Finally, to make sure that the symbolism of the vision would not be misunderstood, Revelation 13, verse 18 concludes
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man.
If these beasts were nations of men, why symbolize them as beasts? We have seen that God’s prophets — and even Jesus Christ himself — bluntly called certain races “beasts”. A nation made up of Chinese people must be a Chinese nation –and a nation made up of Negroes must be a Negro nation. Then a nation made up of those whom the Bible calls “beasts”, must be a “beast nation” — and it is so stated.
The fall of the Roman Empire ended only the vast extent of power in the hands of those who served Satan — but it has not ended their desire to regain that power, nor their struggle for it. So the book of Revelation shows a continuation of the struggle for power, carried on by a new beast, right down to the time of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ when the beast makes war against Him, but is conquered by our Lord.
We see this struggle for power going on in the world today. The non-Adamic peoples — now organized into many nations so as to multiply their voting power in the United Nations where just the cannibal tribes of Africa alone are recognized as 24 different nations, having 24 votes to our one vote.
There is not one of them who stands reliably on our side. Once in awhile, they find it to their advantage to seek something which we also want to accomplish — and on that one issue only they vote with us. But the next day, they either proclaim their neutrality in our struggle for the survival of the free world — with which they have no sympathy — or else they actively support Russia against us.
It is inevitable that those who are of the same race — the same origin, having the same qualities, the same ambitions and ideals — should align themselves together, working for their common purpose.
In the great world empires of the past — Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander’s short-lived empire, and finally Rome — they had what they wanted — a system which expressed their own true character. They want to restore this system — and the United Nations they have made to order for their purpose, as God prophesied. In Revelation 13, verse 14, we are told that the new beast
…deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of the miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image of the beast which has the wound by the sword and did live.
They seek to give the United Nations worldwide empire like that of Babylon and Rome — only greater —an empire which crushes and dominates all nations, enforcing its will by bestially brutal force, as we saw in the Congo —an empire which repudiates the one true God where the name of Jesus Christ cannot be mentioned because it offends those who hate Him — and where the only reference to any divinity is the idol statue of the pagan god Zeus in the lobby of their building.
An empire ruled by those whom the Bible calls beasts — for they now outnumber us by 8 to 1 in voting strength. Though we have 1/6th of the world’s population in the White race, by this juggling of voting power, we are reduced to 1/9th of its voting strength. When we see their plans for world rule developing, we can begin to understand the dreadful prophecy of the coming day when no man might buy nor sell, save he that has the mark or the name of the beast.
Nevertheless, the return of Jesus Christ will overthrow their plans — their power will be destroyed and they will be put in their proper place. This place emphatically does not include to rule over the nations — that has brought too many thousands of years of misery and sorrow.
And in the final end, when God’s New Jerusalem is set up on earth, we are told in Revelation 22, verses 14 to 15
Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city, for without are dogs — (and various others).
Now this doesn’t mean that you can have your pussycat, your canary, and your goldfish, but the faithful Fido is excluded — these “dogs” are the two-footed ones whom Jesus Christ named.
Discrimination, do you say? Yes, indeed it is. But from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation, God himself has commanded discrimination. I wouldn’t oppose it if I could.
kindly remainder that Assyrians, Macedonians, Persians, Romans were whites.
40,000 year old negros? The earth isn’t even that old! “Race” want even a thing until after the dispersion from Babel.
Christopher —
You said, “….The earth isn’t even that old! ……”
And how would you know? I don’t agree or disagree with Comparet on his estimate, but, does it matter? And how would we know for sure?
We can’t quantify “TIME”. God does not see Time as we see it.
Second, you wrote, “….. “Race” wasn’t even a thing until after the dispersion from Babel…..”
I think most here would agree with you that “Race” isn’t a thing Scripturally. There are Adamic Peoples (White Peoples) and every one else (Beasts/Strange Flesh).
Specifically ……………… what do you mean when you suggest race occured AFTER Babel? Would you like to explain?
Are you saying that God turned a Homogenous population into different classifications or “races” of peoples???
Anthropologists from the 20th century were all pretty much in agreement that there are 4 Primary Groups (races) of Peoples — White, black, yellow and red.
Is this what you mean?
If YES …………. are you suggesting God just miraculously turned a White man into a Black person at the Tower of Babel?
Since there has been so much disingenuous evasiveness about this, complete with demands for scriptural citations that should be well knownto anyone stating a position on it,
Notes on the Racial Makeup of Judaea — Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. 3, p. 479) The investigation of the actual history of these southern immigrants and that of the passages which directly or indirectly concern them here converge. From the Judaean genealogies in I Chronicles 2 and 4, it has long been seen that the tribe of Judah after suffering heavy losses, ostensibly before the monarchy, was built up again through Calebite and other clans of south Palestinian and Edomite affinity. These became genuinely “Israelite” and finally (presumably during the Exile) moved northward to thew neighborhood of Jerusalem; indeed as late as the days of Nehemiah, traces of Calebites can be found among the leading men who helped rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. The evidence, on the face of it, might seem naturally to a Judah of semi-Edomite origin, the creation of David, in whose early days these clans han an independent existence in the south of Judah (1Samuel 26:31). It is quite in agreement with this perspective of history that the Chronicler, after describing the singularly mixed constituents of the new Judah (Benjamin can also be included) proceeds to represent a temple service inaugurated by David, where the names of prominent Levites are appreciably of semi-Edomite, south Palestinian, and non-Israelite origin. Hence, it is possible to trace a close connection between (a) the southern clans who became Judaean, (b) the temple personnel, and (c) the families of the scribes.
Widespread Miscegenation in Judaea Previous to the Captivity —
Isa. 5:4 What could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes?
Isa. 17:10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation . . . therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shall set it with strange [alien] slips [graftings] . . . 17:11b but the harvest shall be a heap [ruin] in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
Jer.2:21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right [NWT true] seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?
Jer. 4:3b do not keep sowing among thorns
Jer. 5:10b Take away her luxuriating shoots, for they do not belong to YHVH.
Jer. 12:13a They have sown wheat, but thorns are what they have reaped. [Got that, Johan? there’s the proof you wanted as to the identities in the Parable of the Harvest. Book, chapter and verse].
Hosea 2:4 And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they be the children of whoredoms.
Wisdom of Solomom 4:3 But the multiplying brood of the ungodly shall not thrive, nor take deep rooting from bastard slips.
1Esdras 8:69-70 The nation of Israel, the princes, the priests and the Levites, have not put away from them the strange people of the land, nor the pollutions of the Gentiles, (to wit), of the Cananites, Hittites, Pheresites, Jebusites and the Moabites, Egyptians and Edomites. For both they and their sons have married with their daughters,and the holy seed is mixed with the strange people of the land; and from the beginning of this matter the rulers and the great men have been partakers in this iniquity.
2Esdras 9:17-22 Like as the field is, so also is the seed; as the flowers be, such are the colors also; such as the workman is, so is his husbandry also: for it was the time of the world, which was not yet made, evenfor them to dwell in that now live, no man spake against me. For then every one obeyed: but now the manners of them which are created in this world that is made are corrupted by a perpetual seed . . . So I considered the world, and, behold, there was peril because of the devices which were come into it. And I saw, and spared it greatly, and have kept me a grape of the cluster, and a plant of a great people. Let the multitude perish then, which was born in vain; and let my grape be kept, and my plant; for with great labor have I made it perfect.
1QS (Dead Sea Scrolls) Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of injustice [sin] spring from a source of darkness . . . God has established the spirits in equal measure until the final age, and has set everlasting hatred between their divisions. Truth abhors the works of injustice, and injustice hates all the ways of truth . . . According to his portion of truth so does a man hate injustice, and according to his inheritance in the realm of injustice so is he wicked and so hates truth.
“Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”
Proverbs 26:12
“The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.”
Proverbs 26:16
Interesting how actually reading each chapter from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea from which he has quoted immediately steals his context away from him.
However, he is so conceited in his own understanding, the only exposition he bothers to do is on his own ideas. Ironically, after all of his monologues and seemingly intentional vagueness, I honestly am not even sure what it is he believes.
To add to that, he denies the work of Paul, but casually quotes much disputed apocryphal books as if they aren’t disputed.
Johan wrote, “To add to that, he denies the work of Paul, but casually quotes much disputed apocryphal books as if they aren’t disputed.”
Right, which is why I quoted Proverbs 26 instead of Romans 12:16 — apparently it is much easier to dismiss Paul than it is King Solomon even though Paul is paraphrasing Solomon.
I think with BW what we may have here is an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, someone who knows just enough to convince himself that he knows more than everybody else, but not enough to know just how little he knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y50i1bI2uN4
Speaking humanly, we don’t know what we don’t know, and we can discover what we don’t know through discussion.
However, there are fundamental rules of discussion, especially among Christians with the Scripture as a guide.
If an individual in the discussion doesn’t keep to those rules, there’s a complete breakdown in the discussion.
In a court analogy, Scripture is like eye-witnesses, and if the eye-witnesses are actually agreeing, then in order to refute them, they need to be examined and questioned. It doesn’t help for one to keep talking about why one witness is saying a certain thing, when the other witnesses are blatantly not saying that. Conversely, if one comes with a different set of witnesses to the first, then the other must also examine those witnesses. Otherwise what is the point of bringing witnesses to the court at all?
PS: The Idumeans were assimilated into Israel, no doubt
— The Idumeans were assimilated into the Judaens : the people Christ told they were not his sheep. Not into Israel.
Johan — Later in John 8, Christ states it as a FACT that Abraham IS the father of these Judeans, “…56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” If they were Edomites, Jesus would not have affirmed Abraham here as their legitimate father. He affirms it because He is trying to convince them that their rigid, literal, faithless interpretation of Scripture has made them twice dead. Only through Christ will they attain eternal life.
— Abraham WAS their father. But their descent was via Esau. There is nothing in this of Rabbi Saul’s “belief” that you keep obsessively projecting into it as if it belonged there. The devils also believe. And tremble. Christ demands works. And these they did not produce. That is the hinge of the matter.
