A question to Christian Identity Adherents

[thirdeyewise]

When did the "White Israelites" get their identity stolen. I'm just looking for basic information without any intricate (confusing) details. Was it after Abraham, moses? Is there a simple timeline available that explains this case of identity theft. I'm not looking for some of the rambling I've seen before, keep it simple.

basically: at what point in biblical history were the White Israelites still themselves & at what point were they the Jews of today, IE:

Abraham: Israelites
Egypt exodus: Israelites
Revelation at Mt Sinai: Israelites
Babylonian exile: ?
killing of Jesus: Jews

Something along those line: simple

[GordZilla]

My take, though I'm not a Christian Identity follower, is that there are 12 tribes that came from the house of Israel, i.e. house of Jacob. Jacob's land was known as the land of Israel, meaning the land he owned, and nothing more. 'Israelis' and 'Jews' are 2 different things, I can't tell you where exactly the 12 tribes are scattered today, I do suspect the White race in general is made of these 12 tribes. Jews on the other hand came from Cainnites –from the seed of Cain, who became Pharisees and Scribes of the bible. It is these people who later invented the word 'Jew' and ascribed it to themselves, and only later related it to the house of Judah - finally claiming themselves to be 'Israelites'.  The word 'Jew' in the bible was nowhere to be found until MUCH more recent 'translations'. The word 'Jew' is supposedly derived from the word Judah, but again this was a latter fabrication.

That's my take on it anyways, from what I've read. I am by no means concrete on any of this but so far that seems to fit with what I have read.

[thirdeyewise]

Thanks for the reply. I understand you say you are not a follower but I was looking for more of a timeline, as described above.

[GordZilla]

Thanks for the reply. I understand you say you are not a follower but I was looking for more of a timeline, as described above.

I get that, but in my mind it would be better to find the time line where the 'Jews' decided (for themselves)  that they would now refer to themselves as the "Israelites'.

The two are not the same, that distinction must be made first. The time line you are looking for is when did the Israelites stop calling themselves that and instead referred to themselves by which region/nation they now founded and occupied. I.e. German, French, English Irish etc.  As they were no longer from the land of Israel but from the land of ; ________ (fill in whatever nation you wish). The Cainites, realizing the word 'Israelites' had been abandoned adopted it for themselves, and played it against the gentile to give claim to their belief of being the chosen people.  As they are from Cain, deceit is their game.
"What am I? My brother's keeper?"

I know, this doesn't really help with a time line, but the question needs to be altered, IMHO, to;
When did the Jews hijack the term' Israelite' and start using it to describe themselves?

[thirdeyewise]

I get that, but in my mind it would be better to find the time line where the 'Jews' decided (for themselves)  that they would now refer to themselves as the "Israelites'. When did the Jews hijack the term' Israelite' and start using it to describe themselves?

Not really, I know the Jews are liars and are for the most part converts, but the people claiming to be the real Israelites must have some idea when this occurred. If they don't, then maybe they need to drop that claim. White Christian identity adherents are making a claim that needs just as much verification as any other claim. Black Israelites and many other groups make the same claim; it seems everyone wants to be God's chosen people.

Oh, and please don't get on the issue about Blacks having no legitimate claim to the very thing Whites (CI) are proposing. I am dealing with one topic at a time. I already know most Blacks claiming that are probably Black supremacist; just like the Whites who are claiming it. It's very simply a supremacist ideology.

If someone is claiming something, they should be able to provide proof on the issue instead of saying they should show proof; No, you claim it, you show me.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I'm not a CI Adherent, so I don't know the origins of associating "white people" with "Israelites".

As far as the "Jews" distinction, the best resources were the Holy Bible and the historian Josephus, who described how those returning from the Babylonian exile found that the land had been taken over by the Edomites.  

I don't know if it was from this site or another, but I read a sermon by a Protestant minister who laid out the Biblical case and also cited Josephus.  (I don't agree with everything that minister said, but he made a strong argument concerning the Jews and Edomites.)  The Sermon was "THE CAIN / SATANIC SEED LINE" by Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet,A.B., J.D.

I took that and looked up the citations myself. Then I added the relevant Josephus citations to the original work.  Basically, I've just done a hack job on Comparet's work.  I will post that here:  

Jews Are Edomites
Go on to Genesis 6:4 where it is speaking of the same subject, again it is botched up in the King James Bible. "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men (enowsh) of renown."

This is what it says in the Hebrew. "There were nephilim (the fallen ones) in the earth in those days." They were fallen angels. That is what the bible calls them in so many places. Jude 1:6 records, "Angels who had not kept their first estate," who had fallen from heaven and from their former powers. "When the sons of God", and again it's the beni-ha-elohim, "came in unto the daughters of Adam..." so it's the same thing.

Isaiah 14:12-21 and note that these verses could not possibly apply to anyone except to Satan himself. We will quote from the King James Bible. "How art thou fallen from the heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations: for thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." Lucifer then said, "I'm going to be the ruler over Israel (Yahweh's people). I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High".

Matthew 13:38-39 Yahshua says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom (the Greek word used here in the plural is huios meaning sons, the good seed are the sons of the kingdom); but the tares are the children (huios) of the wicked one. Satan has just as true children in the world as does Yahweh.

Speaking to the Pharisees, who as you know were Jews, Yahshua said in Matthew 12:34 (the King James Bible botches this up to an extent that seems to me often to be willful), "O generation of vipers, how can ye being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh".

