[We are republishing this important article to help Christians understand one of the most fundamental flaws in virtually all “judeo-Christian” doctrines — that God changed His mind and transferred His promises to Israel to another people.]
In his four part series, Did Israel Reject Jesus?, Sheldon Emry exposes the fundamental flaw in dispensational Christian theology that falsely encourages the belief that because “The Jews” rejected their promised messiah — Jesus Christ — that God changed His mind, broke His eternal covenant with the Israelites, and transferred His promises of salvation to all other races and peoples merely on the sole condition that they “believe in Jesus.”
In this exhaustive study, Emry demonstrates over and over that the vast majority of Israelites did not, in fact, reject Jesus Christ when He came.
Emry then goes on to analyze the true identity of the so-called “Jews” who rejected Jesus — and what separated them from the Israelites who accepted Him — although we don’t agree with him that the “Jews” who rejected Jesus necessarily had to be Edomites.
Judeo-Dispensationalists would have us believe a few unlikely scenarios:
First, that because a small minority of Israelites rejected Christ, God punished them all and gave away their blessings to other people.
Second — that those who are identified as the so-called “Gentiles” in the New Testament are not ethnic Israelites.
Third — that Christ failed to foresee that “his own” would reject him and make his efforts to gather and remarry Israel to none effect — essentially making his crucifixion pointless.
Emry clearly demonstrates that none of these contentions are true or supported by scripture. And while we do not necessarily agree with all of Emry’s points, we can agree with the heart of his thesis — that most of Israel did NOT reject Christ — and that God did not use that “rejection” as a justification to transfer His covenant to another, alien people in violation of Jeremiah 31:31.
You can listen to Emry’s lecture Did Israel Reject Jesus? (Part 1) here:
What follows is a transcription of Emry’s lecture with some minor changes for clarity and ease of reading.
Emry begins:
When you attempt to say something to Christians about history or prophecy — and show a correlation and fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the Israelite people — we are often stopped cold with the phrase, ‘Oh, but the Jews rejected Christ so he turned to the Gentiles‘ — and then they will quote, ‘He came unto his own and his own received him not.’
John 1:11 — the only passage of scripture that fundamentalists know in the gospel of John in relation to Israel and history — this is the verse that immediately comes to mind.
And then comes the theory that we call the “Jewish-Israel Theory” — that the Jews, who are Israel, rejected Jesus, and therefore the last 2,000 years has been the history of Jesus and his followers then going to a non-Israel people — or “Gentiles” — and that God will deal with the Jews next time around. They rejected Jesus the first time, and hopefully they will accept him next time He comes.
Let’s see if reading the Gospel of John verifies that the Israelites rejected Jesus when He came the first time:
John 1:12 reads, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
So immediately in verses that follow that verse, it is obvious that at least some of his own, some of his people did NOT reject him but did receive him…. It’s a qualifying statement that means they didn’t ALL reject him:
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
So here is another Israelite named John proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ.
John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
And when you analyze that statement, what John, in effect, is saying, “I, John, an Israelite, have come into this area of Israelites, baptizing with water because I knew Christ was to be made manifest or known to Israel.’
John 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
More Israelites….
John 1:44. John is an Israelite
John 1:46. Nathanael and Philip are Israelites
John 3:22. Disciples are Israelites
John 4:9-12 Woman at the well is an Israelite, a daughter of Jacob
John 4:39-42. Samaritans are Israelites of Northern Kingdom
Reading only three pages of the New Testament after the phrase ‘He came unto His own and His own received him not,’ and what do we find? We find Israelite after Israelite believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
John 4:43 Israelite Galilaeans received Christ
John 4:46. Israelite nobleman at Capernaum
John 5:37 shows some of the people called “Jews” as we see in the first four chapters believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and now so-called “Judeans” or “Jews” not only do not believe on him but actually hate him for doing miracles, and want to kill him.
Even more examples of “Jews” who received Christ and believed:
John 6. Israelites who follow him because he did miracles
John 6:10 5,000 Judaens followed him
John 7:25 A division among “some” Judeans who seek to kill Him
John 7:26 The rulers of the Judaeans wanted to kill him
John 7:31. Many of the Judaeans believed on Him
Some believed, some rejected.
John 7:45 states how the chief priests and pharisees want to take Christ and kill him.
We are beginning to get the identity of the people who want to kill him — who “received him not.” So we can begin to separate the two different reactions among the people called “Jews” or what many people erroneously think of, course, are all Israelites.
John 7:33 In this verse “gentiles” is actually translated from the Greek word ‘Helen’ meaning ‘Greeks’ rather than other times in the New Testament from the Greek word “ethnos” which means “nations”:
Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
Jews ask whether Jesus will go among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, which proves that not all Israelites were just in Jerusalem at that time. Even the Pharisees knew that some of dispersed Israel was in “Helen” or Greece (such as the Corinthians, Philippians, and Thessalonians).
Israelites are in Jerusalem — they are called “Jews” — some received Him, some rejected Him — and there other Israelites somewhere outside that area.
John 7:39-41 The reason why some Israelites turned away from Christ when he taught hard doctrines — even though they believed at first:
But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
There were divisions among Judeans because of Him: (John 7:43, John 9:16, John 10:19, Romans 16:17), as Jesus clearly stated would happen:
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. (Luke 12:51)
The nature of these divisions among the “Jews” becomes more clear:
John 8:19. Jews do NOT know the Father
John 8:23-27. Jews cannot understand the scripture or what Christ is saying
John 8:30. Yet many other Jews believed on Him
These people were all called Judeans (in the original Greek manuscripts), but the King James translators have translated the word Judean into the word “Jew” — whereas it actually refers to all of the people in Judea.
In John 8:33 some “Jews” claim to be Abraham’s seed though they never were in bondage, but Israelites were in bondage in Egypt, and later on to the Amonites, to the Philistines, and to the Assyrians, and later to the Babylonians.
John 8:37. Christ would never say that His word has no place in real Israelites
John 8:38 Israelites have one father and some “Jews” here have another, different father
John 8:39. Christ tells them they are NOT the children of Abraham
Exodus 4:22 Israel is God’s son. God is the father of the Israelites.
John 8:38 Christ tells the Pharisees that God (Yahweh) is not their father.
Jeremiah 31 At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.
John 8:41-44 Pharisee Jews claim God is their father, but Christ says their father is the devil:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Where did we get the idea that ALL of the Pharisees were Israelites?
Clearly, the Jews who rejected Christ and wanted to kill him were NOT Israelites even though they are called “Jews” in John’s gospel.
John 8:47. These Jews are NOT of God, his children:
He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
We find the same reaction of the Jews today that we found among the Jewish Pharisees whom Jesus said were not of God and could not hear His voice. They actually become angry when Jesus Christ is exalted and preached in truth and righteousness.
John 8:48 Talmudic Jews still teach today that Christ is a devil.
Did Israel Reject Jesus? Part 2
John 10:15-16
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
If you follow the doctrine taught by the judeo-denominational churches, you would think there are two folds — one is called the Gentile Church, and the other is called The Jews, whom they say are Israel, but Jesus said He has other sheep that are not of this fold — and that He is going to make one fold out of them.
John 10:19 A division among the Jews over these sayings.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Who are these “sheep” that Christ came to gather?
Psalms 79:13 So we thy people and sheep of thy pasture will give thee thanks for ever: we will shew forth thy praise to all generations.
Psalms 95:7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,
Jeremiah 50:6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place.
Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
Ezekiel 34:30-31 Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord GOD.
31 And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD.
Matthew 10:6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Luke 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Where in the world did we get this idea that those Judeans called “Jews” in the New Testament who hated Christ and did not believe on Him were the same as the Sheep of Israel who did believe upon Him?
We have two different kinds of people, and the only way you can tell them apart is the way they react to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was someone else — not Israel — rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ.
John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Since all the population of Judea — all called “Jews” by the translators — the word “Jews” translated in the New Testament in virtually every case (with the one exception noted above) comes from the Greek word “Ioudaios” meaning Judean.
It is a geographical (not ethnic) name. So we have “Jews” or Judeans who believe, and “Jews” or Judeans who do not believe.
So let’s see if we can answer the riddle: Who could claim to be Abraham’s seed while at the same time Christ said they were not Abraham’s children? Who could claim Abraham as a father, and at the same time Jesus said they have the devil as their father?
Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
So here we have the Arab people today — descendants of Ishmael — and God said I will do certain things with them because they are Abraham’s seed, but the calling of the Israel people would not come through Ishmael.
We have there a group of people who are not the called of God — they are not Israelites — they are not called the firstborn of God — they are not God’s sheep. They are what we know today as the modern Arab nations.
Issac with Rebecca had two sons who were the seed of Abraham — Esau and Jacob:
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
But Esau lost the birthright and the blessing, in effect, he is outside the covenant, though he is still the seed of Abraham.
Genesis 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
Esau’s first wives were Ishmaelites:
Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
Esau’s second wives were the daughters of Canaan (Genesis 36:2).
Esau is the father of the Edomites (Genesis 36:443).