2) And you are under the mistaken idea that I’m an advocate of “churchianity”
— The design you are advocating is 19th century Protestant theology, with just enough revisionist honesty for flavor but not enough to change anything about it.
3) but in John 8:10, it says, “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman….” So, BW, where did the scribes and Pharisees from John 8:3 go? No mention of them when Christ looked around him…
— They obviously withdrew. But then who was he talking to afterward and where did they come from ?
4) Understand, BW, that these “chapter breaks” were created by editors, and were not in the original manuscripts where there was no “John 8”. The scene can change from line to line without chapter breaks.
— You are correct in so far as you recognize that the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery was imported from the Syrian transmission of the Gospels and put there arbitrarily, because it had to go somewhere. But note that you are alleging that the scene DID change without notice, denying the narrative continuity without which every verse would stand independently. And if it DID change, as you also allege, how is it that he kept talking to them? You want it both ways, straining at gnats and swallowing camels in the process.
5) There is nothing in John 8 that suggests these Judeans that Christ is addressing CAN’T do good and follow Christ because they are Edomites.
— And there is everything in the Bible testifying that they WERE Edomites (the racial mixing began long before Hyrcanus ca. 100 BC), confirmed by Christ telling them they were not his sheep (Israelites), which removes any possibility of doubt to enable an alternative model to be advanced without denying that plain statements in Scripture have literal, self-evident meanings.
6) The Idumeans were assimilated into Israel, no doubt, but the law literally has provision for that where it says in Deuteronomy 23:7-8, “7 You shall not loathe an Edomite, for he is your brother
— The LORD’s stance toward Edom changed over time — as you would notice if you read the Scriptures for illumination rather than support (not the way a wino uses a street light post at night). You might even recall the matter of letting the wicked fill the cup of their iniquity to the top, which they did — his attitude toward them changing as they did so.
7) As if the interpretation of John 8 wasn’t simple to interpret, John explains it further in 1 John 3:10 when he says, “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God.” It says in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.” It’s saying exactly the same thing, which is also the same thing as the parable of the wheat and the tares. If you practice righteousness, you are of God, if you practice sin, you are not of God.
— You just made my point in 1) for me.
As usual, you’re stating your view without actually making a case. Sorry, I just can’t take this seriously. There is no further edification which can come from this discussion.
I agree, he believes his doctrine is “self-evident” and therefore, he is under no obligation to prove any of his assertions with scripture–and because he refuses to acknowledge Paul as a legitimate scriptural witness, he’s conveniently poisoned the well to create his own internal echo chamber. And when you believe that people who prove you wrong are actually proving that you are right, there is nowhere this discussion can go. The arrogance of youth and a little knowledge. It is finished.
It seems we all agree then. Truly the Spirit didn’t speak in vain in Isaiah 29:18-24,
“18 On that day those who are deaf will hear words of a book,
And out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of those who are blind will see.
19 The afflicted also will increase their joy in the Lord,
And the needy of mankind will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
20 For the ruthless will come to an end and the scorner will be finished,
Indeed all who are intent on doing evil will be eliminated,
21 Who cause a person to be indicted by a word,
And set a trap for the arbitrator at the gate,
And defraud the one in the right with meaningless arguments.
22 Therefore this is what the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, says concerning the house of Jacob:
“Jacob will not be ashamed now, nor will his face turn pale now;
23 But when he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his midst,
They will sanctify My name;
Indeed, they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob,
And will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
24 Those who err in mind will know the truth,
And those who criticize will accept instruction.”
Praise the Lord Jesus, the Holy One of Jacob!
Hear, hear!
Because the whole idea that seed necessarily connotes genetics is such a stumblingblock, try it this way:
Who’s Who and Whose Who
Judge the tree by its fruit.
Simple, right ?
Yes – but not simplistic.
Figs come from fig trees. So far, so good. Good figs come from good trees; inferior ones from inferior trees. At this point people veer off into making an abstraction of it (like “moralism”). But is there really a moral dimension in the lives of trees ?
Hmmmm . . .
We have (presumably) learned from the Parable of the Sower that any number of environmental factors can exercise modifying or overriding force. I.e., through no “fault” of its own, a seed may be eaten before it can germinate, stunted in its growth, choked out by other plants around it, fail to reach its potential through lack necessary nutrients, and so on. (It was not without reason that the earlier medieval philosophers of the Aristotelian tradition called the earth “the realm of accidents”). Even if it does survive and grow to maturity, its ability to produce good fruit (and that in abundance) may be severely curtailed. But does this make it a “morally objectionable” tree ?
Any number of dimensions are latent within this. One such is the reminder that “the point of the exercise” for a fruit tree is producing fruit – not growing luxurious, self-indulgeant foliage in all directions which contributes little or nothing to its fruit production. This is why the Husbandman of the garden (Gen.2:15, John 20:15 – the fact that we keep these in separate conceptual boxes does not mean that they are not related) prunes the trees entrusted to him, in due season. (It is well to laugh at the idea of trees having morals – at the same time, though, we should realize that we are laughing at our own [induced] “belief”). Considering such things that one has noticed at some length goes by the term “meditation” (as in “Prayer and”).
There is far more, however, “to” this.
Can a thorn tree bear figs ?
Even if it were somehow possible – against every impulse of the nature it was created with — to induce a thorn tree to want to produce even one fig (an absurdity in itself), it would be genetically incapable of doing so. It doesn’t refuse to. It is unable to.
Just about as unable, in fact, as a religionist hierophant is of transforming a goat into a sheep via baptizing it. (As the Russians say, “When the shrimps learn to whistle !!!”)
Time for a pop quiz. What are the first “Ten Commandments” in the Bible, and where are they found ?
You could call it a “trick question,” because they’re really the same Commandment ten times (as if repeating something important were going to make an impression on people as oblivious as we are).
The Commandment, in essence, is “Kind Reproducing (its own) Kind.” Goats produce more goats; sheep produce more sheep. Fig trees produce figs (with fig seeds in them). Thorn trees do not produce figs. Genesis One, Chapter One.
This is a Law woven into the very fabric of (re-)Creation itself. (Go back and read : RE-Creation. All the “stuff” was already there. But it was all jumbled together – concatenated. Before it could be put back right again, it had to first be separated into components. By stages). (From here to “alchemy” is a very short step indeed).
Genetic Determinism is one of the conceptual axioms intrinsic to Scripture (if not to those who claim to “interpret” it).
This is simple, but not simplistic. It does not follow from this that every fruit tree will automatically produce good fruit in abundance (as we have seen). But it does follow that only olive trees have the genetic capacity to produce olives at all, and a great deal of considerable significance follows in turn from this. One of its consequences is that Christians are born — not made. Christ said that he was sent ONLY unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel too plainly to mistake his meaning. He said they would hear his voice, and history shows that they did. (Now re-read the Great Commission that the “dispensationalists” invoke as a supposed negation of this: “As I have been sent, So I send you.” [I.e., ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel]. Go out unto all the world . . .” [And where were the lost — scattered abroad in punishment — sheep by then ? All throughout the world]).
As a strategy to get around a lot of useless assumptions, regard peoples as metals. Iron is not “superior to” other metals outside of a narrowly defined set of referents not apparent to metals which do not share its nature.
Magnetism, to iron, is a possibility. It is not something guaranteed, but it is a potential it has – either spontaneously (magnetite occurs naturally) or by induction from already magnetized iron (“teaching”). Either way, iron has the capacity to sense and to respond to something “other” in creation — to have an agency role in the greater scheme of things. To participate, in a sense, in the “occult” [hidden, because inaccessible to other metals] as it were. To iron, the “other,” invisible realm is a reality, verified by experience. (“My sheep hear my voice”).
Truth without can only be known by means of truth within – as true north is sensed by a magnetized needle under proper conditions, spontaneously. To those who have, more (and by this means) shall be added, given appropriate effort: note (in passing) that it is the Truth which is to set us free. Nobody (Rabbi Saul notwithstanding) did (or ever will do) it “for us,” any more than someone else can eat, drink, sleep or perform other functions for us.
To zinc, copper and the rest, this is all stuff and nonsense – occultism easily “disproven” by the materialist “science” it has limited to what is perceptible to it. Since experience of magnetism is an obvious impossibility to it, magnetism is thus, necessarily, a superstitious relic of non-“enlightenment” ignorance.
This is one reason why the creation of alloys (interbreeding) with alien metals is prohibited. Not because other metals are “bad” (metals, like trees, do not have “morals”), but because the results are generally useless — a waste of good iron (whether magnetized or not) and of otherwise serviceable non-ferrous metal. Ergo, “The wicked go astray from the womb, spouting lies.” (These would include the “random mutations” so beloved by the Darwinian analogue of the man who believes that he can make a living by winning at the casino).
Herein lies one nexus of the much-misconstrued “doctrine” of Predestination – and of “inherited sin” as well. Whether it accords with our attempted insistence that everything be “fair” (and there is nothing “fair” at all about Love — God’s for his fallen bride) or not, the fact is (announced in advance) that when the Husbandman (Gardener, Owner of the Vineyard) returns, the thorn trees will be cut down for firewood – so that they will at least be good for something, in spite of themselves. And while the grading of fruit trees will be “on the curve,” the unproductive fruit trees will join them (as will the useless hybrids – capable, through absolutely no fault of their own, of nothing worthwhile in the context of the master plan) (aka the Design of Creation).
“As I have been sent” (i.e., only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, to seek and to save), so I send you.” To this specific group (sheep) is extended the (much twisted and misconstrued) general invitation, “whosoever will.” “Theology” notwithstanding, it is extended specifically to Sheep – not to pigs, goats, dogs, turkeys, rats, jackasses or other “fellow-creatures” of the great collective barnyard.
