Interview with a Christian Identity person

[Anonymous]

I interviewed a Christian Identity dual seedline believer the other day called jewkiller101.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-96508/TS-571203.mp3

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Yeah? what a waste of time. CI is ideologically identical to Judaism.

[GordZilla]

I'm certainly interested in some of C.I.'s aspects, but I wish you had interviewed a different 'representative'. Surely doing a radio interview makes one nervous (understandably), but "Jewkiller101" is almost an embarrassment to listen to. He's incorrect on so many points, it almost hurts. I love how he was explaining the microscope he used to see thru his hand -lol. Also how he asserts something to be scientific fact, because it is ...well (as he repeats)..."scientific fact"  and that's that. We, as the listeners,  simply have to take his word for it -as he offers nothing more in the way of proof. I'm sorry, but that was hard to listen to. It was only spared by its (unintentional) humorous value. You showed great patience with him, hats off to you for that. Pure bread dogs 'created' by God???  Come 'on! We know we created and domesticated the 'dog', they didn't (and don't) exist naturally in the wild. The German Sheppard is a prime example, ironically, of a dog created for our needs -and by us!  Just one of many points he simply asserts as true without any study behind his words. Goat-man? :roll:

I'm sure he's a good man, but he needs to study a bit more before making some of the claims he made in that interview -claims that are easily debunked and, as a result, discredit the rest of his message. Sometimes it's better to listen for longer before speaking, try to cover all your bases, as best you can, before you put your voice out there. What's the expression? "Better to remain quiet and have people think you're a fool than to speak aloud and remove any doubt"

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

The Errors of Christian Identity Doctrine

First published in 1996
By Todd Dennis

There are two aspects to God's plan of Redemption.  The temporal, and the eternal/ spiritual.  Identity focuses on the temporal -- which is a part -- but only the inferior part.  Jesus is the true fullness of the Gentiles.

Introduction

     One of the most disturbing systems of doctrine gaining influence today is Christian Identity, which is the contemporarily evolved version of the British-Israel position. Its danger comes as a result of two factors:

1) Identity properly teaches who isn't Israel. Identity clearly illustrates that the people in Palestine today, who refer to themselves as 'Jews,' are not God's chosen people, thereby refuting Dispensationalism (and every other such theology), which demands that they are. This declaration of truth is so dangerous, as:

2) Identity improperly concludes who is Israel. One who sees the number of truths in Identity, tends to be more willing to accept 'the rest of the story,' which mistakenly declares that the Anglo-Saxon tribes are Israel... as Christian Identity provides no other alternative, as to who is Israel, and no other fleshly nation seems to be possible (although Mormonism teaches that the Native American Indians are of the 'lost tribes' of Israel).

     Christians Identity claims that God's promises to Old Testament Israel can be transferred to today's Israelites, who they claim are comprised of the fleshly remnant of the House of Judah, as well as the Ten Lost Tribes, which (it is taught) became the Anglo-Saxon, Germannic peoples. Therefore, only the 'Israelitic peoples' after the flesh can be inheritors of these promises. Many teach that non-Anglo-Germannic peoples cannot even be saved, but we will focus simply on that doctrine which declares that they can be saved, but cannot be partakers of the 'inheritance with the saints in light.'

     This system of doctrine teaches one of the most terrible errors in Christianity today: that Christ is not the 'all in all' for Israelites, and Non-Israelites alike, in terms of station within His Body. In other words, that there is a difference of inheritance for the Israelite and Non-Israelite. It is my assertion that the inheritance of promise in the Old Testament is not only inseparable from salvation, but that it is salvation/redemption. All Old Testamentary promises referring to Israel after the flesh's remaining in the land of Palestine will be seen to have been conditional upon their obedience, all other promises having been made to Jesus Christ Himself (Gal 3:16).

     Therefore, my accusation of Christian Identity is that, by placing the emphasis of 'Israelite-ness' as being salvation only (as many within the spectrum of Identity teach), or exclusive inheritance (as all teach), the focus is taken off Jesus Christ as being the 'all in all', and is placed upon the qualities or qualifications of man (who he is). This is clearly opposed to the clear teaching of the Word that the 'flesh profiteth nothing' (John 6:63), and that 'there is no respect of persons with God' (Rom 2:11), 'for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God... and if children, then heirs, and joint-heirs with Christ' (Romans 8:14,17). This is because '(Christ) is the heir' (Matthew 21:38) of all promises; Therefore, 'if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise' (Gal 3:29).