By the time of Jesus, almost 2,000 years later — after this event in Genesis 36 — Esau’s descendants would be at least 99 9/10ths percent the blood of Canaan because Esau went to live among the Canaanites. And that would mean that Esau’s children married Canaanites — and his children’s children.
So by the time Jesus came along these people would have been practically full-blooded Canaanites yet they could still claim that Abraham was their father. And they would also say that they had never been in bondage to any man:
John 8:33 Jews answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
The reason that the word of Jesus Christ had no place in these people is because they were the descendants of Edom, the descendants of Esau. They had lost the covenant right way back when Esau sold his birthright to Jacob/Israel. And these were Esau’s descendants, the bastard offspring of Esau and the Canaanites:
John 8:39-40 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
And of course they have never been in bondage to any man because Esau’s Canaanitish descendants did not go into Egypt with Jacob’s descendants. They did not go into the Assyrian captivity with the Northern Ten Tribes. They did not go into captivity in Babylon either because they were the Babylonians. They were the Canaanites who had the Babylonian Empire.
So when people in Judea could say to Jesus, “We are Abraham’s seed, and we have never been in bondage to any man,” and Jesus would say, “I know you’re Abraham’s seed, but my word has no place in you,” He could only be talking to the descendants of Esau/Edom who were the Canaanites:
John 10. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me
There were Edomite/Canaanites in Judea at the time of Christ.
John gives us record that Israelites by the thousands in Judea received and believed on Jesus Christ.
John 11:47-48. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
The Edomites believed that if the Israelites of Judea believed in Jesus, they, the priests, would lose their power. Is there a people called Jews today who are fearful of the gospel of Christ — who continue to work night and day to stop the preaching of Jesus Christ in this land? Who prevent Christian people from being elected to politics?
Why? They say, “Because we have been persecuted by the Christians.” That is an admission that when God’s Israel people begin to hear and believe God’s word, they drive out the Canaanite Jews — and the Jews know it.
And way back in the time of Christ, the Pharisees — these same Edomite Jews — got together and said, “If the people start believing on Jesus, the Romans will come and we will lose our place, lose our power over the people.”
Did Isreal Reject Jesus? (Part 2 & Part 3)
It is incorrect to call a Jew an Israelite,say Jews
https://i.imgur.com/syE5DMf.jpeg
I scanned many of the comments – and as at most websites – the commenters seem to get tangled in the weeds and miss the larger picture. I discovered TCFT a few years ago, and they have become an invaluable resource for DaLimbraw Library. If you want to begin a journey for the rest of your life – http://www.crushlimbraw.com – not for casual readers.
Crush – “…the commenters seem to get tangled in the weeds and miss the larger picture.”
And what is the “larger picture”? And what are “the weeds” they are “tangled” in? Examples please.
@ChristiansforTruth
There is a famine for the truth and the word of God. I pray thanks he gave us you. Your writers are incredible and accurate, and you have been a great help for reference in trying to open the eyes of our blind.
May God bless and protect you, his servants, while you feed the sheep and seed the field!
Please I beg you do post this as it is important: I get the impression with some here that only the sheep of Israel could hear Jesus teachings and voice. It is vital that you understand Shema of Deut 6. Shema means Hear, Listen, Obey in Hebrew. Now the Tranfiguration and Baptisim of Christ God the Father commands the Shema hear, listen obey. The Israeli bible society translates This is my beloved Son today I have beggotten Him. Hear ye Him.-As Shema. Moses quoted in Acts 3:22 Deut 18:1 – 19 Moses said Shema with respect of Jesus. Sooner or later you have to accept just because you are an Israelite does not mean you will Shema Obey, Hear, Listen. So it was the Israelites who refused to hear and thus were were utterly cut off. No flesh and blood descent did not grant you a Supernatural hearing unto salvation. It is the word obeyed in humility in searching the scriptures. It was a command by God sent from heaven. Perhaps when Jews finally learn the God who spoke on a mountain to Moses who gave the Shema now spoke directly from heaven, they will repent. Let us not pretend all Israelites will hear the gospel and obey it. They were cut off and we were grafted on. You cannot cutt of an Edomite as you yourself say they never were part of Israel. Not my concern but to be cutt off you first have to be flesh and blood desendant according to Old Testament. Lets stop pretending its Edomites and doing the Idumean washing of the text.
You are using Edomite Israelis as an authority on the Bible? Are you serious? That should tell you something–that you have you use an apostate Jew to support your reading of the Bible.
It’s not one or the other. Israelites do not get a free pass to “heaven” just because they are born Israelites–that’s a strawman argument. First they must be “born from above” and then they must be “born again” into the spirit of Christ–that was the purpose of Christ’s ministry to bring the “good news” to regathered Israel. But you can’t be born again into the spirit of Christ unless you are first “born from above” i.e., born of Jacob-Israel.
https://biblehub.com/greek/509.htm
Until Christ Jesus was raised from the dead, He did not have any conversations with other people of any other nation but Israel.
Remember when some Greeks wanted to meet Him, and were refused.
Why? Because He came for the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel, and no one else.
After He was resurrected, and after 31/2 years were finished making the 490 years for Israel were finished, Paul was given The Gospel to call as many as would, to join the Church.
Now the last Jubilee has finally come, the last seven years have begun.
——- Arnie ——-
“…Paul was given The Gospel to call as many as would, to join the Church…..”
Define “..as many as would….”
Are you including non-Adamics? Meaning — the Gospel was intended to reach blacks, yellows and reds?
You made no mention of the priesthood that came from the decendents of Moses and Aaron from the tribe of Levi.
I think this article is really good. Mr Emry and C.F.T. hit the nail on the head.
My understanding is that Jesus, the Lamb, is coming back for his bride, Israel, which is none other than pure blooded caucasians. The “nations” are peoples. Jesus is the Lamb and also the good shepherd; is it a coincidence that, for the most part, only white people keep sheep? Therefore, Christ is coming for his flock… white people! God is not coming to marry any nation other than Israel… so therefore all the other types of bi-peds that wander round, jews, asians, pacific islanders, arabs, negros, etc, are not part of the wedding. Some of these other peoples are shown in the Bible e.g. Edomite jews, arabs etc… others are not e.g. pacific islanders and south sea jungle dwelling asians.
Just my few cents worth I thought I’d chuck in. Thanks, and God Bless our Christian nation!
And the fact that sheep are white in color is NOT a coincidence.
America has not been a Christian nation since at least 1913 when the Talmudists created the Federal Reserve. The dominant strain of Christianity in America is Dispensationalist. They see the Bible and Christianity through the lense of the Jews and physical Israel. That reality would make America an idolatrous with certain pockets of true faith.
If you would please consider Genesis 17:14, Exodus 12:15, 30:33 among others with regards to the idiom “cut off” so that you can properly understand Romans 11. Paul talking to gentile believers clarifies that God has not abandoned his people. They can be grafted back into the cultivated olive tree (parabolic language). The mystery for how all Israel will be saved is simply that God cut off everybody when Jesus was Baptized and the spirit of God descended on him. He became the only member of Israel at that time.
Israel today is Jesus Christ….. John 14:6, John 15, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1. Consider Ezekiel 18 which declares what was eventually prophecies in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31: 31:34. Isaiah is laced with parabolic imagery about Israel that can be easily understood to be Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant according to Paul in Galatians 3:16. Hebrews 8 declares a new covenant and a new sheriff with the old covenant fading away. So all this blather in the news about physical Israel, Jerusalem, and the Jews is ridiculous since God does not recognize the old covenant.
Israel in the Old Testament was always going to be Jesus Christ.
This is a reply to all concerned on this site: I hate censorship and find it proof of mans inability to reason. I apologize for my haste in my accusation in this regard. I am sure I will be forgiven. Furthermore I know you are my people as I feel more at home here than on just about any other platform. Our differences are what sharpen us and I believe that we as a people have a great spirit: hurt me with the truth till we become one. You are courteous to assist in my trying to understand this movement. So thank you!. Please try to desist from naming me a universalist as I do not name call you, anti- universalist. Lets just accept you are making your points and I mine. I am happy to repent (change my thinking) as I have done so thousands of times. I cannot in good faith change my thoughts if I do not comprehend. So bare with my quest. Now we all have a Judaic problem. Indeed! so does the whole world. So on the whole I see some circumstantial evidences for your proposal but it does no convince me in its entirety.
Chesterton, the bible only knows one Ethiopia and it is singular and it says can an Ethiopian change his colour. So we must identify this Ethiopia from Scripture not from sources that conflict with the text. God warned Ethiopia in scripture numerous times so He must care for them.
Now regarding the Ethiopian Eunuch – It is clear he was a Judean or Israelite or proselyte because it is in the genitive case and could be rendered the eunuch from Ethiopia and not of Ethiopia. Coupled to the fact that the bible records the first gentiles opened by the Keys to the kingdom was only in Acts 10 – Cornelius and family. We may assume that both the Samaritans and the eunuch were of at best or worshippers of God as is the case with the Samaritan woman who knew not what she worshipped. The eunuch perhaps a proselyte who was reading from Isaiah.