It seems like you’ve interpreted the Scripture before reading it. I get the feeling you would rather play the lecturer than discuss the meaning of the Scripture. You seem to respond to my comparing the Scripture with Scripture with your own lectures which are somewhat void of Scripture. The Scripture is well able to interpret itself without analogies of metals and magnetism.
With all respect, this waxing lyrical over your own views doesn’t impress me at all. It doesn’t help to restate your own, personal views in analogies without backing them up with Scripture, or addressing the Scripture which I have given.
— “(Now re-read the Great Commission that the “dispensationalists” invoke as a supposed negation of this: “As I have been sent, So I send you.” [I.e., ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel]. Go out unto all the world . . .” [And where were the lost — scattered abroad in punishment — sheep by then ? All throughout the world]).” —
I’ve already answered this question below, but you ignored the Scripture I gave as proof and proceeded with another “lecture” of your own. I’ve even been purposefully ignoring the works of Paul in my discussion with you for your sake, so that our focus can remain on the Scripture.
All in all, there’s not much for me to address here. I suggest we get back to talking about Scripture.
Wow, that’s the very definition of a word salad. Lots of high-sounding noise, little sense, lots of “theory” and little meat, little scripture with multiple witnesses. Not persuasive in the least.
+10
Word Salad = Gas Lighting = Confusion
And……………….now I can’t even remember what the original point of contention was!!!
SMH
On The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: Johan — you answer your own question ! “The Lord says the exact same thing in Matthew 13:38, “…the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil [one]…” . . . The parable speaks of those who are the sons of the kingdom and those who are not.” There is nothing in this about good wheat being tares, and no Sunday School “spiritualization” of it works. The wheat was sown by the Logos Spermaticos; the tares were sown by the evil one.
John 8:33 — “They [the Pharisees] answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.” This identifies them conclusively as descendants of Esau — i.e., Edomites. ALL of Israel (Jacob’s entire family) HAD been in captivity, but Esau’s had not. In other words, these are the tares of the parable. Flavius Josephus: “Hyrcanus also took Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans [Edomites]; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Judaeans; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Judaean ways of living, at which time therefore it befell them, that THEY WERE NO OTHER THAN JEWS. [Antiquities 14:8:1. See also Wars 2:3:1 and 4:4:5]
It was the Edomites who burnt the (second) temple (1 Esdras 4:45) and occupied much of Judea (op. cit. 4:47-50), which explains why Christ told them they were not his sheep. Psalm 137:7 “Remember, O LORD, the children/sons of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, ‘Raze (it), raze (it) even to the foundation thereof.”
There is no spiritualized sunday schoolism about Israelites sinning in this. Quoting you: — The Lord says the exact same thing in Matthew 13:38, “…the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil [one]…” . . . The parable speaks of those who are the sons of the kingdom and those who are not. Answer: I.E., of Israel and Edom.
— You again: The parable describes those who are evil and those who are good. These are the tares and the wheat respectively. Who then are those who commit lawlessness in the explanation? Answer : The Edomite Jews. It explains itself when you allow it to.
Your reading of John 8:33 is taken completely out of its original context, ““They [the Pharisees] answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.”
Why do you assume they are Pharisees? It seems that these are different people than the scribes and Pharisees mentioned earlier in John 8.
Just prior to that, we read, “31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
So these Judeans or “Jews” to whom he is speaking clearly “believed on him” and are his “disciples”, and he accepts them as such. Yet if they were Edomites, he would have rejected them as his disciples, nor would they have “believed on him”.
When Christ tells them, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” he is implying that right at that moment they are not free because they don’t yet have the truth. He says “shall” twice here. The Judeans misunderstand what he means by this because they take his words literally, and literally they, this generation of Judeans, this seed of Abraham, have literally not been in bondage to any man. They are NOT saying that the seed of Abraham has never in their history been in literal bondage because that would be absurd.
And the Edomites were subjugated and ruled over by King David–so even the Edomites wouldn’t say that they have never been in bondage. And the Edomites were also subjugated by the Judeans and forced to convert. That’s twice.
Hendrick Lamb — Your reading of John 8:33 is taken completely out of its original context, ““They [the Pharisees] answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.”
Why do you assume they are Pharisees? It seems that these are different people than the scribes and Pharisees mentioned earlier in John 8.
Just prior to that, we read, “31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
1) In verses 3 & 13 it is clear that he is talking with Pharisees. There is no indication that they left the scene. Undoubtedly, some did believe on him. But unlike churchianity, which thinks the whole issue boils down to belief, Christ ties belief to works (judge the tree by its fruit), as proof of it. Recall that many shall say in that day, “Lord.” But he will say, “Depart from me, ye WORKERS of iniquity.”
2) IF they continued in his word, THEN they would be his disciples indeed. When Christ uses the word “if” with them, it is usually a challenge to put up or shut up. As in IF you are the (true) sons of Abraham, then do the works of Abraham. Which, of course, as in the Parable of the Good Samarian, they don’t. A failure he explains as them being offspring of the evil one — thus as unable to do righteous works as a thorn tree is to bear figs. I hope this clartifies it.
BW, but in John 8:10, it says, ““When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman….” So, BW, where did the scribes and Pharisees from John 8:3 go? No mention of them when Christ looked around him…
Understand, BW, that these “chapter breaks” were created by editors, and were not in the original manuscripts where there was no “John 8”. The scene can change from line to line without chapter breaks. This isn’t all a distinct scene from play or a movie, as you are treating it.
Again, you are reading something into the scripture that is not there–Christ is telling them that being the seed of Abraham amounts to nothing IF they do not follow Christ, then their birthright will be for naught. What good is it being an Israelite IF you do the works of the devil?
This passage refutes the idea that Israelites are born saved and redeemed by their birth, not by Jesus Christ. The only privilege that being an Israelite confers on you is that you are a candidate for redemption and salvation–non-Israelites aren’t given that opportunity, so don’t squander yours.
And you are under the mistaken idea that I’m an advocate of “churchianity” or “universalism”. I am not. I am an advocate of what the text does and does not say, and you are making it say something to fit your agenda that it doesn’t necessarily say, nor does it need to say. Christ came for Israel period. And we know that Israel today is the White European people.
There is nothing in John 8 that suggests these Judeans that Christ is addressing CAN’T do good and follow Christ because they are Edomites. You’ve read your own doctrine into the scripture–and it’s not there in the plain words of the text.
Later in John 8, Christ states it as a FACT that Abraham IS the father of these Judeans, “…56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” If they were Edomites, Jesus would not have affirmed Abraham here as their legitimate father. He affirms it because He is trying to convince them that their rigid, literal, faithless interpretation of Scripture has made them twice dead. Only through Christ will they attain eternal life.
In my early days of just having learned the Identity message, and I was still under the influence of those teachers, I believed what BW believes, and I know his arguments well because I used the same ones.
But once I got out from under the spell of those Identity teachers, over many years, and looked at Scripture for myself, I realized how wrong it was to interpret so much of the Bible, especially the New Testament, through the constant lens or prism of race–who is and who is not an Israelite.
There are some Identity teachers and self-described “scholars” who literally analyze every line of the NT through the lens of race, and doing so destroy the beauty of the text–and the spiritual foundation of it. They reduce it to a mechanical, plodding thesis on race.
The foundation of the Bible is not race. Race is a given, that’s all. There is Adam, and everyone else. Then there is Jacob-Israel and everyone else. There’s no need to dwell on it behind that. Christ’s disciples knew this, which is why you will find NO explicit arguments about race anywhere in the NT. But certain Identity “scholars” are so obsessed with the race issue that they have to interpret every line of scripture through it, and thereby reducing it to a banal racial manifesto, which is very dangerous and misleading.
For example, believing that you’re going to be invited to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb merely because you have White Israelite skin is nonsense, and those who believe that are going to be in for a rude awakening if and when the time comes–and that’s just one parable that is very dangerous to reduce to a racial “lesson”.
Like the Pharisees, many Identity followers believe they are saved merely by being born an Israelite, being the seed of Abraham. Christ clearly rebukes them for thinking this way, but these Identity mavens insist rather that Christ is rebuking them for not being Israelites rather than evil doers and sinners and not living up to the faith of Abraham their father. That is the simplicity of the scripture that is lost on these race-obsessed Identity followers.
Race is implicit, not explicit–we need not dwell on it, for if we do, we will fall into the false sense of security that our race will save us, and thinking that way will lead us into temptation and certain falling away from Christ because we don’t need him to be saved — the color of our skin does that.
Chesterton ….
+10
and thanks for weighing in.
— “There is nothing in this about good wheat being tares” —
There’s nothing about “good wheat” in the parable either. There’s only “wheat”, which is why your interpretation can’t work. If you are an Israelite who is lawless, you are not wheat, because the lawless will not be gathered into His barn. They will be burned.
— “Answer : The Edomite Jews. It explains itself when you allow it to.” —
It really doesn’t, though. I think you want me to allow your explanation to explain itself to me. The Idumeans were assimilated into Israel, no doubt, but the law literally has provision for that where it says in Deuteronomy 23:7-8, “7 You shall not loathe an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not loathe an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land. 8 The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.”
As if the interpretation of John 8 wasn’t simple to interpret, John explains it further in 1 John 3:10 when he says, “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God.” It says in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.” It’s saying exactly the same thing, which is also the same thing as the parable of the wheat and the tares. If you practice righteousness, you are of God, if you practice sin, you are not of God.
@Hendrick Lamb — the idea that Jews are visually identifiable as Jews is disproven by experience.
Nothing in the parable is based on some doctrine. Tares are tares. The lusts of their father will they do and by their fruits shall we know them. They will perish in the holocaust — the real one.
When any passage of Scripture can “mean” anything that someone wants it to mean, we have Babel.
Christ was able to do pilpul (exegetical debate) with the Pharisees because there WAS a hermeneutic system agreed by all. Thus he was able to expose their lies, and THEY KNEW IT. As did everyone listening, and we today, reading the record.