Matthew 23:29-35 it is recorded, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." Here again is the Greek word huios. "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye genema (ye offspring, children) of vipers. How can ye escape the damnation of hell? That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar."

Romans 9:26 reads (Paul is quoting from Hosea 1:10), "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it is said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God". It is the Greek word huioi, meaning sons. We are the born, not adopted, children of Yahweh. As to the born, not adopted or converted, children of the devil, read Acts 13:8-9. This tells about a Jew sorcerer Elymas, who opposed Paul when Paul was trying to make some, converts. "Then Saul (who was also called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him and said, O full of sublimity and mischief, thou son of the devil (the same Greek word huios, meaning son), thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

John 6:70-71 records, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Escariot, (the son) of Simon, for he it was that would betray Him, being one of the twelve". Our Savior was not just being vulgarly abusive by calling people names He never did that. He denounced these Pharisees, He called them hypocrites and they were. Yahshua wasn't abusing them with lying epithets, they were hypocrites and He was accurate.
[Joshua 15:21 And the cities from the uttermost parts of the children of Juda by the borders of Edom to the south, were Cabseel and Eder and Jagur, 22 And Cina and Dimona and Adada, 23 And Cades and Asor and Jethnam, 24 Ziph and Telem and Baloth, 25 New Asor and Carioth, Hesron, which is Asor.]

When Yahshua called these Jews children of serpents, they acknowledged the statement was true, for that was the emblem they had used from ancient times. When He said that one of them was a devil, He wasn't being abusive, He was speaking the literal truth.

The First Epistle of John again states the existence of these two seed lines. I John 2:29 tells us, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him". I John 3:2 continues, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God". Here we have the Greek word teknon meaning a born child, not adopted, thus a child born of Yahweh. Let's continue with I John 5:9-10."Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

By this John didn't mean that none of us commit any sins at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed the sacrifice of Yahshua on the cross. We all have our sins but people are divided into two classes. There are the one who are only sorry because they don't get a chance to sin more and the others who are sorry because they have sinned only a little. What John means is, whoever is born of Yahweh doesn't habitually sin. So John says in I John 3:10, "In this the children (teknon) of God are manifest, and the children (teknon) of the devil". Remember, John has talked about us as the born teknon of Yahweh and the others as the born teknon of the devil.

John 8:31: Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free?

Genesis 36:20-30 lists Esau's descendants. Listed are all the various chieftains among the family of Seir, the Horite satanic line, including his daughter Timna. Genesis 36:12 records that Timna was a concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz and bore him a son Amalek. What a pestilential lot the whole tribe of Amalek was, they all behaved according to their satanic bloodline. You will find a good deal about this in Exodus 17:8-16 and Numbers 20:14-21.
When the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, they looted and burned the city and massacred a lot of the inhabitants. Then the Edomites came rushing in to help in the massacre and plunder. The whole book of Obadiah is just one continuous condemnation of the Edomites for the way they acted. This book also predicted their eventual slaughter and punishment for what they did. Obadiah verse 10 records, "For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off forever".

Obadiah verse 15 continues, "For the day of Yahweh is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head". Obadiah verse 18, "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; for there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh has spoken it."

Exodus 17:14-16 continues, "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh Nissi (Yahweh our banner). For he said, Because Yahweh hath sworn that Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

How did these satanic, mongrel, Edomite Jews get up there into Judea? They came in two principle waves. During the time the southern kingdom of Judah was practically empty during the Babylonian captivity, the Edomites were driven out of Mount Seir by a heavy invasion by the Arab people, the Nabateans from the east. So the Edomites were driven westward. They couldn't go southwest or straight west, they would then be getting into Egyptian territory and they weren't strong enough to fight the Egyptians. Consequently they went slightly northwest and took over the southerly half of what had been the kingdom of Judah and settled there.

When the small remnant of Judah came back from the Babylonian captivity, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah record that 42,600, or something like that, came back. It lists them by their families and when you run those down you find that slightly over 8,000 of these people were not from any tribe of Israel or Judah. Only 34,000 of the 42,000 that came back were Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a few Levites among them.

Now divide this into thirds, the northern two-thirds of that comprised the kingdom of Israel, the ten tribed northern kingdom. Only the southerly one-third of that was the kingdom of Judah. Of that one-third, take out the southern half of that now occupied by the Edomites. This little strip of land is all that remained for the true Judaites and Benjamenites to settle in.

Before the captivity, the tribe of Judah had been in the south, the tribe of Benjamin in the north, with the city of Jerusalem lying right on the boundary line between them. They sorted themselves out as well as they could, the way they were before. Judah was in the south and Benjamin pushed to the north. However, Benjamin couldn't just move up to the north a little bit, because north of them was Samaria. Remember I said you divide this twelve tribed territory into thirds, the middle third constituted Samaria.

Isaiah, Kings and Chronicles record that when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel and deported its entire people, they brought other people from Assyria and settled them in Samaria. It purposely failed to say the Assyrians settled anybody in Galilee, the northern most portions, because they didn't, they left it vacant. Now the Judahites pushed the Benjamenites to the north, as they returned from the captivity. They couldn't just move up into Samaria that was fully settled. So Benjamin had to leapfrog over Samaria to the vacant land of Galilee, to the north.