Yet saying that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Also the command to His apostles not to go unto the Samaritans and Gentiles but only to the Lost sheep. But only too the lost sheep. They obeyed and went only into Galilee and Judea. Therefore the lost sheep were in those regions. It is thus clear that lost does not mean their geography but their spiritual condition without the true Shepherd.
“When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 32:8) Yet Israel did not exist at this stage of history. Babel came way before. So what is Moses telling us? It raises more of a question than your answer suggests, Chesterton. your thoughts please?
Now regarding the lady of bare breast in the pic of the Samaritan woman. It is in the Grooter Kerk NG Dutch reformed Church of South Africa that a lecturne was presented with a lady of bare breast. It was rejected by the church leaders but it was carved by Anton Anry a know Free mason of Holland. Is it merely ca coincidence that early South africa had Jews from Lithunaia and Freemasons to boot also they had a propensity to follow the false teaching of the talmud that said Ham was black and cursed. So lets not be too dismissive of the observation. Why choose a pic with the Samaritan woman baring her breast. The fact that you do not agree is telling. Si is it a masonic Judaic sign for those with secret eyes of sowing racism?
Thanks to all. great site.
Russ, it is not our intention to promote any material that suggests we approve of freemasonry, and we were not aware that the image of the woman at the well included such hidden iconography. We do not wish to offend either, so we have removed and replaced it with another, hopefully, more appropriate image. Thanks
Deuteronomy is referred to in Acts 17:26-27, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.”
The point here is that even when God was dividing up the Genesis 10 Nations of Adamic Man, He was already pre-planning the allotment of lands that He would set aside for the Israelite peoples who were, of course, to be a light unto those nations–the idea being that those nations living in proximity to the Israelites would benefit from their influence and help them be closer to their God, for in fact, pure Adamic nations were of the “same blood” as their Israelite descendants.
Interesting: so Israel was to be a light to those nations and Israel is the white race only nation who were lost then traveled through the Caucus mountains to their current residences. Then who exactly are those nations? Respectfully.
The question I ask myself is this: Is if it was a global flood then why are their non Caucasoid nations? How did they get through the global flood event? Were they animals on the ark or as some suggest they were from the wives of Noah’s sons wives. Yet God said from one blood? These nations existed and still do? Both Noah and God failed to eject these bad seed? It is terribly messy and need clarity. Thanks.
There are no simple explanations for your questions–they can take years of study to understand it all, but here are a few basic concepts:
The meaning of “nations” depends on the context. Often in the early OT, it refers to the Genesis 10 nations, descendants of Noah. Some of these nations grew to be mighty, such as Egypt, then Persia and Assyria. And once the Israelite nations are established, “nations” often refer to these Genesis 10 nations to distinguish them from Israel. But it can get a little confusing when “nations” sometimes refers to dispersed Israel, the Ten Northern Tribes–which is what “nations” refers to in the NT.
The only logical explanation for non-Adamic peoples in the post-Flood world can be that the Flood did not consume the entire planet. In Genesis, the Flood covers and destroys the “earth” (Strongs 776 “erets”), which means “land” or “terrain” and does not necessarily suggest the entire planet.
When the “world” (Greek “oecumene”) is often used in the Bible, it doesn’t refer to the entire physical planet either; but rather to the physical land occupied by Adamic Man.
Remember, the Flood was to punish Adamic Man for his transgressions–non-Adamic people were not under the law or punishment for transgression. So the Flood would have been local to those areas inhabited by Adamic Man, not the entire planet.
Is there evidence of pre-Adamic people in the Bible? Yes. Look at Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” The word “replenish” here suggests that it was previously inhabited and then depleted of people. It’s an odd choice of words had the world not been previously “plenished”. Exactly where these non-Adamic people came from is not spelled out in the Bible however–though the Book of Enoch has something to say about it.
Here’s a word study showing of “behemah”, the “beast of the field”, which demonstrates the existence of non-Adamic peoples:
https://fathersmanifesto.net/behemah.htm
Chesterson thanks! Please see that this is not actually true about Eretz local being the flood. I have left you two New testament passages that show it was the whole world. Kosmos not Eretz local rather Eretz the Kosmos. The interlinear unanimously through multiple versions states it was the world that was destroyed.
2 Peter 3:6 – World destroyed
Hebrews 11:7 God condemned the world.
I too have made that mistake in my past.
If you still in doubt then think upon this fact. Man was to replenish the earth. So if their was only a local flood Noah could have waited for animals from outside the flood area to replenish the earth. Why did he save each after its kind both male and female? Because they were extincted all but for Noah’s remnant animal species.
Knowing this how does would it change the view on the three sons of Noah and the global racial diversity?
2 Peter 3:6 says the present heaven is being kept for destruction of ungodly men. I wonder is that Adamic men or were their other men.
This is a truly fascinating topic please tell me if I am correct.
Russ, the word “world” which is misleadingly translated from the Greek “kosmos” (Strong’s 2889) does not refer to the whole physical planet and everything in it. The Greeks would never have understood “kosmos” as referring to the world and everything it in.
Its correct connotation is better understood as how it has been arranged and adorned, or ordered, that is to say our social structures, etc. Implicit in that idea would be those arrangements and orders created by God’s people, i.e. Adamkind and the Israelites.
…And I’d prefer not to get into the Flood issue beyond what I’ve stated–it’s far afield from the thesis of the original article, and I don’t want to divert the comments down that path for now.
Russ…… I for one appreciate your above explanation. I think you are sincere. I have struggled with this issue for months. You can make a reasonable argument…..and CFT and others can make their reasonable argument.
For me……………….I’m just going with Observational Reality.
Until someone can logically explain to me how we can get 4 Primary Races out of ONE homogeneous couple, I can’t help but to believe that the Scriptures are for ONE Race of peoples — Adamites. And of course I believe that Race to be White Caucasian European peoples.
So……………can you answer my hypothetical question from below?
If hypothetically Iceland were to remain homogeneously White for the next 10,000 years — would we see Yellow and Black man emerge from the loins of homogeneously White couples???
In other words…………….will Yellow man and White man eventually emerge from the loins of blacks in the darkest parts of Africa???
It is a simple question. Not complicated. If you believe it is possible………then just say so.
No worries. No shame in that. Be proud of your belief.
And………………….being called a Universalist is not necessarily derogatory. It’s what you believe.
For me personally……………….I will be the last person to walk into an all black church and yell at the congregants that they have no business worshiping “jesus”.
Although that being said…………….I feel one of the biggest mistakes the White man made was trying to bring the Gospel to the non-white races.
I can’t say for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole idea of “missionary work” has always been economic and political. Sure….there were a few true believers. But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Jew was behind most of it.
The one thing that we can be in agreement on; is the nature of the Jew. The more Christians exposing the Synagogue of Satan the better.
I will let God sort out the rest.
Cheers.
There is a great explanation by a professional on youtube. I believe he does an exemplary work. Can The bible Explain the Origin of The Races? Thomas Kindel. Pleased to hear any objections as I think this is the best explanation to date. Thanks
Yes…………the bible can explain the origin of the races — PRE-Adamites. Period. End of Story.
Btw………..in regards to the flood…………..you can’t explain Australia with a global flood. Clearly, the flood was local.
This is where I have to kindly state that you and I do not share the same Spirit.
The Holy Spirit (given time) will not be contradictory.
Keep praying….keep studying……………is all I can recommend.
Is this a Salvation Issue??? Not sure. But I wouldn’t want to simply “chance it”.
Something is holding you back.
I often run into people who are “stuck” and realize they have been in Sin the whole time and didn’t even know it.
As we know — “God does not hear sinners” — John 9:31
Peace to you.
Westwin, cautiously I tread here. Witcomb and Morris wrote a decisive and compelling book on the global flood. The argument that the kangaroo is found only in Australia therefore is proof their was no global flood is not necessarily conclusive. They reveal what is below the oceans and that is a land mass that once stretched out from the India and now remains as a shallow subsurface aquarian anomaly. They further proposed that the Australia’s uniqueness of animals can be attributed to their being an open land gate way that subsided over time. I was greatly impressed by their work and wish to state that the phenomenon of the rainbow is universally seen. So climatic changes that occurred during the time of the flood could well have led to this global sign given by God seen in the whole world and not just one region. The Spirit that is in me is truth. To blaspheme the Spirit is what the Jesus said is the unforgivable sin. If I am wrong I shall repent I am of that spirit. The video I asked you to view shows that dormant genes are not switched on but the switches our parents bequeth to us only turn on those genes relevant to their progeny. Ie a black melanin skin type resides in our genome. Only the switches are not turned on.
Thus we take the image of our earthly parents. Yet the dormant genes remain by God design.
Please know that I am over awed that men have started to look again at these great truths. Who can know all the answers unless we share together.
Russ………….
Curious as to whether you think this issue is a Salvation issue.
You can contact me in private — westwins at protonmail
Or………..make contact with me at my blog above.
Cheers.