@Johan — I do not maintain that all people descend from Noah’s family, which would be a genetic impossibility. But Ham indicates — by his fruit — that there was miscegenation involved. Like many passages touching on moral failures, the text has been rabbinically obscured beyond recovery of the details, but the fact is self-explanitory.
In general: wanting to read “Adamites” into the Bible is sheer exegesis. Cite some passages where this identity is stated as a fact, OK ? Their existence, then and now, is a reasonable supposition. But that they are involved in the drama is not warranted.
That we have repeatedly brought disaster upon ourselves by disobedience is not disputed. That not-peoples have been the instruments of this likewise. But in the case of the apostelic missionaries, that the Israel they were sent to seek and to save is a simple fact — not a permanent description. Once united into Christian nations, they were gathered back into One Flock. As Christ said they would be.
Similarly, naughty children (and if need be, wives) are whipped to correct them. But not because they ARE evil — because they have DONE serious wrong.
— “I do not maintain that all people descend from Noah’s family, which would be a genetic impossibility.” —
The Scripture says otherwise in Genesis 10:32, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their descendants, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.” There’s no use in refuting it, because the Scripture puts it rather plainly.
— “wanting to read “Adamites” into the Bible is sheer exegesis.” —
Genesis 5 gives the lineage from Adam to Noah. Noah was an Adamite, which is to say, he was a white man, a descendant of Adam, who was the first white man. Genesis 10 gives all of the nations coming from Noah. Noah is an Adamite, therefore, all nations are Adamites. You yourself say God created kind after kind, and Adam was one kind. This is plain and simple.
— “Cite some passages where this identity is stated as a fact, OK ?” —
Genesis 5:2 says, “He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created.” That word, in the Hebrew, is how Adam’s descendants are referred to. It’s very simple.
@weswins: I do not know what an Adamite is, or is supposed to be. If it means a descendant of Adam (HaAdam), then self evidently yes.
@ johann: Scattered sheep, without a shepherd and widely dispersed, were not a coherrent people with a territory, language and body of common law (things which define a people).
–“If Israelites can bear evil fruit, then what manner of tree are they?” The parable of the sower explains this. Good seed does not produce evil fruit, but may produce little or no good fruit, due to external circumstances intervening. But only good seed has the capacity to produce good fruit at all. How much and how good is, to a large extent, an individual decision. For an example, pruning trees increases fruit production at the expense of luxurient foliage which serves no purpose. How many people prune their desires/actions with this in mind ?
— “Peter says “any person” and “all nations” in Acts 10:28 and 35 respectively.” This is the matter of Whosoever will. Which hinges on family descent. It is not an absolute extended to all and sundry. Who are called according to his purpose ? Only those to whom the call is extended — to Israelites.
— “However Adamites and Israelites are the same kind.” Ye ONLY, of all the nations of the earth, have I loved and words to this effect are repeated too often to allow doubt about it. According to the model is Scripture, only Noah’s family was saved alive, and although Noah himself was uncontaminated in his genealogy, it seems his wife must not have been. Your supposition that other descendabnts of Adam survived it comes from secular attempts at reconstructing ancient history, and the body of assumptions it entails. Reconciling this with Scripture is probably a futile endeavor.
Ok…….so you believe there were Adamites (White non-Israelites) during the time of Christ.
Good.
Do they not have Eternal Life offered to them?
It is my contention that the “wild olive tree” are Adamites (White non-Israelites).
You object? And why.
I understand your view on the wheat and the tares, and I’m glad you at least acknowledge that we can produce no fruit and be cast into the fire.
Let’s break down the parable of the wheat and the tares further though. When explaining the parable, the Lord says in Matthew 13:41-42, “41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The parable describes those who are evil and those who are good. These are the tares and the wheat respectively. Who then are those who commit lawlessness in the explanation? We know that genetically pure Israelites can and do commit lawlessness, and they will be cast into the fire. Then the tares include genetically pure Israelites who commit lawlessness. This is the only logical interpretation by the Lord’s own explanation.
Therefore, the tares and wheat is not a teaching on genetics.
As witness, John says in 1 John 3:8, “the one who practices sin is of the devil,” and in verse 10, “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God…” The Lord says the exact same thing in Matthew 13:38, “…the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the weeds are the sons of the evil…”
Genetically pure Israelites who commit lawlessness are not sons of the kingdom. Yet the parable is binary; there is no third group. The parable speaks of those who are the sons of the kingdom and those who are not.
If this were a parable on genetics, how could it bring about righteousness in us? If we are wheat (genetically pure), then we need do nothing, because we are wheat. We need simply to watch the tares burn. If the interpretation were an exhortation to be righteousness and commit no lawlessness, then we will by default be pure genetically, not taking animals or mixed-breeds as wives, along with keeping the rest of the law.
— “Your supposition that other descendants of Adam survived it comes from secular attempts at reconstructing ancient history” —
I think we’re agreeing then, because I believe that Noah and his family were the only people (Adamic genetics, in this case purely so) who survived the flood. As for Noah’s wife being corrupted, it’s just not in the Scripture at all. The non-white so-called “races” who we see after the flood are not people or corruptions. They are simply animals. The law confirms that “confusion” can come from the union between a man and beast in Leviticus 18:23, which is the confusion of a mixed-breed “child”.
If by your view the non-whites came from Noah’s wife, then how could one woman create diverse so-called “races”? We know that one “race” mixing with another can never produce a unique “race”. It can only produce a brown mix. If a mongoloid mixes with a negroid, it produces something else. It can never produce a pure version of either. This itself is proof that Noah and his family were pure, because the impure can never produce that which is pure.
As for Amos 3:2, it must be interpreted in the context of the rest of the Scripture. It is literally because He only knew Israel, and Israel rejecting Him, that He would provoke us with those who are not a people as in Deuteronomy 32:21. Just after verse 21, it says in verse 24 and 25, “They will be wasted by famine, and emaciated by plague, And a bitter epidemic; And the teeth of beasts I will send against them, With the venom of crawling things of the dust. 25 Outside the sword will make them childless…” (Also Ezekiel 14:21 and Revelation 6:8).
We find ourselves in this provocation, which is the tribulation and punishment of Israel, until the fullness of the nations comes in, when He will regather Israel once again (Luke 21:24). We must understand our punishment, and the situation we as Israelites find ourselves in, that we can repent to our Master and say to him, “You have punished us justly,” that the fullness of the nations may end (Jeremiah 30:11).
As for your interpretation Peter’s words in Acts 10:28 and 35, it is simply not what the plain words are saying. Unfortunately, your interpretation is an effort to make the plain words say something other than what they are saying.
The strict racial interpretation of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares never sat well with me. In the parable it is supposed to be very difficult to visually discern the wheat and the tares, but from a racial perspective, we can easily tell the difference between a real White person and 99.99% of the non-Whites, including Jews. Whereas, if the Wheat and Tares are both White people, then and only then does the simile make sense.
And it’s all based on the false doctrine that God will not destroy any Israelite/Adamite because everything God created is “good”. And they further claim that since God allegedly didn’t create the non-Adamics, they are “tares” and will be all thrown in the Lake of Fire, while “all Israelites will be saved” from the Lake of Fire, no exceptions.
+10
I can well identify with this. I think when we truly reflect on our pasts, we can see our consciences railing against us, and we can see how we mercilessly smothered them. It’s why we need to be meek, I believe. As Matthew Henry once wrote:
“Meekness softens the wax, that it may receive the impression of the seal, whether it be for doctrine or reproof, for correction or instruction in righteousness. It opens the ear to discipline, silences objections, and suppresses the risings of the carnal mind against the word; consenting to the law that it is good and esteeming all the precepts concerning all things to be right, even when they give the greatest check to flesh and blood.”
@johan
You raise a number of questions. I only have time at the moment to address one of them.
Our problem is that Christianity has absolutely no agreed-upon system of hermeneutics whatsoever. Anything one says, another denies, and there is no rule book to appeal to.
The approach you are taking is to “spiritualize” away the meaning of passages that all but explain themselves bu comparing scripture to scripture, imagining that the Sunday School moralisms that result are the deep inner meanings of them.
The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares is an elaboration of the prophecy delivered by Obadiah — specifically in verse 18.
I’m sorry this is brief. I wrote a longer, better reply but my old tablet froze up on me and I lost it.
BW wrote, “Our problem is that Christianity has absolutely no agreed-upon system of hermeneutics whatsoever. Anything one says, another denies, and there is no rule book to appeal to.”
I disagree. I think that’s a strength rather than a weakness of Christianity. Because of the lack of consensus, it demands that we continually challenge our suppositions and doctrines, to refine them, and to adjust them as we age and gain more wisdom, ideally at least, though most get stuck in a rut and stubbornly refuse to admit error.
For me, the problem is that so few Christians can actually defend the doctrines they claim to believe–and more often than not use a false appeal to authority of some ‘scholar’ they agree with rather than be able to articulate and defend it themselves.
“…. I think that’s a strength rather than a weakness of Christianity. Because of the lack of consensus, it demands that we continually challenge our suppositions and doctrines, to refine them, and to adjust them as we age and gain more wisdom,,,,,”
This is a great point Hendrick!
If we don’t appeal to this idea, we get the Catholic Church* and who wants that again?!!!
(*Roman Catholicism ruling all of Christendom)
It would be wise for Identity Christians to have an “Essentials” doctrine of sorts. Those “Essentials” should be all things related to Soteriology.
Having disagreements over “pre-adamites” or whether there were White Adamites during the time of Christ should fall under the category of a non-essential.
The infighting amongst us is truly a blight on His purpose.