In Galilee was Yahshua's own hometown of Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, down close to Jerusalem, but His family home was up in Nazareth. Remember, Yahshua got almost all of His converts up in Galilee and of the twelve disciples only Judas was a Jew. In Bible translations Judas is called Judas Iscariot. There is no such word as Iscariot in any language known to man. This is a corruption of the Hebrew word Ish Kerioth, meaning a man of Kerioth. Kerioth was a little village in the southwestern portion of Judea, down in the territory occupied by the Edomites. Judas was an Edomite Jew and the only Jew of the twelve disciples. The other eleven were all Galileans, therefore Benjamenites. If a Jew could walk with Yahshua for three years and still betray Him, is there any Jew we can trust?

When Yahshua was arrested and taken into the high priest's home for illegal questioning, Peter followed Him in. The servant said "Well, you're one of them, you're a Galilean, your accent shows it". You certainly don't have any trouble telling the southerners from a northern Yankee here in this country do you. They speak English with a different accent and the Galileans spoke the Aramaic of the day, with a little different accent from the Judeans down around Jerusalem.

When the people were gathered at Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they were all there except Judas Escariot. The disciples began speaking to this assembled multitude in a multitude of different languages. How astonished the people were when they heard the disciples speaking in all these different languages, which obviously they didn't know. The people said, "Aren't these Galileans?" All the remaining disciples were.

, John Hyrcanus made the same mistake. After he had defeated the Edomites, he then decided he was going to be a missionary; he would convert them to the religion of Judaism. He offered the Edomites a choice; he would spare them if they would accept the religion of Judaism. This was not the religion of the Old Testament ever; it was what was brought back from Babylon with the Babylonian Talmud. The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise said it briefly and accurately; I have never been able to improve on his words.

The learned Rabbi said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism". The people of the Old Testament were real Hebrews and the religion Yahweh had given them could well be called Hebrewism. This Talmud/Judaism began as the Jews destroyed the religion of the Old Testament. In Yahshua's time they had not yet given it the name of the Talmud, they called it "the tradition of the elders". Remember how often Yahshua rebuked them for following their tradition. "Why have ye by your tradition set aside the laws of Yahweh?" Yahshua was referring to the Talmud.

So, John Hyrcanus was going to be the Billy Graham of his day, he was going to make converts. Hyrcanus told them, "If you will adopt the religion of Judaism, I will give you full citizenship in the kingdom of Judea. If you don't, I will cut your throats". As you well know, this is the most effective missionary technique that has ever been developed. Even Billy Graham doesn't make converts that fast. Naturally the converts made by the sword are of doubtful validity. So the Edomites adopted the religion of Judaism and were accepted in full citizenship in the kingdom. You will find this described in great detail in the one reliable history of that period, Josephus in his history, "Antiquities of the Jews", book 13, chapter 9.
[1. BUT when Hyrcanus heard of the death of Antiochus, he presently made an expedition against the cities of Syria, hoping to find them destitute of fighting men, and of such as were able to defend them. However, it was not till the sixth month that he took Medaba, and that not without the greatest distress of his army. After this he took Samega, and the neighboring places; and besides these, Shechem and Gerizzim, and the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt at the temple which resembled that temple which was at Jerusalem, and which Alexander permitted Sanballat, the general of his army, to build for the sake of Manasseh, who was son-in-law to Jaddua the high priest, as we have formerly related; which temple was now deserted two hundred years after it was built. Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; 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.
---25) This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterward. See Antiq. B. XIV. ch. 8. sect. 1; B. XV. ch. 7. sect. 9. Of the War, B. II. ch. 3. sect. 1; B. IV. ch. 4. sect. 5. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews, as here and elsewhere, Antiq. B. XIV. ch. 8. sect. 1. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod were derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew, B. XV. ch. 15. sect. 2. .But still, take out of Dean Prideaux, at the year 129, the words of Ammouius, a grammarian, which fully confirm this account of the Idumeans in Josephus: "The Jews," says he, are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumeans 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 called Jews." Dio also says, as the Dean there quotes him, from Book XXXVI. p. 37, "That country is called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many others as embrace their religion, though of other nations." But then upon what foundation so good a governor as Hyrcanus took upon him to compel those Idumeans either to become Jews, or to leave the country, deserves great consideration. I suppose it was because they had long ago been driven out of the land of Edom, and had seized on and possessed the tribe of Simeon, and all the southern parts of the tribe of Judah, which was the peculiar inheritance of the worshippers of the true God without idolatry, as the reader may learn from Reland, Palestine, Part I. p. 154, 305; and from Prideaux, at the years 140 and 165.]

The second wave of Edomites came in when the Edomite chieftain Herod conquered and became king of Judea, under the Roman Empire. Herod was a very able and very evil scoundrel. He raised a large sum of money by taxation and by raiding his neighbors. With this money he bribed Mark Anthony, who was over in Egypt with the Roman legions at this time, to lend him a couple of the Roman legions to add to his own Edomite troops, for the conquest of Judea. With the Roman troops and his own, Herod did capture Judea.

In 40 B.C. the Romans recognized Herod as governor with the title Ethnarch. In 37 B.C., Rome formally recognized Herod as the local king of Judea. He was still subject to Roman foreign policy but he had complete self-government at home. Herod had come in with a conquering army and his Jewish Edomite followers came in with him for the sake of the plunder they could get, they overran the area. They have also gone back to Germany for the same reason. You can learn much about these events in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" books 14-18.