I have thought that was the truth on this matter for many years as a Christian; but, recently, I have been prompted to ask myself: if God “doesn’t hear sinners’ prayers”; then, pray tell, HOW did you get saved in the first place!? Weren’t we sinners when we cried to God to hear us and save us from perdition?
I watched “Can The Bible Explain the Origin of The Races?” by Thomas Kindell, and he makes a crucial error in the very first minute, quoting Acts 17:26-28, that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”
This verse applies only to Adamkind, and no other peoples. All Genesis 10 nations came from “one blood”. That’s what this verse means. All Adamkind wherever they dwell on the earth.
The name Adam (Strongs #119), from the Hebrew words “aw” and “dam” as a verb means “to show blood in the face”, “to flush or turn rosy”, and that can refer only to White people. Adamkind is clearly White, and the non-White peoples cannot have come from Adam–they must have been created separately.
Think about it this way. Daniel 4:1 reads,“Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.”
When it says “all people and nations,” does that mean Asians and Africans, too? Of course not. That’s absurd. The same is true with Acts 17.
Since the foundation for Kindell’s thesis is false, everything that follows is false, regardless of how seemingly consistent or logical.
Well said!
Not at all if you have ever been around Muslims many times I have viewed Arab men with a rosy face. Bright like a summer red English apple.
What is the connection between Adam and Adamah?
One is masculine and the other feminine. Man was formed from the dust of the ground. So what colour is the ground? Some soils are red others black and loamy.
The question remains why are these two words carrying the same consonants? Is their a connection?
The Spirit of God hovered over the waters of the deep. So first He exposes the land then he creates man. If this was a global creation where did the other people you propose come from. Remember no Sun or moon. We must pay careful attention.
Robert Milligan -Grand scheme of redemption stated Adam. A – is a prefixed preposition meaning until
Dam- means blood
Adam suggests until blood. In anticipation of one blood of Christ.
Russ, “your” interpretation of the meaning of Adam’s name is literally direct from the Rabbis, who claim the very same thing. Why? Because they know they don’t match the real meaning of Adam, so they pretend the name describes the “red earth”. You’ve been fooled. Jews don’t want you to know Adam’s real identity. See:
https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48956911.html
As far as an Arab who can blush, this is called the “exception to the rule”, which proves the rule. An Arab with a lot of White admixture may appear to blush, but most Arabs do not blush, no Blacks do, and Asians don’t. Every White person can blush unless they are tanned or mixed. Adam.
And, of course, you ignored the passage from Daniel that proves your interpretation of Acts 17 “nations” is wrong. As you always do, ignore what you cannot answer or what answers your objections.
Hendrick Lamb Daniel 4 is clearly the King of Babylon speaking to all his kingdom. Obviously it is limited to the empires domain and is thus limited as to that kingdom. Too make that the argument is not decisive. Now as to your later comment that I follow the Rabbis. No I do not concur the Hebrew is clear Adam came from the earth and just as your mother is feminine so the earth is feminine indicating God formed him (Adam) out of that Adamah (ground). Its a Hebrew linguistic fact that Rabbis may or may not agree with to some degree. i thought it most relevant as it is never mentioned. Thank you for the response I hope we can continue with this civility and attentiveness in all matters.
It isnt just a “Rosy face” that identifies Europeans as the lost tribes of Israel….
Only whites Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and kindred people have fulfilled all promises and prophecies regarding the 10 Lost tribes of Israel.
1) Israel was to become a great nation and a company of great nations.(Genesis 12:2; 18:18, 17:4; 35:11; 48:19)
2) Israel to keep the gates and ports of enemies ( Genesis 22:17,Joshua 21:43-45:)
3) Israel were to be seafarers, explorers, and colonizers (Genesis 28:14; 49:13; Numbers 24:7; Deuteronomy 33:19; Judges 5:17; Psalms 2:8; 89:25)
4)Israel were to be a blessing to all families (nations) of the earth (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 28:14; Isaiah 27:6)
5) Israel were to amass wealth and success as Farmers (Genesis 27:28; Deuteronomy 28:11; Deuteronomy 33:13, 14, 28)Boer, the word for whites in Africa, literally means farmer. And the starving masses in the African nations dispels them as farmers… Jews have been known only as bankers and merchants in history.
6) Israel was to be God’s witness and carry the word of God to all the world (Isaiah 43:10-12, 21; 59:21; Matthew 28:19-20)
7) Israel was to be God’s (“battle-axe” and an undefeatable military power (Numbers 24:8; Jeremiah 51:20-23; Isaiah 54:15-17; Micah 5:8-9)*Also note, the Battle axe was a weapon favored most by white people like the Nordic and Celtic peoples…*
8) Israel to be the first among the nations. (Gen. 27:29; 28:13; Jer. 31:7.)
9) Israel’s new home country to be north-west of the country they were driven from (Europe is NW from Israel) Isa. 49:12; Jer. 3:18.)
11) Israel was to be blind to its identity and be called by a new name and not known as Israel (Isaiah 62:2; 65:15; Hosea 1:9-10; Romans 11:25). God stated he would put his name on Israel (Numbers 6:27) And through the Messiah would be known as “Christians”(Acts 11:26). For nearly 2000 years, all, and ONLY white nations were known as Christendom, and whites were the only Christians. Its only through the false Zionist controlled Judea Christian churches that this has changed.
Do jews know who THEY really are then ? Yes, most of them…
“EDOM IS MODERN JEWRY.” The Jewish Ency. 1925 Ed., Vol. 5, Pg. 41.
The Serpent in the last days ONLY targets Gods bride (Israel) using the other races in world wide weaponized mass migration.
Revelation 12:15
And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
Thats not a random “Interpretation” either…. Its later clarified that, indeed, the “waters” intended to destroy the bride are mass weaponized immigration, something the Jews have often and loudly BRAGGED would “End whiteness”
Revelation 17:15
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
CHRIST HIMSELF Said “I am NOT SENT but ONLY to the loss sheep of the house of Israel.
This is the Adamic race. And in following the ancestors of Adam, whenever one would “mix with the nations” they would be “cut off” such as Ishmael, or Esau. Although some (Like Japheth) would still dwell in the tents of Israel and be friendly with them, most werent.
As for pre-Adamic man, we dont KNOW thier story. The bible was a story of the generations of Adam. It only covered this one race and whom they had interactions with. Perhaps they had more to thier story that has been lost to time, or maybe they didnt think it important to keep tabs on thier dealings with God. Who knows….But it would be heresay for ANY of us to give thoughts and theories on THAT past “Who knows”.
Mainstream churches are promoted by the beast system….”Few there be that find the way”. PROBABLY because most people want to be “inclusive” because they have been brainwashed against being “racist” to the point that they dont CARE what God says IF it doesnt stay within political correct dogma. The bible is about Gods word and his will, NOT what men want to hear.
With the false Lukewarm church, its a popularity contest. But those tactics, of asking the same question 100 different ways seeking a suitable answer, will not work with any who follow the word without compromise. No one who has found the truth seeks favor from any but God. And what he says goes. Anyone who doesnt like it needs to find another way to cope with it then our approval…..
Russ,
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
Thanks a lot to those responsible for this website for this very important post which clears up a lot of confusion about the identity of modern-day Jews. This is a very important question which has been plaguing many people for years, including me. Of course, I’m greatly understating the case. This is probably the most important question of the last one hundred to two hundred years and probably much longer.
I’m grateful for the work you’re doing via this website to resolve destructive uncertainties such as this one.
I looked up the word “Jews” in my 1990 copy of Strong’s Concordance and found that, just like this post indicates, the word for “Jews” in the Old Testament is consistently a Hebrew word that means “Judaite” – a member or descendant of the tribe of Judah. The word for “Jews” in the New Testament is consistently a Greek word that means “Judean” – somebody who lives in Judea.
One has to wonder whether all of these words were deliberately mistranslated as “Jews”, throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible, with the objective of concealing the real identity of modern day Jews as Edomites – descendants of Esau.
It appears that the word “Jew” should not even exist! It’s a fabrication, just like the false identity of modern-day Jews as descendants of the tribes of Israel.
I suspect that the cataclysm of unrest in the western world, formerly Christendom, that we have witnessed over the past twelve months and longer is a direct result of the fantastic work of people like you who run this website which reveals the actual identity of modern-day Jews as Edomites. The Edomites are seeking to distract attention away from what you have conclusively discovered.
You have dealt with this issue in very short order and you have won the admiration of many people such as me. The problem of Jewish domination of the United States of America and other western countries only started to gain wider recognition at the start of 2016. Before five years has even elapsed, you come out with the answer to the entire riddle.
It’s brilliant.
I’m sure that you’re aware that these “Jews” – these Edomites – control the majority of churches of Jesus Christ in the western world today. So it will be very interesting indeed to watch the fallout from your superlative discovery.
We are glad you appreciate our work and find it helpful, but it’s certainly not our discovery — this awakening to the true identity of Israel has been a slow ongoing process for people of White European descent that began over 200 years ago, and includes a long list of diligent Christian scholars, theologians, and historians, each offering their own unique talents to the subject.