No worries for the brief response. You certainly aren’t beholden to me, but I’ll take what I can get 🙂
— “Our problem is that Christianity has absolutely no agreed-upon system of hermeneutics whatsoever” —
This is a great point you raise. I think the Scripture is clear on what system of hermeneutics we should have, although bitterly few keep to it. The system is more or less:
– Only the Lord is our teacher (Matt 23:8)
– We must give our lives and everything to this cause (Due 6:5)
– We must pray for understanding (Matt 7:7)
– We must pray for understanding continually (Luke 18:5)
– We must be meek towards that understanding and His instruction (Psalm 25:9)
The Holy Spirit will ultimately reveal all things and bring about our unity. I believe that everyone who wants to attain to that unity must be following the steps outlined above. If unity is promised to us and it is conditional, then we have not attained to those conditions.
— “The approach you are taking is to “spiritualize” away the meaning of passages” —
I understand that is your position relative to mine, however saying it without some kind of rebuttal of my interpretation presupposes that my interpretation is wrong, and it presupposes that the teachings are not spiritual.
— “The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares is an elaboration of the prophecy delivered by Obadiah — specifically in verse 18.” —
The Lord explains the parable, but He doesn’t mention Obadiah or Esau. John almost perfectly parallels the parable and he doesn’t mention those things either. I would be curious to hear some elaboration as to this view.
BW wrote, “Our problem is that Christianity has absolutely no agreed-upon system of hermeneutics whatsoever. Anything one says, another denies, and there is no rule book to appeal to.”
I agree with what others have said on this.
I think that this is a strength. Look at how the catholic church ruled: they made, and still make, a mockery (for the most part) of Christ. Look at Muhammadism: the koran is so short and instructional that sunni and shite fight over minute differences, but are really the blind leading the blind, and thus they all do the same thing, the same way, at the same time, etc yawn
What I like about Christianity at the present is that it lets White Man use his best asset, one that no Beast can compare; his brain! I love the thinking aspect, as it makes ME think about what I believe… and that makes me want to know more!
No other “people” have this type of “religious” conudrum as we do with the multitude of Christian ideas and theorys and doctrines. I believe that that is a big part of why Christianity prevails and stays in the limelight, so to speak, coz it is just soooooo complex… and we Whites love thinking to advance our earthly lot.
Just thought I would chime in 🙂 Ta
Christ is King —
Hear, hear! My thoughts as well.
Especially — “…What I like about Christianity at the present is that it lets White Man use his best asset, one that no Beast can compare; his brain! …”
Christ said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep (diaspora) of the House of Israel. In the Great Commission he said, “As I was sent, so I send you.” And subsequent history vindicates his confidence that his sheep would hear his voice — we did ! And we do.
From beginning to end, the Bible is the history of one bloodline — Ye ONLY, of all the nations of the earth, have I loved.
The false prophets, with their revaluation of all values, want you to think that Biblical “sheep” is an inclusive term also covering the dogs, pigs, goats, asses and other animals of “the family of God” barnyard. That he made them is undoubted. But they are not addressed in the Bible.
The universalist Abrahamic religion of ALL PEOPLE is Islam.
People who believe that all Adamites may be saved do not believe in non-whites/animals being saved as well, and do not believe in a “universalist” religion. Believing “all people” includes animals is construct of anthropology/evolution. Animals aren’t people.
Knowing that animals are not saved, it’s ironic that you used animals/barnyard to exclude the Adamic nations from the covenant, as various animals is literally what God used to show Peter that the Adamic nations had been cleansed in Acts 10. Peter said, “God has shown me that I am not to call any person unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28) and ” in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.” (Acts 10:35)
This was obviously after the Lord’s work in His flesh, as when He was risen He said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19). Isaiah confirms and says, “The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, “I will yet gather others to them, to those already gathered.”” (Isaiah 56:8)
If we agree on non-whites, and we agree that the gospel of salvation is to obey the commands of the Lord, being sanctified from sin, then surely this is a matter which can be discussed in peace without accusations about false prophets?
Go to all nations because by that time Israel was scattered in them.
The first Ten Commandments are found in Genesis One — all variations on “reproducing after its kind.” Ten mentions. Genetic integrity is God’s hot button issue.
A thorn tree is not a fig tree with bad morals. And the result of baptizing a goat is a wet goat — NOT a new sheep.
BW
Elaborate on this point — “….Go to all nations because by that time Israel was scattered in them……”
Let me ask you a qualifying question —-
Were there Adamites alive during the time of Christ?
(trying to understand what exactly you are saying)
Is an Adamite a “Goat” in your opinion? Is an Adamite a “thorn tree” in your opinion?
Israel was scattered into the nations, agreed. Although the quote Isaiah 56:8 speaks of others over and above the scattered of Israel. Peter says “any person” and “all nations” in Acts 10:28 and 35 respectively. Deuteronomy 32:21, prior to the section on Israel’s tribulation, says, “I will make them jealous with those who are not a people”. This was given to all Israel, so then those who are not a people are not Israel. The Lord says many will come from east and west to sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, while sons of the Kingdom are cast out.
God wants kind after kind, agreed. However Adamites and Israelites are the same kind. This is witnessed by Deuteronomy 23:7, and many other places, where other nations were allowed into the assembly.
A thorn tree bears thorns, because it cannot bear anything else. A fig tree bears figs, because it cannot bear anything else. If Israelites can bear evil fruit, then what manner of tree are they?
Nevertheless, this refers to false prophets/teachers, not genetic designation. Sure the Lord’s words confirm this when He prefaced it by saying, “Beware of false prophets”?
When God chose Abraham, how many Adamites do you think were alive on the planet?
Hundreds of thousands??? A million?
Where did they go?
The Wild Olive Tree being of the Natural Branches just doesn’t make sense to me. Anyone from the loins of Abraham will be a Natural Branch.
Man: Pure bloodline unaltered by semen (semitism) of beasts (fallen angels). This is why God picked Noah. He was the most pure.
At the core of antisemitism is the war against good and evil.
So would y’all interpret this Caananite dog verse to me?
Because the Boomer belief is that it, along with Romans 11, establish that we non-Jews are second class citizens in Christianity, reminiscent of the disgusting Talmudic belief that a thousand of us aren’t worth a single Jewish fingernail.
If she’s an Israelite, what does that mean for us?
If she’s a White non-Israelite Adamic, what does that mean for us; how do we know which whites are of Israel-Jacob and which aren’t?
Lastly, if she’s not Adamic, then does this mean that Boomer churchianity is right and we should be ministering to the third world brown folk instead of just to Whites?
The Canaanite woman was a white Adamite woman who was not an Israelite. She actually wasn’t called a “dog”, but rather, the Lord used a word which denotes a kind of pet dog, or house dog. The Greek word is the diminutive form of dog.
I wouldn’t call non-Israelite Adamites “second class citizens”, as this contains very pejorative connotations. However, Israel is definitely the focus of God’s plan for the ages and there is no denying that. If this Canaanite woman showed us anything, it is the humility and faith with which the nations ought to act in relation to Israel.
The specific relationship of Israel to the nations is made out to be an endearing one, as it says in Isaiah 49:18 in relation to the nations, “You will certainly put them all on as jewelry and bind them on as a bride.” Of the disobedient it says in Isaiah 60:12, “For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, And the nations will be utterly ruined.”
Israel are white Adamites and the nations of Scripture are white Adamites described in Genesis 10. There’s no need to think about mixed-breeds and animals at all when it comes to salvation, and there’s no need to read “race” into everything in the Scripture.
As for how we tell Israelites from non-Israelites, I believe it is simply a matter of faith. The calling to be an Israelite is not a calling to be materially blessed in this life, or to lord oneself over other Israelites or other nations. It is a calling to be a priest of the Kingdom of God. If one has faith they are an Israelite, they should be careful of their spirit, because God seeks a Godly offspring (Malachi 2:15). It is the kind of faith which requires works, and those works are the sanctification of our lives and the dedication of ourselves completely to the purposes of our Lord. If one sees themselves as an Israelite, and that faith produces good works of the calling of an Israelite, then I believe that person is an Israelite. What a brilliant trial for these end times, that God would perfect our identity in faith, and not in the flesh? Because what good did their genealogies prove, and what righteousness did it bring? Then let the true Israelites show their identity through faith and the Spirit and works, not through meaningless genealogies.
+10
“there’s no need to read “race” into everything in the Scripture.”
Churchianity only seems to believe in race in two instances: when it wants its White congregation to pay reparations, and when it wants us to recognize the superiority of the Jews. So it seems to me that there is a need to read race into Scripture as doing so destroys central pillars of the blasphemy that is Churchianity.
“As for how we tell Israelites from non-Israelites, I believe it is simply a matter of faith.” That’s the traditional Churchianity explanation of Matthew 8:11, but I’ve been advised by other commenters on this site that this verse, and others, still only apply to the Israelites, whom Christ came to gather.
“It is a calling to be a priest of the Kingdom of God…If one has faith they are an Israelite”
Which ties into the Great Commission and Romans 11. Churchianity interprets this as “Throw beaucoup dollars at our mission trips to Haiti and Darkest Africa”, but this site advises as meaning to only minister to the Israelites (something Churchianity is loath to do) and so this brings me back to my questions of race.
— “So it seems to me that there is a need to read race into Scripture” —
I said, “there’s no need to read “RACE” into EVERYTHING in the Scripture”. The concept of “race” is a lie and unbiblical. It is a anthropological designation to subdivide humans/homo-sapiens. There is no such thing as humans or race in the Scriptures. There are only men/Adamites and animals.
Scripture teaches us more than enough about the need to not copulate with beasts and that beasts would be used to chastise Israel. There’s no need to take the Scripture further than what it actually teaches.
— “That’s the traditional Churchianity explanation of Matthew 8:11” —
Churchianity believes that it includes animals, so I do not believe it as Churchianity believes it. However, there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is certainly a matter of faith. Romans 4:16 says, “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all…”
The faith of Abraham is not those who Abraham had faith in, but rather, those who have faith like that of Abraham. It says in Galatians 3:16, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.” Therefore, Abraham’s faith was not in his own descendants, but rather in Christ, just as we must have faith in Christ, as Paul says in Galatian 3:22, “…so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” It is faith in Jesus Christ.