Book 14 chapter 15:2
2. Herod had now a strong army; and as he marched on, Antigonus laid snares and ambushes in the passes and places most proper for them; but in truth he thereby did little or no damage to the enemy. So Herod received those of his family out of Masada, and the fortress Ressa, and then went on for Jerusalem. The soldiery also that was with Silo accompanied him all along, as did many of the citizens, being afraid of his power; and as soon as he had pitched his camp on the west side of the city, the soldiers that were set to guard that part shot their arrows and threw their darts at him; and when some sallied out in a crowd, and came to fight hand to hand with the first ranks of Herod's army, he gave orders that they should, in the first place, make proclamation about the wall, that he came for the good of the people, and for the preservation of the city, and not to bear any old grudge at even his most open enemies, but ready to forget the offenses which his greatest adversaries had done him. But Antigonus, by way of reply to what Herod had caused to be proclaimed, and this before the Romans, and before Silo also, said that they would not do justly, if they gave the kingdom to Herod, who was no more than a private man, and an Idumean, i.e. a half Jew, (28) whereas they ought to bestow it on one of the royal family, as their custom was; for that in case they at present bear an ill-will to him, and had resolved to deprive him of the kingdom, as having received it from the Parthians, yet were there many others of his family that might by their law take it, and these such as had no way offended the Romans; and being of the sacerdotal family, it would be an unworthy thing to put them by. Now while they said thus one to another, and fell to reproaching one another on both sides, Antigonus permitted his own men that were upon the wall to defend themselves, who using their bows, and showing great alacrity against their enemies, easily drove them away from the towers.

4. But Herod was not pleased with lying still, but sent out his brother Joseph against Idumea with two thousand armed footmen, and four hundred horsemen, while he himself came to Samaria, and left his mother and his other relations there, for they were already gone out of Masada, and went into Galilee, to take certain places which were held by the garrisons of Antigonus; and he passed on to Sepphoris, as God sent a snow, while Antigonus's garrisons withdrew themselves, and had great plenty of provisions. He also went thence, and resolved to destroy those robbers that dwelt in the caves, and did much mischief in the country; so he sent a troop of horsemen, and three companies of armed footmen, against them. They were very near to a village called Arbela; and on the fortieth day after, he came himself with his whole army: and as the enemy sallied out boldly upon him, the left wing of his army gave way; but he appearing with a body of men, put those to flight who were already conquerors, and recalled his men that ran away. He also pressed upon his enemies, and pursued them as far as the river Jordan, though they ran away by different roads. So he brought over to him all Galilee, excepting those that dwelt in the caves, and distributed money to every one of his soldiers, giving them a hundred and fifty drachmae apiece, and much more to their captains, and sent them into winter quarters; at which time Silo came to him, and his commanders with him, because Antigonus would not give them provisions any longer, for he supplied them for no more than one month; nay, he had sent to all the country about, and ordered them to carry off the provisions that were there, and retire to the mountains, that the Romans might have no provisions to live upon, and so might perish by famine. But Herod committed the care of that matter to Pheroras, his youngest brother, and ordered him to repair Alexandrium also. Accordingly, he quickly made the soldiers abound with great plenty of provisions, and rebuilt Alexandrium, which had been before desolate.

In his other history, the "Wars of the Jews", book 4 chapters 4-5, book 5 and chapter 6 and thereafter, Josephus writes of the horrible conduct of these Edomite Jews within the besieged city of Jerusalem while it was undergoing siege by Titus in the year 70 A.D. Their robbery and massacre of the inhabitants inflicted probably more casualties than the Roman army did. In the Jewish encyclopedia, the article "Edom" (in the edition I used to look it up, it was Volume 5, page 41) the article "Edom" concludes with these words: "The Edomites are found today in modern Jewry".

[Wimpy]

Brilliant history lesson Christopher; saved and stored for sharing.  Thanks!

[thirdeyewise]

Thanks for all the information. I am aware that the Edomites became infused in Israel, most Jewish sources admit as much:

"Thus, at this juncture of time the Edomites 'were incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans 'Idumea' (Mark 3:8; Ptolemy, 'Geography,' v. 16)." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. V. (1904), p. 41).

"Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem 20,000 Idumeans appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the Zealots who were besieged in the Temple." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. V. (1904), p. 41).

"The Edomites today are found in modern Jewry" – The Jewish Encyclopedia vol 4 pg41

"...the Idumeans (Edomites) were...made Jews...and a Turkish people (Khazars) were mainly Jews in South Russia...The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea." (H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, 3rd ed., MacMillian, 1921, p.494).

  What I'm looking for is where in the Bible it mentions the Israelites going into Europe and becoming something other than the group described as Jews. It seems that this claim of Israelite/European heritage is always inferred to rather than it being based on concrete bible passages.

If the Bible does not contain such passage then maybe a timeline of when these Israelites broke off from the group and became Europeans would suffice. Also, Abraham is S(h)emetic not Japhetic (Caucasians), the whole thing is full of too many holes that always have weird self-serving explanations, ie:


Abraham = Brahmin


If the reason White Ashkenazi Jews (who are a branch of the White Japhetic nations, according to the bible) stick out in the middle east like a sore thumb then what would make European Whites any different? I don't understand why any person of any color would want to be associated with the Jews/Israelites of the Bible. These were murderous people and are the ideological forefathers to the Jews of today. Again, I have to ask why would anyone want to lay claim to that? I could post tons of passages from the Old Testament giving testimony that the ideology has never changed, even from the earliest of prophets. In the Bible, Isaiah 57:3-5 the prophet, talking of the Jews/Israelites of his day says:

"But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood, Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks?"