We eschew all labels — many call it many things, but we call it Christianity, unqualified Christianity.
And Sheldon Emry, in our humble opinion, is one of the best at explaining this subject in the most simple terms that anyone can understand, and you can find many of his books and treatises in our Library Section. We will be posting more of his work in the near future.
There are many places in the New and old Testament where Jew is interchangeable with Israelite. Prove that “Jews” and “Israel” are never synonymous!. Let us look into the uses of these terms in both the Old Testament and New Testament and thus determine of a difference is in fact a true distinction….
Russ, we edited your length comment here because you were repeating yourself again. All of your objections have been answered, and yet you persist as if they haven’t. Put your cards on the table, Russ–do you believe that today’s Jews are the Jews of the Bible, both Old and Testaments? Explain why or why not. Are today’s “Jews” Hebrews? Are there people in the Bible who claimed to be “Jews” but were not? If so, who were they?
As I too have repeatedly stated when the true Judahites were in captivity they invented the Talmud to supersede Gods Laws. IOW they rejected the prophets and His Son the Christ in favour of Talmudic sages. They were the traditionalists who nullified God word. Yes John Hurcanus did convert the Edomites but is was not Edomites who made Talmud but Judahite Pharisees. Now in that short 70 yrs of captivity they had married outside the bounds of their Law. How much worse is it toady after 2000yrs of wanderings? For that one reason alone I do not believe their is a house of Judah according to the flesh. Yes their are a group known as Jews today claiming to be Judahites but they are not fulfilling covenant as it has long since passed. Their only hope is individual salvation and not a national conversion as with Moses at Sinai. I believe they s well as the Edomites who joined were cutoff utterly for not listening to Moses when he spoke of Christ.
I hope that is clear enough. See Acts 3:22 Essentially tell us they are schmucks cut off like a foreskin. Where the covenant was made in the removal of skin by cutting now they are the flesh cut off and removed from the people. They were once the true house but now cut off. All Israelites would get the gist of this cutting off. Now if they were not Judahites then they did not need to be cut off. Proving flesh and blood descent does not make you necessarily worthy.
Great question.
The Jews of today are not the original Judahites or “Israel” led by Moses out of Egypt 4500 years ago. My understanding is that there are two kinds of people calling themselves “Jews” today; the Ashke NAZIm and the Sephardic Jews. The former, if I am correct, are the vast majority and are almost totally or totally proselytes who appropriated Judaism about the year AD 700; originally, they are Khazars and mixed Mongols and Huns. While the majority of people calling themselves “Jews” today may not push for Zionism or support Israel (they are only nominally religious just like millions of Catholics), the Ashkenazim who populate the “elite” circles of all world governments, supranational and international corporations (eg Mark Zuckerberg; Sergei B’rin) certainly do push for Zionism. In fact, they are grossly evil, dedicated in many if not most cases to Luciferian Satanism and employ Talmudic observance ruthlessly; they are the “elites” who hold the reins of the Federal Reserve; Bank of England; all UN powers including the WHO and all media, education, health, pharmaceutical, other industry, military, and banking powers in every country. Unfortunately, this Synagogue of Satan has now become so powerful it literally controls the world and can implement any psyop, pandemic, war, or intrigue (as detailed in the Protocols) it wishes. Sadly, 99.99999% of the world, including the Christian (government-backed) “churches” appear to be utterly ignorant of it (and, hence, totally loathe to support anyone attempting to expose it). The current Covidian psyop, like 911, World Wars 1 and 2, and numerous other psyops, is a fine example of the machinations of the Satanists. The problem is, to overthrow them, fully punish them, and put them all in perpetual lockdown, is a difficult proposition considering that the Rothschild branch alone is estimated to control at least $500 Trillion in assets.
Good read
>” It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
>” I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.” Numbers 24:17
>” That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” John 3:6-7
What’s your point? Only the legitimate children of Jacob-Israel are “born of the spirit”. Those not born Israelites are “born of the flesh”.
Yes, Israelites must be “born again” into Christ, into their new identity as Christians. But the Greek here (“born again”), is born ἄνωθεν (“anothen” Strong’s #509), which also means “from above”, i.e. comes from heaven, i.e. “born from above”, not just “again” which is only one of its meanings.
So it has two connotations: you must be physically “born from above” with the spirit of Jacob-Israel, but you must also be born again into Christ, which is what Christ’s ministry was all about, the regathering of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.
The point is that being a fleshly “Israelite” means nothing. That’s why they were given the sign of circumcision – to show that their natural seed was to be cut off. God makes a new man. So salvation goes way beyond the physical descendants of Abraham to the entire human race through new birth in Christ Jesus:
” And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” Isaiah 49:6
Sorry, the use of “gentiles” in Isaiah 49:6 is not what it means in the New Testament. In Isaiah, given the context, it means “foreign nations”. And being a light to foreign nations, which is exactly what the White race has been through the ages, has nothing to do with including those nations in God’s eternal covenant with the Israelite people. In fact, every instance where “gentiles” is used in the OT makes no sense–it should be “nations”, the meaning of which is always dependent on the context.
The Bible doesn’t support his message so he goes to the old reliable crutch: the Bible translators made a mistake. The old “original Greek says” chestnut . Sheldon has never laid his eyes on the “original Greek” in his life, and neither has anyone else in probably 1900 years.
Would you accept Justin Martyr as a witness? He obviously read the original Greek–less than 100 years after the death of Christ. And he agreed with Sheldon Emry:
“Christ is our King, and Christianity is our race which you knew once as Israel”
—Justin Martyr, 100-160 AD, from “Paragraphs of Trypho” chapter 135
Roman Historian Flavius Josephus (37-100AD) in his history “Antiquities of the Jews” 13:9:1, also agrees with Sheldon Emry that many of the “Jews” in Judea in the First Century were in fact racial Edomites who had converted to Judaism as a condition of citizenship. Quote:
“The Jews,” says he, are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumeans [Edomites] were not Jews from the beginning, but Phoenicians and Syrians; but being afterward subdued by the Jews, and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were [also] called Jews.”
Chesterton this says exactly the opposite of what you are implying. It says the Edomites were not the Jews from the beginning. Is that a correct reading or not?. So if they were not the Jews and were Edomites, who then were the Jews in Josehus’s mind? Clearly not Edomites. yes!
Its great you reference Josephus as it destroys the idea that the Jews were Edomites. Jews were not Edomites in the beggining. Jews were not Edomites or Josephus is a twit. You choose. God bless us in this program of standing firm.
Wrong, Russ, you are twisting the words of Josephus to suit your false doctrine that the Jews who rejected Christ were true Israelites.
Here are the exact words of Josephus about the conversion of the Edomites to Judaism in his “Antiquities of the Jews” Book XIII, Chapter 9:
“Hyrcanus took also 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 Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”
https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-13.htm
At this point, I do not expect you to ever admit that you stand corrected.
Chesteron, lets make this real simple does Josephus call the Edomites, Jews, in the beginning? No! is the answer.So does he call the Judahite Jews? Yes is the answer. Jews are thus Judahites in the beggining according to Josephus. It boggles the mind I know but you seem to miss this obvious point. Josephus uses Jew for Judahite. So why in Gods name do you quote him when you reject the mans historical proof Jew = Judahite in the beginning?
Russ, use some common sense here. Josephus didn’t write in English. The word “Jew” did not exist in the time of Josephus. In his text what is mistranslated as “Jew” is “Ioudaios” or Judean. And that’s the same Greek word that is mistranslated in the New Testament as “Jew”. Get it?
Karl gets it. Anybody who pretends they are smarter than the King James translators is somebody who is trying to force a private interpretation. Go back and revise your theories to match what the scriptures actually say.
>Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
>Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Universalist judeo-Christians like “Norwale” love to quote these verses–and so does Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones, as if they are some kind of refutation of that exclusive covenant only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31).
The point here is that claiming to be “children of Abraham” does NOT make you children of the promise, children of Jacob. The Ishmaelites, Edomites and Canaanites can all claim to be “children of Abraham”, but they are NOT from Jacob. That’s why they are being compared to rocks–without the spirit of Jacob-Israel.
Yes, God can do anything–but what He won’t do is break His promises or contradict Himself. He promised that His new covenant would be with the Israelites, not anyone else (Jeremiah 31:31). There is no way around that.
And Daniel is a second witness to that, ““And the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” (Daniel 2:44B). The “kingdom” here, of course, is the Israelite people, not just a physical kingdom. But dispensationalists want to give Israel’s kingdom to everyone, on the sole contingency that they “believe in Jesus”. That is preposterous, and makes God and Daniel liars, which is impossible.