The calling of the nations and the calling of Israel are both to salvation, but the calling of Israel is to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). Also it says, “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His personal possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 7:6) Then it says, “…the Lord set His affection on your fathers, to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, you over all the other peoples, as it is this day.” (Deuteronomy 10:15) Paul says these “gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).
“And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
@Johan: You overlook the import of verse 12: Art thou greater than OUR FATHER JACOB who GAVE US THE WELL. She, and her people, were obviously some of the remnant of Israel left by the Assyrians, living in their ancestral seat (Shechem) and retaining their ancestral religion.
This, in turn, illuminates the Parable of the Good Samarian, who showed he was a true descendant of Abraham (via Jacob) by his behavior. And pointed out that the Pharasees were NOT by the same test (Buy their fruits shall ye know [i.e., recognise] them). Which so infuriated them they resolved to murder him.
Note that the term translated “hypocrites” pictures an actor playing the role of (impersonating) a character in a drama and, as Aristotle points out, depending on the willing suspension of disbelief for success at it.
The Pharasees claimed to be Israelites and that the Samarians were “Cuthim” (descended from the settlers the Assyrians planted in what had been the northern kingdom). Christ showed that these rtoles were in fact reversed.
In that instance I prefer to show their identity by the actions of Christ, which I figure is more complete, and not by their own words, but thanks for adding that in any case.
On the parable of the good Samaritan, I fear that reading identity teaching into it misses the lesson the Lord intended to teach. The setup of Luke 10:25-29 shows that this was an evangelical teaching of repentance to the lawyer, who sought to justify himself, no doubt imagining his own righteousness to be complete. In any case, the characters of the parable were not Pharisees, but are specifically designated as a priest and a Levite, who ought to have known the law well. There’s no reason to believe they were not Israelites, or not white. By contrast in the parable, Samaritans were looked down on, the designation being considered worthy of an insult (John 8:48). This interpretation is made sure by the conclusion as the Lord says, “Go and do the same.”
Seeing someone’s fruits is not a means to tell white people — who also are wicked — apart from animals and mongrels, as it says in Matthew 7:15-16, “15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits…” This is clearly teaching how false prophets — and possibly false teachers — are told from one another. The only way a white man may become righteous is to partake of the Holy Spirit in Christ (Romans 8:5), and if he does not, he is a slave to the flesh, and to the law of sin and death, ready to be cast into the lake of fire. Just like the Lord says, “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:6)
@Johan – you are reading your obsessive ideas into the text re. the Samarian woman and the Parable of the Good Samarian, sweeping what you regard as “details” aside to focus on “the important part.” This abuses Scripture to serve as a screen to project Rabbi Saul’s ideas onto. In fact, though, those “little details” are of critical. Importance.
If your car breaks down on the road, whichever “little detail” part it is that’s not working is “the IMPORTANT part,” whether that”s the fuel pump, the butterfly valve or any of a hundred other parts. They’re ALL important if the car is going to operate properly. As you learn when one of them fails.
Rabbi Saul’s “contribution” to Christian “theology” (so-called) was to reduce big, complex truths into simple ideas, and then spin those ideas into a simplistic “important part” system. Theology thus was debased into philosophy and mythologizing, putting logic in place of revelation.
The end result is absolute idiots taking sides in the imaginary “controversy” of Works “versus” Faith, which is, Biblically, the “controversy” of breathing “versus” oxygen. The amusement value of this is admittedly considerable. But in practice it is the blind leading the blind.
BW, sounds like you’re attempting to discredit Paul in order to bolster your thesis, referring to him derogatorily as “Rabbi Paul”. From a rhetorical point of view, that’s called “poisoning the well,” and is a dishonest form of discourse as it precludes and undermines any scriptural evidence that Paul may provide to contradict your thesis. I doubt anyone here is going to sympathize with your tactics.
Anybody who tells you to obey him rather than God is no Christian of any kind.
BW, that’s a completely dishonest strawman argument. I never suggested that anyone “obey”, presumably Paul, rather than God. And only a Pharisee would use such a false standard by which to judge his brethren over who is and who is not a “Christian of any kind” in your estimation.
You, on the other hand, seem to be discrediting Paul because he contradicts your takes on doctrine, and then you imply that anyone who uses Paul as a scriptural authority over those whom you decide are credible scriptural authorities is not Christian. Absurd.
You’ve decided to throw out Paul from the NT, with no reason whatsoever, and then denigrate anyone who doesn’t go along with you. How does it feel to sit in false judgement of everyone around you? Who conferred that authority on to you?
You said some things regarding my view on the parable, but you didn’t actually say anything. All I see is a Scripture-free tirade. What good did you think it would do?
Hear the words of the Lord Jesus: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell”.
You so casually call others idiots, and are callously amused with what I assume you imagine to be witty insults. You witness against yourself. You call myself and others blind, but Peter said, “For the one who lacks these qualities [moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, Godliness, brotherly kindness, love] is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.” Who then is the blind one?
If you want to reason together over the Lord’s parables, or you want to discuss to merits of Paul’s teachings, I’m happy to do so. Surely even you, if you are a student of Scripture, would concede that it makes sense for us to reason in peace?
Why do you accuse me of taking sides in works versus faith? I affirm both works and faith. If you want to catch me out with quotes from Romans and compare with James 2, please know that I’ve long since studied it, and myself and Paul both affirm the works of righteousness in tandem with faith. Else Paul would not say, “those who practice such [evil] things will not inherit the kingdom of God”, and “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”. If you don’t like my reasoning, then at least now you know my position on the matter.
It wasn’t me who said to ignore what God says and obey HIM instead. That was Rabbi Saul who taught that. Like trying to insist that Timothy not be circumcised, when God said it was a binding refinance forever that he should have been.
Hubris like that beggars adequate description.
Sounds like BW has some personal issues with Paul, some deep-seated hostility and resentment toward him. By calling him Rabbi Saul, I suspect that BW believes Paul, unlike the other apostles, was a racial Jew, an Edomite, not a true Israelite as Paul witnessed. Christ would not have come to Paul in a vision and converted him if Paul were not an Israelite. It’s hard to have a rational discussion with someone who is so angry.
No, Paul advocates obedience to the Lord Jesus. Jeremiah 31:32 says that the new covenant would not be like the one made with the Israelites in the wilderness, where Moses sprinkled the book, altar and people with blood (Exo 24:6-8). Now we are sprinkled with the blood of the Lord Jesus, as He says, “for this is My blood of the covenant” (Matt 26:28). The old covenant along with its physical regulations (Heb 9:10) are done away with, because we are now under a new covenant with our Master and Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ. The perpetual statues related to physical regulations also are thus also done away with, because they “cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience” (Heb 9:9). There are many perpetual statues, like Exodus 29:28, which has certainly been done away with. We can’t just say all perpetual statutes will remain forever.
In Jeremiah 31:33 it says He will write it on our hearts. How is this done? Ezekiel 36:27 says, “And I will put My Spirit within you and bring it about that you walk in My statutes, and are careful and follow My ordinances.” Was Cornelius and his house circumcised when they received that Spirit under that new covenant in Acts 10? As Peter himself says, their hearts were cleansed by faith (Acts 15:9). They received new hearts, and they received that Spirit which was promised by faith. The law, which has existed since the foundation of the earth, can only be followed with it on the heart, by faith, through the Spirit. It cannot be followed by physical regulations, because they have no power to cleanse our hearts.
If then, we are no longer bound to the covenant of Moses, but we are under the covenant of the Lord Jesus, then let us follow in Spirit and truth, not in letter and shadows.
Peter himself, who called Paul beloved and wise, warned that it is the unstable and the untaught who distort Paul’s writings. For your own sake then, consider Peter’s words.
BW…
I see that you provide not ONE Scriptural argument to counter Johan’s position.
Look up “Gaslighting”.
Btw….what is your Website? I’d like to read your theological perspective. That way we can get to know you.
Thanks.
There’s lots to cover, but I’ll settle for just a few points:
— “Now do you really think that an all-wise God had to carefully look over a female scorpion, a female toad, a female giraffe and a female elephant to decide whether one of these would be a suitable wife for Adam?” —
Genesis 2:20 says, “The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.”
I don’t mean to nit-pick, but God brought the birds to Adam, and seemingly all land animals. Comparet’s argument might sound good, but it’s a very obvious mistake if one knows the Scripture or looks into the Scripture.
The “enosh” argument is also a very week one. A very brief word study of one’s own would quickly clear this up. Regarding the Adam’s wife and enosh points, I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard (directed generally), rather than just accept everything we hear. The Lord says in Matthew 23:8, “…for only One is your Teacher”. Only His words should we accept at face value, not any other man’s.
I agree that Daniel 7 beasts are in fact end times evil animal kingdoms, but I don’t understand why the Daniel 2 kingdoms always get equated with the Daniel 7 beasts. Daniel 7:11-12 speaks of the destruction of the beast with ten horns:
“11 Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was killed, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.”
With the Daniel 2 kingdoms, each kingdom was destroyed in succession. This is clear by historical account, but also clear by the account in Daniel 8. The beasts nations will persist for a time, except for the beast with ten horns, which will be destroyed in Christ’s coming. That is depending on your view of Daniel 7, but at the very least, given how they persist and are destroyed, the Daniel 2 kingdoms and Daniel 7 beast kingdoms cannot be equated. If we were to equate them, we’d have to say that Rome was destroyed, while Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece persisted for a time. That didn’t happen, as it says in Daniel 2:35, “Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors”.
The Canaanite woman whose daughter Christ healed, was a white woman. The Lord says in Luke 4:26, “and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.” Then in Luke 4:28, “…all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things”. Why were they angry if Zarephath was an Israelite living in Canaan? We know Naaman the Syrian, who the Lord mentions in the same passage, was indeed a Syrian. With these two points in mind, there’s no reason to believe Zarephath was not a Canaanite. There’s also no reason to believe Canaanites were non-white, unless one believes the false view that Canaanites mixed with descendants of Cain as Kenites.