Jakob Frank summed up his doctrine in his book "The Words of the Lord". He asserted that the creator God was not the same as the one who had revealed himself to the Israelites. Who is Israel's God?

Is this the same event?:

II Samuel 24:1;
"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, to say, go number Israel and Judah."

And I Chronicles 21:1;
"And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel..."

Why do you think Abe Foxman has railed on the New Testament but has no problem with the Old Testament. The Old Testament is essentially a history of Jewish genocide and conquest and the attempts of the Jews to enslave and dominate other peoples. Why can't people see that?! Let me quote a guest on the mark glenn show who I thought was spot on with his assessment:

"Jesus Christ came here to deliver us from the Old Testament, from the Torah. That's what Jesus Christ came here to do" – Keith Johnson (The Ugly Truth Oct 17, 2010)

The Talmud is simply an elucidation of the Torah...Torah 2.0!
You can not cherry pick which parts of the Bible pertain to White Israelites and which parts pertain to modern Jews. But that is exactly what I see from this "new" ideological camp. Where is the honesty?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Christian Identity is Judaism for whites. It might as well be Freemasonry.

[Roy Hobs]

You could most likely find what you are looking for over at -- www.christogenea.org

Email the author of the site.  I'm sure he will address your question.  If he does, please post it in this Post.  I would like to hear his response.

[GordZilla]

You could most likely find what you are looking for over at -- http://www.christogenea.org

Email the author of the site.  I'm sure he will address your question.  If he does, please post it in this Post.  I would like to hear his response.

Now there's a good idea, I'm sure they will respond too ...you should do it and see what they say.

[thirdeyewise]

You could most likely find what you are looking for over at -- http://www.christogenea.org
Email the author of the site.  I'm sure he will address your question.  If he does, please post it in this Post.  I would like to hear his response.

I listened to one of his audios and to tell you the truth I would not waste my time. The guy rambles incoherent garbage just like many of the other CI preachers. As a matter of fact the very question was posed to Prothink's guest (the website owner) and he could not give a straight answer. The audio I listened to was the one with Prothink dated Nov 09, 2009. Asking this guy a simple question and expecting a reality based answer would be like expecting Prothink to admit that his best buddy Hufshit is a Zionist shill, it's just not going to happen. Prothink went from one handler (Hufshit) to a second one named Kaplan (Quest). These idiots actually argue that the name Kaplan is not Jewish :lol: They try to pronounce it like KAPlan, sort of like a guy named Stephen pronouncing his name like Stephan...ridiculous! I would not be surprised if this ideology is a Jewish construct used to further confuse people looking for answers.


This site and many others are supposed to be about logic but logic never comes into play when it threatens to destroy one's self serving world view.  Abraham's ancestors are all named in the bible and, through his father terah, can be traced back almost 2000 years to Noah's son Shem. You are either Japhethic  or S(h)emetic, you can't be both. The Bible clearly classifies who is who in Genesis 10:

The generations of Noah are: Japheth, whose descendants are Gentiles.

5 By these were the isles of the cGentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

I noticed a lot of these 'alternative' pastors like to add things into their sermons that might not necessarily be in the Bible itself but fits their customized version of events, Christian Zionist for example do this very thing.

The thing is anyone can take any group of facts and twist them to suite their own ideology. I, with much more veracity, can present a case showing that modern Jews (Ashkenazi & even Sephardic) are in fact a branch of the Caucasian race. In fact, I can do this using the same evidence presented by most White racialist. Does that make my information the concrete truth or is it simply a tweaking of facts to make them conform with my ideas. One can make anything sound anyway they want to, lawyers do it all the time.


example:

GENESIS 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

"How important, in quantitative terms is that presence of the Caucasian sons of Japheth in the tents of Shem?" - Arthur Koestler ( The Thirteenth Tribe)

Race can play funny tricks on people who make that concept the basis for their likes and dislikes. Race-obsessed people can find themselves hating people who, in fact, may be their own racial kith and kin. - Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal

Was anything that I posted above not logical. I am not looking for fairy tales, I am looking for logic.

[GordZilla]

Well, logically, you should ask the one's that fully support this ideology, not us here. I think you should ask them a direct question in an email, or whatever, and see what you get for a response.

I have a feeling though, you are not really looking for an answer here, seems to me your mind is already made up on the subject.
But either way ask some Christian Identity folks and not us.

I don't think too many here on this site, if anyone, sees themselves as a Christian Identity believer.
I also think you are only looking for validation of your belief and  not any validation of theirs, but again we're the wrong people to ask.  

Start your letter with something like, I don't know, say ;
"A question to Christian Identity Adherents"

And then send or post it to, I don't know let's say;
" Christian Identity Adherents"

Now that would be logical.

[thirdeyewise]

Start your letter with something like, I don't know, say ; "A question to Christian Identity Adherents"  

What does the top of this page say?

Well, logically, you should ask the one's that fully support this ideology, not us here.

I asked it here because I have seen it being promoted here

I have a feeling though, you are not really looking for an answer here, seems to me your mind is already made up on the subject.

Oh really? What was your first clue?

I also think you are only looking for validation of your belief and  not any validation of theirs.

I am looking to find proof on this topic constantly promoted by the two time Jew handled Prothink.

 

but again we're the wrong people to ask.

Why are you responding then if it is something you are not familiar with. I can guess.

I don't know let's say;

I don't know let's say;

Sounds like sarcasm. Did I offend you?