In Deuteronomy 29-30 God makes a 2nd covenant with Israel in Moab, besides the 1st covenant of the Law he made in Horeb. Under this 2nd covenant God applies a curse to them (ch 29) and then allows them deliverance by the new birth (ch 30). The Jews returned from Babylon – per ch 30’s promise – but they largely rejected Christ. The other 10 tribes of Israel completely assimilated into the world. Their call and new birth remains a promise to them – which promise is fulfilled in Christianity – not by saving remote physical descendants of the assimilated Israel only, but also by saving with them all people of every nation who trust in Christ. This is what Jeremiah 31:31 and Acts 2:39 and Hebrews is talking about. Therefore there is a transference of status of “Israel” from the lost 10 tribes to those nations of the entire world wherein they assimilated – in particular Japheth’s race of Europeans who largely all became Christians. But that’s not all. Peter said, ” And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Acts 10:28, because the angel had said, ” And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” Acts 10:15.
This is the Jewy-est comment you’ve made so far, Norwale. The fact that you claim Europeans are of Japheth is a clear tip off. Jews say Europeans are of Japheth so they never come to realize who they really are–Israelites from Shem. This allows Jews to continue the charade that they are Judah. Yes, rabbis say this exact same thing.
Your interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31 is patently absurd and incoherent–it has nothing to do with a covenant with non-Israelites or some obscure “second” covenant from Deuteronomy. You sound like some pedantic rabbi whose been reading the Talmud too long. This “transference” you mention is nowhere in the Old Testament or New–just in your mind.
>exclusive covenant only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31).
The passage actually says, ” Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:” Jeremiah 31:31.
This is an error according to your theory since it mentions two houses, one of Israel and other one one of Judah.
Care to explain?
Both are Israelites. It’s not two new separate covenants; it’s one new covenant with Judah and the other tribes of Israel. Simple.
>”Jews say Europeans are of Japheth so they never come to realize who they really are–Israelites from Shem. ”
OK. Meanwhile, you are tying to prove you are a full-blooded Israeli in order to get saved. Sounds like you are a Jew or else ashamed of being White (Japheth). I’m not.
And it said two houses, not one: a house of Judah and a house of Israel. You said they are both Israel which would be one house. This proves you just impose onto the scriptures an external ideology.
I won’t bother to say more since you are now resorting to insults and invective and basically losing your temper.
Every single one of your points has been answered and yet you concede nothing and just move on to another point, hoping something will stick. All universalists use this same tactic–they have their go-to verses to prove univeresalism, and when they are proven wrong, they NEVER admit they are wrong about anything. It’s tedious because their Jewish indoctrination is so complete that it is indeed like talking to a rabbi.
There is evidence that there were White Japhethites in Europe starting around 3,000 BC, but they were supplanted and absorbed into the much larger and later migrations of Israelites. It is highly doubtful there are any pure Japhethites in Europe today.
And, no, no one here is trying to prove they are “Israeli”, as you suggest. Israelis are Khazar Edomites, but you probably think they are real Israelites, which explains why you are so confused–that’s what all denominational churches teach today.
The whole point of Christ was to regather all of Israel into one sheep fold, one House. You can’t see the forest for the trees.
Chesterton so are you saying the Judeans put Jesus to death? You use some common sense, If Edomites were not Judeans before Hercanus- who were the Judeans? Those that rejected the prophets and his son those of whom you say are not Jew but Judean. So Judean were the ones Isaiah spoke of: He came to His own and his own …. His own is thus not Edomite but Judean Judahite, yes? Insults do not make a compelling argument. Be clear.
Your “logic” fails you, Russ. Yes, “Judeans” put Christ to death–that’s what the Greek NT tells us. That included Judahites, other Israelites, and Edomites — and anyone else with citizenship. Obviously there were Judeans before the Edomites flooded into Judea and were given citizenship by Hyrcaneus. You’re playing word games, Russ. It’s not either or. Mixed populations create confusion–citizenship verses ethnicity. Not everyone in Israel was of Israel. Some Israelites called for the death of Christ, but most did not. You are intentionally trying not to understand this simple concept.
Mainstream Bible scholars have identified upwards of 10,000 translation errors in the King James Version. To somehow suggest that a legitimate critique of dispensational Christianity is dependent on quibbling about translation errors is absurd. It’s not based on translation errors but rather on errors of interpretation.
Here are just a few of the translation errors in the KJV, NONE of which Sheldon Emry relied upon to make his case:
http://www.considerthis.net/Files/Textfile/kjv-errors.htm
>(((Mainstream Bible scholars))) …
OK.
That makes a lot of sense. If you find that the King James translators made an error, you must be a Jew. There is no point in arguing with anyone who uses this kind of logic.
I came across this:
http://esau.today/100-reasons-israelites-are-white/
You are so scared of the truth that you should now be called ChristiansforCensorship.com/. Really you are pathetic in your deliberate destruction of these unsuspecting. Try to see if your bull will withstand criticism then maybe you will learn something.
Russ………………
I read your comment. Unsure of “what” you are objecting to. You write of CFT — “….you are so scared of the truth….”
What “Truth” are you speaking of?
Russ is being rather disingenuous here–as he well knows, we have approved hundreds of his comments on CFT. To suggest we “censor” him is preposterous. The only comments we haven’t approved are ones where he merely repeats the same point, or others where he intentionally ignores evidence that contradicts his traditional judeo-Christian universalistic approach to the Bible.
For example, commenters have provided answers to his objections to this article here, but he will not concede that any of those points sufficiently answer his objections. Ever. He is the very definition of “stiff necked” (Psalm 32:8).
And it is rather remarkable that he’s so critical of our perspective on Christianity, and yet he still enjoys the website, visits here regularly, and contributes many valuable insights on other subjects. Clearly, he sees no problem as a Christian expressing ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ opinions–that apparently Jesus would approve of — but he blows a gasket if anyone suggests that Christ did not count those same Blacks and Jews among His sheep.
+10
I had a feeling this is what he is “trying” to counter. Hey Russ…………………please, give me a logical explanation for the existence of the 4 Primary Races.
If Noah and his wife were of the same race — let’s say he was White — How do we get Asian man and the black man from the loins of ONE homogeneous couple???
For years I was FORCED to believe this. Now I finally have the freedom to stand against it.
But I would enjoy hearing your explanation.
Westwins thanks for this question. How can many variant people come from one father?. Lets the word of God settle the matter . Acts 17:26
26From one man He made every nation of men, to inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. 27God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.…
It is written: Can an Ethiopian change his colour. IOW Black
Yet Gods prophets warned Ethiopia of His judgments.
Notice Acts 17 says these nations (ethnos) came from one man.
Ethnos is nation because it says clearly they dwelt in boundaries set by God.
Notice too the nations could seek Him out. Did that then include black Ethiopia?
If Black Ethiopia were not His sheep then why could they hear and obey. After all My sheep hear my voice! And yet these hear the words of Christ and believe. They must by your reasoning be the lost sheep. Like Ba Ba Black sheep of the flock of Jesus the Christ King of Kings. King and Saviour of the whole world.
Now your question is demonstrated in the animal kingdom.
By example all dogs come from the wolf and yet all are still dogs but different “species” yet same kind.
If God said it that settles the matter.
A “nation” is NOT merely a geographical boundary in the Bible; an “ethnos” is where we get “ethnicity” and “race” from. The English word “nation” comes from the latin “nationem” which means a race of people or tribe, which is what “ethnos” means in Greek.
The Genesis 10 nations were all the same race of people who descended from Adam, all the same Adamic Tribe. No other races are part of those original nations. Any other people outside those nations were not Adamic. How do we know this? God tells us, “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 32:8)
When Paul refers to “Man”, he is always referring to sons of Adam, and the “world” is the physical space that Adamic man inhabits, his “nations”, his tribes. The English word “world” comes from the Germanic words “wer” and “ald”, meaning “Age of Man”, i.e., the recorded history since Adam.
There were two Ethiopias in the ancient Middle/Near East, according to the Greeks, one in Mesopotamia and they other near Egypt, places that the Hebrews called “Cush”, identifying them with one of the sons of Noah. So the original people who made up “Cush” must have been same race as Adam. and Noah.
How do we know the original Ethiopians were White? The ancient Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus (and Homer) mention describe them as highly cultured, related to the Egyptians, and they never would have said that about Blacks whom they considered “tail-less apes”. Read Diodorus here:
https://www.houseofdread.com/ethiopians.html
The Ethiopia we know of today was originally White, populated by descendants of Adam. How do we know this? God said, “For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.” (Isaiah 43:3). By 800 BC, Black Nubian Africans had begun taking over, as Diodorus confirmed.
As far as the Ethiopian Eunuch that Philip encountered, who was on his way to the Temple in Jerusalem–that fact alone suggests he must have been White because non-Judeans were NOT allowed in the Temple, and foreigners risked death for attempting to enter. The idea that the high priests would have allowed a Nubian Black to profane the Temple is utterly ridiculous.
Acts 17:26 says all nations ethnos came from one. It is nations as it says God established their boundaries.
Ethiopia – Job said can and Ethiopian change his colour (black).
Job is a very ancient book perhaps the oldest.
Now look Acts 17:27 says the nations can seek the Lord.
The bible settles this matter in two verses.
From one wolf came all the varieties of dogs. Yet they are still dogs. Recessive genes are a fact and we have seen a white couple bear a black and whites twin sibling variation.