Even the centurion in Capernaum was not someone who the Lord would have spoken to, as we can clearly seen in Luke 7:4-5 where it says, “4 When they came to Jesus, they strongly urged Him, saying, “He is worthy for You to grant this to him; 5 for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue.”” They had to urge Him to speak to the centurion, because He would not otherwise have done so, because the centurion was a Genesis 10 nation, not an Israelite.
By extension, I’m not so sure about non-whites being referred to as dogs or beasts in the New Testament. The Lord did not mince words when it came to those who were spiritually dead, as He said, “Let the dead bury their own dead”. Those who are spiritually dead suffer the death of animals, having succumbed to the fleshly instinct, they will be captured and killed in the lake of fire. On this point, the Canaanite woman is referred to as a house-pet dog, or diminutive of dog. It’s the only time the term is used in Scripture.
I agree with you that the “Canaanite” woman in Matthew 15:21 was indeed White. This is a favorite passage for two seedliners, and they go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove she isn’t White, but as you said the word choice for “dog” is not derogatory but even perhaps affectionate, as in a household pet.
That she’s called a “syrophenician” in Mark should be the big tip off–the Phoenicians were Israelites who dwelt on the coast of Canaan. And that’s why most modern historians identify Phoenicians today as “Canaanites”, a geographical term, not racial.
Why did Abraham not want his son to marry from among the daughters of the Canaanites? (Gen 24:3)? Most two seediners assume that Canaanites were not Adamic because of this verse, but you seem to be suggesting otherwise…
I’d go as far as to say the Canaanite woman was indeed a Canaanite genetically. I hear what you’re saying, and don’t deny it necessarily, but the Lord did speak with dispersed Israelites. We can see this with the Samaritan woman in John 4. It says in verse 39, “many of the Samaritans believed in Him”, but He only came to the house of Israel. So they must be Israelites, which makes sense given their conversation, and there were likely some remaining Israelites around Samaria after the Assyrian deportations.
Yet He says to the Canaanite woman, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Sidon was of course a Canaanite city (Gen 10:15), and Tyre was a Sidonian city, so it also makes sense from that perspective it could be a Canaanite.
As for Genesis 24:3, I believe there is no need to assume that it was because they were genetically impure, because the Scripture plainly says what their problem was (Deu 9:4, Deu 18:9, Deu 20:18). There are examples of genetic impurity in the land of Canaan, but the differences in physical characteristics are always explicitly pointed out. Sons of Anak are a good example (Deuteronomy 9:2), and they were mostly purged from the land in any case (Joshua 11:22). Some remained in the land of the Philistines (also Joshua 11:22), where we can see those same giant mixed-breeds in 1 Chronicles 20 (where they further describe physical differences).
Flavius Jospehus confirmed that the Samaritans were Israelites of the northern dispersed tribes.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate Johan, Hendrick’s and other Brothers contributions. I too was once apart of DSCI, but after having done a lot of studying and praying I see the problems with that theology. I haven’t seen you guys around here anymore, hope you are doing well.
“This is a favorite passage for two seedliners, and they go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove she isn’t White,”
More sophistry and misdirection. Are harvey weinstein and david beckham white?
You missed the point, Chris. There is no proof the “Canaanite” woman is a non-Adamic, for the reasons discussed above by Johan and I….the term “dog” that Christ used isn’t necessarily derogatory, and she’s described in Mark as a “syrophenician”. Do you claim that Phoenicians were racial mongrels? The larger point being, that coming from the land of Canaan doesn’t make you a racial mongrel. Why do you object to that reasoning? You tell us: why would Christ heal the daughter of a mongrel, if she was a mongrel….
I’m sure they will say that our Lord, who was impartial to the traditions of men, was obligated to heal her out of some social or religious custom.
In doing so, they would explain away the simple truth against all reason.
We stand accused of sophistry, but no evidence was brought to the charge. What kind of person is this, who deals out accusation so casually?
Ha! Yes, Johan, we all know that Jesus Christ lived by the maxim, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” SMH
There are a few disingenuous characters here that do spoil a good thing. On your last comment I think you’ll find we are in agreement. I never made any other claim or statement other than what I quoted and still no direct answer.
https://gab.com/CroMagnon1215/posts/105394149440951411
“We stand accused of sophistry, but no evidence was brought to the charge. What kind of person is this, who deals out accusation so casually?”
hmm
“I’m sure they will say that our Lord, who was impartial to the traditions of men, was obligated to heal her out of some social or religious custom.”
No that’s for those trying to sneak their bastard grandchildren into the kingdom. Something jews would say and I believe it’s render unto Caesar.
‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham’.
Chris, I’m honestly trying to understand you here, and I’m just not getting it. You initially said that it’s “sophistry” and “misdirection” to claim that two seedliners go through mental gymnastics to prove that the Canaanite woman was not White. How exactly is that “sophistry”? Two seedliners are indeed in the habit of seeing a racial subtext throughout every verse of the Bible, so they will inevitably misinterpret this encounter between Christ and the Canaanite woman as racial–not for what it is, which is in the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Cor 11:3).
— “…still no direct answer.” —
Are you referring to the Weinstein and Beckham question? They’re obviously not white.
Apart from that, I struggle to make sense of what you’re saying, other than the veiled/not-so-veiled references to jewish infiltration. You haven’t even engaged on a Scriptural level as to the genetic heritage of the Canaanite woman.
Perhaps Chris is arguing that because Harvey Weinstein and David Beckham are examples of “Canaanites”, any other “Canaanite” such as the woman in Matthew 15 is therefore also a Jew like Weinstein, and therefore she is not White?
“…….No that’s for those trying to sneak their bastard grandchildren into the kingdom…………………….”
Good grief man. You need to seriously examine your heart.
All we are suggesting is that there were Adamites during the time of Christ — the wild olive tree.
But you call us your enemy.
Mark 7:26-27
“The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children FIRST be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.”
I doubt very much that Yahshua Christ took for granted the language he used in verse 27. “Let the children FIRST be filled,” which implies “we shall see afterwards.”
Rahab is probably the best example of a Canaanite who won favor through works. The notion out there in Ci land is that she was of the tribe Zerah Judah, but the scriptures do not validate that opinion. Certain scholars of dual seedline NEED her to be an Israelite because otherwise they must admit that Canaanites were Adamic as Genesis 10 tells us. But since dual seedliners cannot accept that, they instead interpolate that Rahab must have been Judah, because of the scarlet thread.
Heck, let’s check out Joshua 2:
verse 11
“And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the Lord YOUR God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”
Firstly, she says “your” not “our.”
Then at verse 14:
“And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the Lord hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee.”
“….IF ye utter not this our business.” So the men of Israel have placed a condition upon the saving of her life. Would they need a condition for mercy and saving for a fellow Israelite?
Then in verse 18:
“Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father’s household, home unto thee.”
So scripture establishes that it was the men of Israel who possessed the cord and gave it to Rahab to hang from the window she had previously let them down by. If….and i say IF there is any symbolism here relating to Zerah, then it obviously would point to the men of Israel and not Rahab.
Verses 19 and 20 establish that she will only be safe if she and her family remain indoors, because the scarlet thread is an indicator to other Israelites of protection. In leviticus 14 scarlet is used to heal a house of leprosy, so perhaps that is why a scarlet thread would symbolize protection from death. But that is immaterial as it is already stated in verses 19 and 20 that the the cord is for that purpose.
Then we get confirmation that, indeed, Rahab was not an Israelite, but an actual Adamite of Canaan, presumably a Canaanite herself:
Hebrews 11:31
“By faith the harlot Rahab perished ‘not with them’ that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”
So in other words, the only reason she perished ‘not with them’ is because of her works. Therefore, if the ‘them’ are the Canaanites, then Rahab was as well, or at least an Adamite living there.
How could an Israelite whom the men of Israel KNEW was an Israelite be treated like a Canaanite?
Rahab was a Canaanite, and just like the phoenician woman at Mark 7 and Matthew 15, she won favor through good works.
Kevin wrote, ” The notion out there in Ci land is that she was of the tribe Zerah Judah, but the scriptures do not validate that opinion. Certain scholars of dual seedline NEED her to be an Israelite because otherwise they must admit that Canaanites were Adamic as Genesis 10 tells us. But since dual seedliners cannot accept that, they instead interpolate that Rahab must have been Judah, because of the scarlet thread.”
That’s spot on. Two seedliners have painted themselves into a Scriptural corner, and they force themselves to make outlandish and unprovable assertions about many people in the Bible in order to keep all the balls in the air that they are constantly juggling.
If just one of their dominoes isn’t true, they all fall down. And, as you said, the simplest explanation is the best, which they ignore — that the original Canaanites were Adamic and White.
They go through the same kind of unnecessary mental gymnastics with Ruth:
https://christiansfortruth.com/ruth-was-a-moabite-but-does-it-even-matter/
@Chesterson
Yeah I was going to explore Ruth next, so thanks!
[quote]“Also, we must keep in mind that Comparet was a man of his own generation, and thus he had a habit of interpreting scripture and prophecy through the lens of the events in his own lifetime — such as concerns about the United Nations, communist Russia, and the Cold War — none of which are much factors anymore on the world stage.”[/quote]
The jury is still out on that point. In fact, whether the forces behind the changing masks have ever been different ones is open to dispute.
Mystery Babylon is the same, but we tend to impose our own current times on it. Christians like Comparet, Swift, and Emry believed that there could be a communist invasion of America from Russia and China….they didn’t realize that the whole Cold War was political theater….yes, the international merchantile system changes faces, but those behind it remain the same….
Actually, the jury isnt still out – it is inarguable that the UN is evil incarnate and is bent on the destruction of White countries, after bleeding them to death through wars and draining them financially. Red China is a very real threat, and growing larger every day. Interestingly, red china’s ‘symbol’ is the dragon…
And yes, the “(((forces)))” behind the masks are the same.