[GordZilla]

Yes it was sarcasm, but not out of offence . I'm just making the point that this is the wrong place, if you really want answers ask at the source, cause it seems all we offer you is not what you are looking for.  Nor can it be, because I don't think any here are Christian Identity folks. That's what I'm saying to you.

And people that break posts up like that often lose its context, you clearly did or you would have noticed the sarcasm and not feel the need to ask if it was. Of course it's the title of the thread, just it belongs on their forum, here you are unlikely to get the answers you are looking for.  (probably not there either)

Prothink has a forum, join up and ask there.

Tell me do you believe in God? If the answer is 'no' then certainly you will not "find proof of this topic constantly promoted by the...."  Your mind would already be closed to the idea of a God let alone Whites being the true Israelites. (which is what I was alluding to when I said you are not really looking for an answer here )

[Roy Hobs]

ThirdEyeWise Wrote:
"I listened to one of his audios and to tell you the truth I would not waste my time. The guy rambles incoherent garbage just like many of the other CI preachers."

This is not a fair statement/assesement; unless you are willing to include an actual example, followed by your assessement of why it is 'garbage'.  To accuse someone of something without proof doesn't seem to be a good way for us to come to any conclusions about anything.  

I have linked to CI information in the past not because I am promoting it as a Religion or Faith.  But more because of the "information' regarding Jewish history.  William (creator of christogenea) has an abundant knowledge of Classical Greek.  This is why I peruse their site/information.

I have listened to many PodCasts and my experience with William is that he is fair.  You can call in no problem and be accepted and be allowed to speak.  

His answers and responses seem to be balanced and fair and supported by Classic Literature.

In regards to whether you believe in a God or accept a certain Faith is individual and is something that can never be judged by any one person.  

I'm not sure why you are so interested in CI.  Clearly you have a disdain for it.  

But if you truly desire to know more about their beliefs, I would suggest you either call in to the Monday night Forum call, or simply Email William with your question.  Maybe you could Email him a Link to this Post and he can/will respond directly to this Post.  

That would be an informative way to handle this question with maturity and respect.

[Roy Hobs]

Thirdeyewise............Did you mean to say the 11-05-09 interview?

[thirdeyewise]

Thirdeyewise............Did you mean to say the 11-05-09 interview?

Yeah, my fault.... Nov 05, 2009

[GordZilla]

Here this might help;




"Today's jews are not, and have never been, the people of the Old Testament. Visit http://christogenea.org for the truth about history, Christianity, and the anti-Christ jews.


A Concise Explanation of the Creation of the Jewish People


The Old Testament accounts found in the Book of Genesis demonstrate that there was a rivalry between Jacob and Esau.  Esau, it is also clear, was a race-mixer who had taken wives of the Canaanites and the Ishmaelites (Genesis 36).  The rivalry between the brothers later turned into a national enmity among their descendants, and the Edomites were eventually enslaved by the Israelites (1 Chron. 18), and later revolted (2 Chron. 21).  When the Chaldaeans finally took Jerusalem and destroyed the city, we find that the Edomites were in league with them, and are blamed for the temple s destruction (Psalm 137:7-9; 1 Esdras 4:45 in the Septuagint).


When the Israelites moved into the land of Canaan, they were instructed to destroy all of the Canaanite peoples.  They failed to do this, and were warned that harm would later come to them because of this failure (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3).  It is evident that both in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the later Israelites did indeed have a problem with infiltration and race-mixing by the Canaanite tribes (Jer. 2:13, 21-22; Ezek. 16:3, 45 et al.).  This was one of the chief reasons for their chastisement and removal.


The prophecy found in Ezekiel chapters 35 and 36 discuss the fact that the Edomites had moved into the lands of Israel and Judah after the removal of the Israelites by the Assyrians and Chaldaeans (cf. Ezek. 35:10).  The theme of the prophecy found in Malachi chapters 1 and 2 is that Jacob is distinguished from Esau, and that the sacrifices of the priests are not acceptable, because the covenant is with Levi.  With this Malachi fully infers that there were (or that there would be) priests who should not have held the office.  


In the Biblical records after the Assyrian and Chaldaean deportations of the Israelites, concerning the return of merely 42,000 or so Israelites to Jerusalem we have only the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and a few of the Minor Prophets.  These books are focused upon the activities in Jerusalem over a short period of time, and concerning the rest of the country, or concerning the time from approximately 455 to 3 BC, in the Bible we have nothing.  It is evident, in Ezra and Nehemiah, that these returning Judaeans did struggle to maintain their race and keep themselves separate from the Canaanites and Edomites in the neighboring districts.  Yet this attitude did not prevail, and with the works of the first-century Judaean historian Flavius Josephus and the apocryphal 1 Maccabees along with secular sources we can fill in some of the historical gaps between the testaments.  


From Greek and Roman records, we can see that from the Hellenistic period all of the southern portions of the land once known as Judah and Israel were called Idumaea, after the Edomites. Strabo, the early first century  Greek geographer, attests that the Idumaeans were  mixed up  with the Judaeans, and that they  shared in the same customs with them  (Book 16). From Josephus it can be determined that shortly before 130 BC, the reigning Maccabean high priest (who had all the authority of a king), John Hyrcanus, decided to conquer all of the surrounding cities of ancient Israel inhabited at that time by Edomites and Canaanites, and to either convert them to the religion of Judaea (first called  Judaism  by the Greeks) or to let them leave the land, or to be slain. (Maccabee was a name given to the Asamonean dynasty of high priests who ruled Jerusalem from about 150 BC down to about 36 BC, when the last of them was slain by Herod.) Josephus states that from this point these Edomites became  none other than Judaeans  (Antiquities, 13.9.1 et al.).    Therefore we see with certainty the fulfillment of Ezekiel 35.