As to the censorship thing perhaps I was too hasty. You are right in that I am allowed to post here. Sometimes I feel I am deleted or something else is going on. My apologies I am sure will be accepted.
My comments above about nations and Ethiopia answer all of these points.
Russ………..
Hypothetically, if Iceland remains homogeneously White for the next 10,000 years, are you to tell me that Yellow and Black man will eventually emerge through “recessive genes”???
Is this what you believe?
Or are you going with the Tower of Babel theory i.e., God turned a homogeneous race into ‘many’ races?
Micro Evolution — or a Miracle of God. Which one?
Westwin, this is total assumption exegesis. I suffer too. From one man came one family. Were those daughter Noah’s own or tribal brides. We do not know that so it is an assumption. When whites got to south Africa they called the Zulu’s a nation.
To call the beastdom is not historical. ey I tried your proton account but am waiting.
Thanks for being so moderate and caring of my unique position. I repect this site even if I do not always agree.
Creation of universal Adam.
“Universal Adam”, the pagan god of a thousand faces and ethnicities–the pagan god of universalism. Universalism is pagan. Universalism is jewish. Same thing. You think exactly how your rabbinical masters want you to think–that’s how they think.
Matthew 10:6 Mini Commission, discples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not to Samaritans or Gentiles. Yet they went only to Galilee and Judea regions. This means the lost sheep were in the old boundaries of Israel. Otherwise they could not fulfill the command. Later after his death burial and resurrection he says go ye therefore unto all nations.
Notice Jesus goes to the Samaritans they believe and call Him saviour of the world. John 4:42.
Also what does it mean God is not a respecter of persons when the gentiles were converted.
The real nail in the coffin for this theory comes from Romans 9:8
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Yet on and on this goes till we surrender to the truth.
1 Chronicles 9:1-3 Families recorded after the captivity sons of Judah and Benjamin Manasseh and Ephraim.
It even says all Israel in v1 so we may conclude only a remnant were returned.
2 Chronicles 30:1,9,11,18 Hezekiah wrote a letter to all Israelites in the diaspora including Ephraim and Manasseh and said Judah. God appointed this land Judah. Come again to this land. Jeremiah 7:7 the land of your fathers.
Does that sound like Great Britain or America. No their was to be one house no more two with Judah and Israel sticks joined at one house. Lost sheep were therefore in the land of their fathers otherwise the command was disobeyed.
God bless you in you quest and search for wisdom and truth. Please do not shoot the messenger as the truth sets you free remember!
Matthew 10:6 is one of the most confusing verses of the New Testament for all Christians alike because it seems to contradict itself by making a distinction between the Samaritans and the “Gentiles” or in Greek “ethnos”.
The Samaritans were indeed Israelites descendant from the Northern tribes of the Assyrian captivity, the uncirumcision, heathens who had fallen into idolatry. So here they are given as a specific example of “ethnos” to steer clear of at this point — Paul would take the gospel to them later.
At this point in His ministry, Christ tells His disciples to first take His message to “the Jews”, the Israelite Judeans, and only later, after His crucifixion were they, like Paul, to take it to the “nations”, the uncircumcised.
The Samaritans were not of the circumcision obviously–and the Israelites in Judea saw them as “unclean”, and according to Roman historian Flavius Josephus, there was longstanding animosity between these Judeans and the Samaritans.
There is also a probablility that there were Judeans living in Samaria, and these Samritans who came to hear Christ as He passed through, were apostate Judeans, but that’s only a guess.
But we see the same issue arise in Acts 10, as Peter explains the extension of the blessings to the “nations” after the crucifixion.
Verse right above says,
” Simon the Canaanite… These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 10:4-6.
Who was sent? Jesus’ CANAANITE disciple was sent … and there goes your entire theory out the window.
Wrong. You conflate geographical designation for racial identity. Simon was from Canaan but what not a Canaanite. Same thing with Ruth. Many claim she was a Moabite, but she was an Israelite living in the land of Moab.
This “geographical identity” theory would make all the disciples Canaanites, and even Mary and Joseph, and all the prophets, etc. Your theory proves too much.
“Ruth the Moabitess” one of the “women of Moab” told Naomi,
” And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people.” Ruth 1:10 and then we read, ” And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.” Ruth 1:15-17.
You are just ignoring the text. Please go back and revise your theory(ies) to match what the Bible actually says.
Wrong again. A number of the early codices of the New Testament call Simon a “Canaanean”, NOT a Canaanite, which means they clearly understood that he wasn’t a racial Canaanite. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Norwale.
Did you see that probability. Likely, supposedly, influential, maybees. Maybees is the best of this absurdity. Why? because Dan and all those lost tribes by reason of similar sounding namens does nothing for your cause. Notice Ham burg. Birming Ham, Notting Ham. Whow! Ham the blacks were in England and Germany. Sure is a magic trick of Masonry. See the pics above particularly the one of the Samaritan woman with her open breast. Just like the statue of liberty or is that of Isis she bears the breast. Just like Freemasons who bear the breast of the chest. Could it be the dividers of the house are at it again? Indeed nothing in the text from John implies she bared the breast but the Brotherhood of builders selected it here? Why as a hidden tell tale of their activities. notice their are many pics with the breast partially exposed. Brother many are called few are chosen. Wakie wakie the master has supplanted the oldr builders. the stone that the builders rejected is better than the divided house of Isis. is it not perfect in your eyes. Or do you want to continue your invisible temple building without fruit for the offering
Wow, what is this paranoid rant about Freemasons under every rock? Go through Europe sometime and visit the great cathedrals and you will see masonic symbols and iconography everywhere. Is that “proof” that Christianity is a masonic rite? You make me laugh.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Conspiracy
30 verses about conspiracy in the bible
David said what is this conspiracy?
did he say: Oh No! not another theory or did he study for himself.
Take the Boston tea Party that started the War. Its common knowledge they were Masons dressed up as Indian’s exiting the Green Dragon which was also used as a lodge.
Trotsky said when he exited the Soviet Union without a passport he used only masonic signs.
Non dare call it a conspiracy! Take a look at liberty equality fraternity of the butchers of the French revolution and find the dirty lodge. I believe conspiracies exist just as the police arrest people on conspiring to commit murder. Just because I see them does not make a paranoid of an evidence based researcher. Yes they did leave their mark on the cathedrals like hyenas marking territory, What of it?
Russ, your ignorance of the English language will hinder you from ever really understanding history. So many place names in English have “ham” in them because it comes from the Old German word meaning “homestead”. Nothing to do with “Ham” from the Bible.
English place names also often have “Ing” in them, not because they are Chinese, but because it means “tribe”. So the city Birm-ing-ham literally means “the homestead where the tribe of Beorma lives”.
Celtic I take your point. Thank you!. The difficulty is that you return to German and not to Aramaic nor the Hebrew. After all what does Brit ish mean in German. In Hebrew it is Birit- Covenant/ ish – Man. So refrence cities with the name of Dan. What does Dan mean in German is a red herring. To be consistent we must return to the original people and language evidence proposes. I thought the aforementioned languages were the languages presented for the proposition. If whites are Israelites we are therefore looking for Hebrew evidences in names not German ones. The fact that you try to correct me means you see the problem in that you identify it with German and not Hebrew. I am still curious and thankful.
There is no clear cut distinction between English and German. As you must well know, early English was heavily influenced by German–just read some Old English from Chaucer or Beowolf. And English is replete with Hebraisms. I don’t like to provide links to the following website because it claims that the Jews are Judah, but it does have a decent essay showing the similarities between the languages, including Gaelic:
https://www.britam.org/english.html
https://www.britam.org/Gaelic.pdf
And Celtic:
https://archive.org/stream/affinitybetweenh00stra/affinitybetweenh00stra_djvu.txt
And there is no doubt whatsoever the the Welsh language is derived from Khumry, aka the Cimmerians/Scythians:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150313230612/http://dailywales.net/2015/01/29/are-the-welsh-the-lost-ten-tribes-of-israel/
Romans 9:8 ““That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
This verse is clearly a reference to the seed of Abraham, and we know that not ALL the seed of Abraham received the promise. Only the seed through Issac and Jacob-Israel counted as the “children of the promise.” The seed through Ishmael and Esau’s wives, are “not the children of God.”
Read what the chapter says:
” Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.” Romans 9:24-26
Like all universalists, you predictably cherry pick your verses and take them out of their original context. The original context of Romans 9 is Paul addressing his “kinsman according to the flesh” (9:3), that is racial Israelites “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.” (9:5).
Then Paul makes the distinction between people, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (9:6), because not all the seed of Abraham are children of the promise, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Christ loves the children of Jacob and hates the seed of Esau, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (9:13)
And then he goes on to quote Hosea, which you quote out of that context, and it cannot be taken out of the original context. Hosea is talking about Israelites only but “who are not my people”, that is, who have fallen away from God into sin, ultimately into captivity, dispersed Israel or “the nations” or what the NT calls “gentiles”. Divorced Israel — Judah and the Ten Northern Tribes — will become His people once again through a remarriage with Christ. It’s really quite simple.