The UN was formed for the sole purpose of giving international “credibility” to the ersatz state of Israel in 1948. Since then, Israel has ignored the UN because the UN has NO power of its own independent of Jewry. Whatever “evil” that the UN intends is at the behest of Jewry and no other member states–it’s a “gentile” face of Jewish power, another mask they wear when it’s convenient for them.
All non-Adamites are BORN heathens – irreversibly so.
Christ came only for Jacob-Israel.
Period.
Do you want to know the true Ethiopia of the Bible? This is as good as it gets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2mMfj-dv68&t=6s
There were non-Israelite Adamic people, especially among the Greeks and Romans, for whom Christ came also…..
Yes, there were – particularly Japethites.
However, name one Japeth-derived tribe that the Apostles ever spoke to about Salvation and Redemption, like they did to Jacob-Israel derived Shemitic tribes of Europe – such as the Romans, the Galatians (aka Celts), the Corinthians etc.
God gave up (to His enemies) Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sheba (and all other non-Israelite Adamic Civilizations) in order to preserve the ancient Israelites.
The Ionian Greeks were Javan, a descendant of Japeth (Daniel 10:20, Daniel 11:2 — Genesis 10:2).
The Romans were Kittim, a descendant of Javan (Daniel 11:30 — Genesis 10:4).
No doubt, the Ionian Greeks and Romans were spoken to by the apostles.
The Romans were not Kittim, where are you getting that at?
They were Trojans, ultimately descended from the Israelites themselves.
Also, nowhere do the Apostles speak to the Ionian Greeks (the Athenians) as they do to the Dorians, Danaans and other fellow Israelitish Nations.
The Romans are designated as Kittim by the Bible, as in the Scriptures I quoted in my previous comment.
Daniel 11 tells about the rise of Greece under Alexander the Great, and goes on to talk about the war between the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt. A comment here would not cover it all, but I would encourage reading up on it. Suffice to say, around 168 BC the Seleucids under Antiochus IV Epiphanies sent a fleet to attack Ptolemaic Egypt. The Romans sent a fleet to intercept under Gaius Popillius Laenas, who warned the Seleucids away. This firmly puts Kittim as Rome.
Paul, an apostle (Acts 14:14), literally preached in Athens itself in Acts 17.
“Ships of Chittim” are simply ships from the Greek islands, as Chittim or Kittim came to be associated with them. That does not make the Romans themselves Chittim. The ships being from Kittim does not make the people who sent or led them of Kittim.
Gaius Popillius Laenas, along with his entourage, was sent directly from Rome, from the senate, and they met Antiochus IV near Alexandria. There wasn’t involvement from the Greek islands for them to have been Kittim. I’m not saying that those islands aren’t included in Kittim, but this instance specifically doesn’t include them. Therefore, in the context, it must be referring to Rome.
Do you think that all Roman navies and ships came from Rome? Or did the Romans employ ships from all over the empire? If you ever read Caesar, you would realize that if the Romans had tensions in the eastern Mediterranean, then they consigned ships from states subject in that region to deal with the tension.
So even if you are correct about the fulfillment of that prophecy (which I would contend with), you are nevertheless ignorant of how empires work.
Neither could the Romans be identified as Kittim, since Rome was formed out of Trojans principally, and later, according to Livy, accepted many Dorians. But the Kittim were Japhethites related to the Athenians.
An interpretation of one line in prophecy which is assumed to be correct does not prove the Old Testament identity of an entire people. Or you would think that the term Kittim would elsewhere be used to explicitly identify Romans.
— ” If you ever read Caesar, you would realize that if the Romans had tensions in the eastern Mediterranean, then they consigned ships from states subject in that region to deal with the tension.” —
Except that’s not what happened in this instance, as I already described.
— “Or you would think that the term Kittim would elsewhere be used to explicitly identify Romans.” —
Why would I think that?
Do you mind sharing with me the proof of the connection between Israel and Troy?
I am also curious to hear your contention with Daniel 11 referring to the events of the rise, division and subsequent wars of Greece. Would you share it please, or share some reading for me which you agree with?
Also wondering what are your thoughts on Paul preaching in Athens and it’s implications on the preaching of the Gospel to the nations?
Simple question:
Why did Paul never mention Jesus while speaking to the Athenians or to the Lycaonians?
Paul refers to the Lord Jesus in Acts 17:31. In verse 34 it says some responded and followed Paul in their believe of what he said.
With that in mind, I’m afraid I can’t agree that the Lord wasn’t mentioned. Are there some other examples you’re referring to?
Wow, even the ancient Egyptians understood the judgment of the dead, but they did NOT understand it in terms of Jesus. Just because you believe that it is Jesus, as we should, does NOT mean the Athenians understood it that way, and Paul never preaching Jesus or the gospel to them, they could not have understood it that way.
Orthodox Realist….
I’m curious where you are going with this. What is the point you are trying to make?
Thanks.
Or rather, if you don’t mind, please just state your position on this topic.
Even in Acts 17:17-18 it says he was preaching Jesus in the marketplace in Athens. In Acts 17:31 it says, “…because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” In short, that is the Gospel of Christ.
I just can’t see your reasoning here I’m afraid. It’s obvious Paul was preaching the Gospel of Christ in Athens.
I’d still like to hear about Daniel 11 and the connection between Israel and Troy, if you would be so kind to indulge me.
I actually can give you a whole article (and a corresponding podcast) on the subject of Roman origins.
Courtesy of Pastor William Finck:
https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-trojan-roman-judah
westwins…
Johan thinks Jesus came for non-Israelite Adamites also – which in my opinion, is only a step away from believing the universalist pipe-dream.
I disagree.
Orthodox Realist, since when is Bill Finck an expert on Roman history and origins? Are you serious? Is he an expert on the Greek and Hebrew languages, too? Because he writes about those subjects with equal conviction. What subject is he not an expert on?
Thanks for providing that, but I’m familiar with that snake Finck’s writings. That paper is much ado about nothing, really.
We know that Zerah didn’t take sons into Egypt, but that means very little, because he could easily have had those sons in Egypt itself. Here I have cleared up how it is possible for Zerah to have had sons after the journey to Egypt, but not before. This is a foundation, but doesn’t refute Finck’s essay yet.
This is all hinged on the assumption that the sons of Zerah in 1 Chronicles 2:6 left Zerah before he went into Egypt. Then if I can give an example of those sons of Zerah with Israel, after the journey to Egypt, it would cast much doubt on the whole thing, no?
In Joshau 7:1 it says, “But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully regarding the things designated for destruction, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the designated things; therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel.”
Who is Zabdi, the descendant of Zerah? In Joshua 7:1 it says “Zabdi”, but in 1 Chronicles 2:6 it says “Zimri”. In the LXX, in each case where it says “Zabdi” and “Zimri”, it says “Ζαμβρι”. Therefore, according to the LXX, Zabdi and Zimri are actually the same person. For some reason in the Masoretic text they were written differently, but the LXX clears it up rather nicely. That Zabdi in Joshua 7:1 is the very same Zimri in 1 Chronicles 2:6, which is the son of Zerah. Therefore we have irrefutable proof that Zimri was born after the journey to Egypt.
You will notice that 1 Chronicles 2 gives the order of births chronologically; firstborn first and lastborn last. This makes sense when plainly reading, but is even witnessed explicitly in 1 Chronicles 2:3. Zimri is mentioned first in 1 Chronicles 2:6, making him the firstborn. If Zimri was born after the journey to Egypt, and he was the first born, then all of his other brothers were born after the journey to Egypt as well, because they were born after Zimri. If Zimri and his brothers were born after the journey to Egypt, then they are not the descendants of Trojans, because they are with Israel.
Up until now I’ve been overlooking the basic comprehension failure of Finck’s paper, but I’ll point it out here as the final nail in the coffin. Genesis 46:6-7 says, “6 They also took their livestock and their possessions, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and came to Egypt, Jacob AND ALL HIS DESCENDENTS WITH HIM: 7 HIS SONS AND HIS GRANDSONS WITH HIM, his daughters and his granddaughters, and ALL HIS DESCENDENTS HE BROUGHT WITH HIM TO EGYPT.”
The sons of Zerah could not have left them before the journey to Egypt, because the Scripture says explicitly, in no uncertain terms, THREE TIMES within two verses, that Jacob brought all of his descendants with him. That leaves no possibility for there to be other descendants he didn’t bring with him.
— “Johan thinks Jesus came for non-Israelite Adamites also – which in my opinion, is only a step away from believing the universalist pipe-dream.” —
Then your fear of the “universalist pipe-dream” has overcome your desire for truth.
Christ came only for Israel.
If you think otherwise, you must have solid evidence to back that position up.
Otherwise, you’re just a shill.
Thanks.
Orthodox Realist, we have previously deleted multiple ad hominem and abusive personal attacks against those you disagree with in your previous comments, and yet you persist in this same dishonest tactic of name-calling. If you cannot refrain from this behavior, you will no longer be welcome to post here any longer. This is your final warning.
“Christ came only for Israel”
Isn’t this your opinion also, CFT?
How do you allow this… this person, to keep posting here, then?
— “If you think otherwise, you must have solid evidence to back that position up.” —
Isn’t that what we’ve been discussing?
I’m not sure what your experience is with communities who believe in the true, Adamic identity of Israel, but there are diverse views on things, even whether Christ came for Israel only or Israel and the nations. We all get along, because we agree that beastiality, or “race-mixing”, is a sin unto death.
You needn’t fear me slipping universalist doctrine in, because I believe in a pure, white, Adamic people. Let us then discuss things in peace, as you are even afforded the opportunity to make your own case.
Orthodox Realist —
Thanks for the reply.
Question — were there Adamites alive during the time of Christ, in your understanding?
The answer will help me understand your position.
Genesis 3:22 says:
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”
So the first promise of Christ’s salvation is given to Adam, not Jacob. If no non-Israelite Adamites are saved, then God lied to Adam.