Judaea from 130 BC forward was a multiracial polyglot of a nation.  The first Herod, an Idumaean by race who usurped power from the Maccabees, bribed the Romans for the kingship and from that time the temple priesthood at Jerusalem was used as a political tool. Both Josephus and the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius admit that many of the priests were not worthy of the distinction under the former Levitical traditions, and the veracity of Malachi s prophecy becomes quite clear with their testimony.  The usurpation of political control in Jerusalem is the primary reason for all of the division recorded in the New Testament.  In Romans 16:20 and 2 Thessalonians, Paul alludes to the temple priesthood as  satan  (which means  the adversary ), and this is also attested to in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.  Yahshua (Jesus) Christ informs the priests and other leaders in many places that they are the children of the adversary, i.e. Luke 11:47-51, John 8:33-47 and John 10:26.  In Romans chapter 9, Paul makes a clear distinction between Israelites of Judaea and the Edomites of Judaea, calling the one  vessels of mercy  and the other  vessels of destruction .  It can be shown from the New Testament that many of the Israelites converted to Christianity during the ensuing years, losing their identity as Judaeans.   The Edomites never did, clinging to their traditions found in the Talmud   which has absolutely no authentic connection to the ancient Hebrew religion.  Today these people, and all of their many proselytes and those whom they have intermarried with, are known as Jews.  


William Finck


Christogenea.org
"

[Roy Hobs]

Thirdeyewise.................

I listened to the File you made reference to.  

You will have to be more specific as to what you consider "incoherent garbage".  

The question was asked regarding a Time Line in the beginning.  William seemed to give a brief description followed by a suggestion to read more research on his site: referring to papers he has written describing the migrations of white anglo saxons across the European Continent.  


If you can document with research why the things William says is "garbarge", I'd be interested in learning them.  Thanks.

[thirdeyewise]

If you can document with research why the things William says is "garbarge", I'd be interested in learning them.  Thanks.

The armor around this ideology has many cracks.

First off, let me reiterate that if you can not understand (or even acknowledge) the simple point I made about being Japhetic or S(h)emetic but you can't be both, then there is no reason to believe you will understand the even more complicated points I will talk about.

Give me a little while & I will post my opinion on that audio.

[GordZilla]

First off, let me reiterate that if you can not understand (or even acknowledge) the simple point I made about being Japhetic or S(h)emetic but you can't be both, then there is no reason to believe you will understand the even more complicated points I will talk about.

Really? ...ok I'll look it up .... there done ...sons of Moses ... OK carry on...



Seriously get a hold of yourself, you seem as though you are speaking down to people and frankly you are in no position to, whether you believe yourself to be or not.  None of us  are, we are equals. Maybe you didn't intend that to sound condescending but it sure reads that way.

 Everyone on this forum has come to understand quite a few things and all by themselves, Do you honestly think you have something we couldn't possibly understand???

The armor around this ideology has many cracks

...good thing you won't need to explain that further as we'll clearly never understand.


Sorry for the sarcasm again, but again you seem to be only agitating here for a debate, but it seems to be a debate in which you really don't care for the outcome of - other than the appearance of victory in your own mind. You have no faith in God so why do you concern yourself with these things?  To me, and especially from that last post, it seems you only want to stroke your ego. I say that, again, because if you really wanted the answers to these questions you could ask William Finck directly, as he does seem to be the authority when it comes to Christian Identity.


Here's something for you to try to understand, see if you can;

"Wisdom begins at the fear of God"

I wager you can't , although they are simple words, I wager your response would be something like ;

"If God is so Great and Loving yada yada yada ....why would anyone need to fear Him?"

I won't answer that, cause clearly you do not understand the statement if your response would be similar to that.
When you do figure it out, then you'd realize your faithless pursuit of a topic you care about only as far as hubris will take you is in fact pointless to our collective pursuit   ...then my friend you'd see with your 3rd eye.

[thirdeyewise]

I apologize, I was not trying to offend anyone. I only talk that way when I present something, sort of like an instructor. When I say: "If you can't understand", I use the word "you" as you the audience. It was not meant to single out anyone in particular. That is the only way I can articulate that, I hope it clears it up.

I am looking into Christian identity because I see it around all the message boards, it's in the truth movement.

Christian Identity is Judaism for whites. It might as well be Freemasonry.

All I heard from that audio was gentiles being Just as hateful as Jews except it was towards non-Whites. Why wouldn't I want to know about them?


Btw: I do believe in God, an all loving God that loves all of his creations the same. That's the God I believe in, not the one the Jews follow that says this group of people is above all the others because they are polluted. Isn't that what we are fighting against, I thought.

[GordZilla]

I apologize, I was not trying to offend anyone. I only talk that way when I present something, sort of like an instructor. When I say: "If you can't understand", I use the word "you" as you the audience. It was not meant to single out anyone in particular. That is the only way I can articulate that, I hope it clears it up.

I am looking into Christian identity because I see it around all the message boards, it's in the truth movement.

Christian Identity is Judaism for whites. It might as well be Freemasonry.

All I heard from that audio was gentiles being Just as hateful as Jews except it was towards non-Whites. Why wouldn't I want to know about them?