It is a reference but more importantly an example of the division between Jew (Israelite ) and Christian Gentile. If you refuse you are refuse soon to be disposed in trash. Gehennah for the one who denies that jcob Israel defeats Man and God overcoming…
What does this gibberish mean, ” If you refuse you are refuse soon to be disposed in trash”?
Or this, ” Gehennah for the one who denies that jcob Israel defeats Man and God overcoming…”
Strange.
Sure, if you are under the OT you would make such and argument but notice Paul also says to them belong the covenants and the promises. He could not have said so if Gentiles were lost Israel, now could he? You all say that Israelites belonged to the covenants and promises. So they are not the gentiles, yes! They were cut off and you grafted on. Meaning is that they are not the same people otherwise they would not have been cut off. Paul is quite clearly nullifying expected Jewish arguments as in their non consent of Gentiles entering into the assembly of the saved that not being a building of stone and mortar but of the Spirit. The wild olive is not the natural. Meaning the fleshly Israelites who were natural heirs many who rejected Jesus. Paul is simply stating that as Esau and Edom was rejected as sons of Israel so now God has made a choice to include the wild olive grafted on to the natural who obeyed the Son. Gods choosing not the will of the flesh. Romans 9:7 nails the argument of seed of Abraham are not necessarily children. Now this event is used to avert opposition to the New Covenant and its inclusiveness.
This is foolish. The Ten Tribed northern Israelites were “cut off” as in “divorced”, but even in divorce, scattered, and dispersed, God promised he would never leave them, and the prophets said they would be regathered under the messiah. God made an irrevocable covenant with the Israelites, regardless of whether or not they got “cut off” or “divorced” — as to the conditional covenants (“If you do this, then I will….”).
No, the wild olive is scattered Israel, not racial aliens. Your judaized reading of scripture does violence to it–nuliifying the promises and the prophets to suit your universalism–and a God that failed.
Genesis 35:11, the Abrahamic covenants, were fulfilled by Great Britain and the United States.
It’s amazing how the British/Anglo haters, all of whom seem to be from Magog aligned ethnic groups, can’t seem to handle to handle the truth. Whether the Cushite Indians, Edomite/Canaanite “Jews”, Tubal’s Hispanic mutts, Phut Moors, etc. Pretty amazing how salty they are over this.
Acts 10:34 “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:”
Judeo-Christians love to cite this verse to “prove” God does not care about the race of people, but that’s not what this verse means. The Greek word here for “respecter” (προσωπολήπτης) is also used by James 2: 1-6, “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons…” and here he clearly shows that it means a respecter of the social status of people, specifically admonishing to not respect anyone simply because they are wealthy while ignoring the poor.
This Greek word for ‘respecter’ has nothing to do with race. Remember in Judea, there was a higher social status conferred on Roman citizens, such as Paul–Christians are being told to ignore such partialities.
John 4:42 “So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.”
Christ did not go to the Samaritans here, as you allege, but rather they came to Him as He was journeying through Samaria on His way to Cana in Galilee. Recall Christ said, “My sheep hear my voice,” proving that at least some of the Samaritans were His sheep, i.e., lost Israelites. The Samaritan woman at the well claims she is a daughter of Jacob-Israel (John 4:12), and Christ does not correct her. Proof that this “gentile” woman is an Israelite.
Hardly true!. If Samaritans were Israelites, then Good Samaritan looking after a Jew would have been a worthless waste of time as a parable. Sure. Your vain glorious attempts at tripping up the Rock instead of accepting that Rock are seen as a deliberate rejection. No matter! it is marvelous in our eyes!. A Samaritan are you for real the deception is clear for any with eyes. As you say: Only his sheep could hear and they were white Israelites. So -How is it my brother is a CI or Anglo Israelite deceived. I am just a Christian. Following therfore – if your hypotheseis is correct why pray tell is he a pure blood Israelite a Sheep who hears CI doctrine and I not. After all, do we not have the sameMother and Father and heredity? Indeed we do. Your thesis is not practical and lacks demonstrable exposure to the reality of our world and familiar relations. . Two Israelites: one hears and the other cannot. IoW My sheep fleshly do not hear my voice. Otherwise both he my brother and I would concur. However like you he quotes cowans of the lowest order of Gods creation. Set Him free we do not see nor hear nor understand the shepherds voice as one race. Your thesis is now just a hypothesis and a laughing joke as it nearer comes to my family. Great to know you are serious about this deception. My sheep are any, whosoever, Gentile, Jew, Israelite who call upon His name says the bible. So no you just did not compute with logic.
The woman at the well states that Jacob was her father (John 4:12), meaning she is an Israelite. Christ does not correct her for making that claim the way he corrected the Pharisees for claiming they were children of Abraham (John 8:39). How much proof do you need that she is an Israelite?
As far as the parable of the Good Samaritan, you will fail to understand the meaning unless you understand the historical enmity between the Judeans and Samaritans. This Samaritan is “good” because he helped a Levitical Judean, someone of a much higher class than him, not from a different race. We know there were Israelites among the Samaritans because the woman at the well was one.
The parable conveys the important idea that Judean Israelites and lost Israelites, the uncircumcised from the dispersed ten Northern Tribes, are one people under Christ, and their class differences, “with respect of persons” or social status that James refers to (2:1), should not be a partition that separates them any longer. The sheep are now in one fold under Christ. That is the meaning of the parable.
And Jeremiah 7: 5-7 “For IF ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; IF ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; 6I IF ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: 7 THEN will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.
You left out the conditions for the return to the land. Did they fulfill those conditions? NO. Those tribes turned their back on God and He ultimately divorced them and cast them out into the nations, into captivity, never to return, as a people, to the land He gave their fathers.
Japheth is dwelling in the tents of Shem right now by calling themselves Hebrews when they are really Ashkenazi who was of Japheth. They originally dwelt in Ukraine before the Russians kicked them out and they migrated to Germany, Poland and other points North, until around WW1 and WW2 when they invaded Palestine which was just a bunch of unwalled villages at the time.
Ashkenazi Jews are NOT Japhethites any more than they are Semites. Real Japhethites and Semites were/are White, like their father Noah. Jews are NOT White and therefore cannot be true Japhethites. Just because some mixed race Canaanite/Edomite/Khazars claim to be Hebrews or from Ashkenaz does NOT make it so. How hard is this concept for you to understand?
Invasion of unwalled villages already happened in 1948 by the khazars, the ones with the 6 pointed star on their flag. they stole the land and now it is the most walled up place on Earth. Next comes the destruction of it
Today’s Jews are NOT Israelites, as this article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, and Ezekiel 38:11 does NOT have anything to do with them, nor does it have to do with the Palestinians or that disputed piece of forsaken land.
But, yes, the ersatz state of Israel will be destroyed by the hand of God, as Obadiah foretold the utter destruction of the Edomites when they tried to rebuild those “desolate places.”
Christians fail to realize that there were also many among the “Gentiles” who rejected Jesus. So why didn’t God punish the “Gentiles” for rejecting Jesus instead of rewarding them? They received blessings and salvation even though many among them “received Him not.” For example:
For example,
Luke 18:32…”For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on.”
Acts 14:2 “But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.”
Romans 2:24 “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.”
Matthew 20:19 “And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.”
Let’s take Jesus seriously. They are, like he said, sons of Satan.
Did Satan tweak an egg in Rebekah’s womb, much the same way
the God of Abraham did in Mary’s womb, when he formed Jesus?
Is that why our God hated Esau with a perfect hatred, from start to finish?
Why create something you so despise?
Is that why God is going to have all of Esau’s offspring slain (Obadiah 18)?
Is that why Esau was born like none other until then, with skin on him like a wolf?
Is that why he easily gave up his heritage, because it wasn’t really his?
That move made Esau Jacob’s half brother and no kin of Abraham.
So Jesus told us the truth and it was the Edomite Jews that lied. What a shock.
Then Esau’s Satanic DNA was passed onto future generations.
An all consuming code that takes control.
You CAN’T tell a Christian by looking at him, but you CAN tell a Jew that way.
Jews are programed to think and act alike, which gives them an upper edge.
A swarm coming after lonely you, for making a wrong move, saying a bad thing.
You’re a hater, an anti-Semite, a Nazi, a racist, a right winger and a supremacist.
They will rule over us (Genesis 27:40) until their messiah, the Beast, finishes his 42 month reign of terror.
The Beast is most likely alive this day and already calling the shots.
Next, war in the land of unwalled villages, where the people are at peace, were at peace anyway.
Uncle Japheth’s boy Gog (China?) and cousin Ishmael (ancient Persia) coming our way.
Not sure I understand how the Chinese could be Japhethites, considering Japheth was the son of Noah, and they were White. Prophecy was that Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem, and at no time in history has that happened where the Chinese lived with White people.
Thanks for the read.
Ham’s son Canaan was cursed by Noah to live in the tents of Shem and Japheth.
The book of Enoch, who Jesus said also prophesied, has an explanation of the 3 basic races in the parable of the bulls.
Ishmael is the Arabs, not Persians. Persians are related to the Medes.