Btw: I do believe in God, an all loving God that loves all of his creations the same. That's the God I believe in, not the one the Jews follow that says this group of people is above all the others because they are polluted. Isn't that what we are fighting against, I thought.

Well then I apologize too. I just see it too often, opening of cans of worms that we should really have left closed. What I mean is when I see this post's title, I think to myself;  "now why? why do we need to explore this?"... After all we can be sure of one thing here; this William fellow seems to be an ally in our fight, and so do the Christian Identity bunch. They may be wrong in their ideology, but the greater problem is the Jew. So when I seen this post , to me it reads "More division within our movement going on right here" ..I'm growing weary of this lately. We are all guilty of it in some way. Going off to our own corners instead of uniting. I wasn't sure of your intention, and thought the worse. If you are honestly and sincerely  trying to find the answer to these questions than I apologise, I went off on you because  I've seen this before and  I was sure I was seeing it again - but judging by your last response I was wrong.

I did witness you and MSMD have it out, and I was worried you were trying to provoke another conflict. (not saying you [or him] provoked the last)

Truth is all these guys from DBS, to William, Piper, Glenn even Prothink, all in some way are our allies. They all want, in the end, the same thing we do. We have to try to forge a common ground here.

I'm tired of the conflict on our side, seems to be always over the minutia.

This was my concern, but now I feel bad as it seems you are sincere.

However I still maintain the best one to answer the question you pose would be William   , and I for one would like to see his response.

P.S> I'm glad to hear you have faith, as understanding God makes for better understanding of our common enemy as well, in my opinion.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Gord, the Christian Identity crowd are employing the same philosophy that lead to the current Jewish predicament we are in today. Nip it in the bud while we can.

[GordZilla]

Gord, the Christian Identity crowd are employing the same philosophy that lead to the current Jewish predicament we are in today. Nip it in the bud while we can.

There may be some truth to that, but they are not the same animal. With the Jew it's more than a philosophy, it's ingrained. The Christian Identity crowd will likely never grow to the power that the Talmudic Jew holds today. I still maintain they are not the problem, nor are they likely to ever be the problem.  We can imagine that they, the CI's, could grow into the same monster we have in the Jew but I'm feeling pretty comfortable that will not happen. They, the CI's, do not have the same poison running through their heads. Their book, is much the same as regular Christian's. The Jews book teaches them to hate all others and worse; destroy all others. The CI's do not, and likely will never, have the strangle hold on everything that we see the Jew posses today.

 I feel the same about any other religion too, almost all teach of peace, in some form or another, all but Talmudism.  I'm not concerned about Muslim's taking over, or Buddhist etc etc, for they are not hell bent on seeing the demise of the rest of humanity. They, The Jews, are following Satan as their god.

I will never be able to equate the two. Same with Islam, even with Shiria law- I still worry less about them then the Jew.

 I still think we should ally up where we can. When the Jew is finally removed from the equation  then ALL things will be open for fair and honest discussion. Without their incredibly heavy influence -the truth , of anything, can and will rise to the surface. Even the truth about CI's, we'd at least then be able to put everything on the table and have a free and open debate about it. However to me, that time is later, for now I will still focus my energy on the devil we know, not the one that might be, if somehow they ever managed to gain real power (which again, in the case of CI's, I highly doubt will ever happen).

 We don't need to nip it in the butt right now, or likely ever, the Jew will do that for us. As he is doing it to our movement too.  As long as the words 'truth and honesty', or 'Jesus and Mohammad 'are in the lingo, then the Jew will surely be there to convince everyone else that these are actually anti-Semitic concepts, and need to be frowned upon and eventually banned.  It's this monster that I will focus my energy on.

[thirdeyewise]

I did witness you and MSMD have it out, and I was worried you were trying to provoke another conflict. (not saying you [or him] provoked the last)

What started that was probably the same thing that happened here, the wording I used. But then I saw MSMD start to get on his bully pulpit so I did like George Bush and I launched a Preemptive strike. I have no problem with him, he does excellent work but I won't let anyone dictate to me how I should view things.

Truth is all these guys from DBS, to William, Piper, Glenn even Prothink, all in some way are our allies. They all want, in the end, the same thing we do. We have to try to forge a common ground here.  

If they put out bullshit information they need to be called on it, just like DBS did mid interview with Jeff Gates. In that audio I referenced they were saying the word "niggers" and saying that non-Whites contained evil spirits within their bodies. I see nothing benevolent or unifying about those statements.

I'm tired of the conflict on our side, seems to be always over the minutia.

I understand what you are saying about the divisive conflict but what is termed minutia can also be interpreted as simply paying attention to details. As any crime investigator will tell you, the truth is in the details. Sort of like the Bible says, sometimes those conflicts happen in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, just look at Mark Glenn & Jeff Rense as an example.

This was my concern, but now I feel bad as it seems you are sincere.

Don't feel bad, it was a simple misunderstanding. My purpose is not to create conflict but I do have strong views on certain things and it's usually because I have done some decent research on it. If something sounds wrong I am going to put it out there. Not to say my view is the correct view but you will hear what I have to say if something does not sound right.

However I still maintain the best one to answer the question you pose would be William   , and I for one would like to see his response.  

I was going to link this thread to an e-mail but then realized that the off lounge section is a "log in for access" area. But after hearing that audio I have no desire to exchange questions with any of those gentlemen, for a multitude of reasons.