     It is my belief that Scripture clearly teaches that Christ is the "hope of the fathers" for the elect descendants of the Houses of Israel and Judah, and the same hope for all who 'take hold of (His) covenant' (Isaiah 56). The teaching of Christ not being the fulfillment of the hope of the fathers, the inheritance, as well as being the promise to Abraham, places unmerited importance upon the flesh (temporal) to the detriment of the eternal. 'He is the head of the body, the church: who is the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence' (Col 1:18-19; see also Matthew 21:38; Heb. 1:2).

Ethnos

     What must be understood first is the importance that Christian Identity places upon the word 'ethnos' to support their system. It is taught that ethnos, although most often translated 'heathen,' 'Gentiles,' or 'people,' is referring specifically to the 'sent out and scattered' House of Israel, otherwise known as the diasporia of the 'Ten Lost Tribes.' The logic is that the references that would seem to be teaching that Gentiles are non-Israelites, and thereby only children of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:29), are actually written to those who were already Abraham's children according to the flesh. So, they teach, when Scripture declares that 'the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles [ethnos]' (Gal 3:14), it is actually saying that only those Gentles who were of the ten tribes receive the blessing of Abraham by being 'redeemed,' or 're-constituted' in Christ. Therefore, according to their doctrine, the adding of non-Israelitic heathen to Israel by faith in Christ is unbiblical- concluding, thereby, that Israel in the New Testament is of the same substance as in the Old Testament (to which statement I would agree, but only on the grounds of the true Israel always referring to the elect in Christ) - that is, a fleshly nation.

There are two aspects to God's plan of Redemption.  The temporal, and the eternal/ spiritual.  Identity focuses on the temporal -- which is a part -- but only the inferior part.  Jesus is the true fullness of the Gentiles.

     It is true that the Northern Kingdom was "swallowed up of the Gentiles", and were to be called in by "the ensign", who is Christ, who was to "hiss" at them from afar to bring them back in.  However, this is a spiritual process bringing spiritual gathering into the land of promise -- the true "land of cities without walls"   (Not the USA).

     Upon closer examination of the word "ethnos," we find that this interpretation is served whether "Gentiles" simply means "nation," or is intended to bespeak the ten northern tribes alone.  

    Regardless of the pleadings of Identity teachers, the word itself implies no particular identification with any nation in particular, but rather it simply means "nation."   Many times it is modified by the definite article (i.e. "the nation").   This is important, as the assumption seems to be that every usage of 'ethnos' is in reference to the Anglo-Saxon peoples, which would clearly, then, support their assertion.

     To which nation ethnos is intended to refer, however, is determined by the preceding context. A good example of this is seen in Luke 7:3-5. This is a passage that Christian Identity uses to teach that ethnos, which is most often translated 'Gentiles,' does not always mean non-Israelites. The following passage was spoken by a man from the Southern Kingdom of Judah :

"And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: For he loveth our nation [ethnos], and he hath built us a synagogue".

     Here the Greek word ethnos refers to those of the house of Judah (Jews).  It must be realized, though, that this is because of the modifier "our." Ethos does not mean Judah, in this passage, but the word "our" identifies that the nation referred to is Judah. Again, ethnos identifies nothing apart from that which modifies it. What Christian Identity craftily accomplishes with this point, is determine the intent of the word by the context, and then determines the context of the passage by the word (which has just been presupposed). This is circular deduction (as is also used by Dispensationalism in assuming that prophecy regarding Israel is unfulfilled, and then determining a future for Israel by this same 'unfulfilled prophecy.').

Contents

     I will not take the time I would like to raise all peripheral areas of dispute (which are numerous, particularly when the discussion enters the political arena). Instead, I will focus upon three fatal points of their exegesis in Galatians 3.

    The three fatal flaws of Christian Identity's exegesis of Galatians 3 are as follows:

  I. To Whom it was Written.
 II. For What Purpose it was Written.
III. The Separation of the Inheritance and Salvation.
     - The Separation of the Holy Spirit and Promises
     - The Separation of the Body of Christ and non-Israelites

I. To Whom Galatians was Written

     It is my contention that the book of Galatians was not written to the scattered Israelites (as Identity defines) of Galatia exclusively, but to all Christians in Galatia. In saluting those people to whom the epistle was written, Paul identifies them as 'all the brethren,' in v. 2 and 11. No mention of Gentile Israelite-ness, or lack thereof is made. In fact, the next mention of any type of Gentile is found in Galatians 1:16, where Paul declares that he was called to preach to the heathen, which word does not in any way imply, or distinguish, a diasporia. In fact, in Galatians 2:2, Paul refers to the same people he preaches to as 'Gentiles', with no distinction in meaning made or in any way implied. Paul shows us in verse 6 that it doesn't matter anyway, as 'God accepteth no man's person.'

     The only distinction made is found in 2:7 as being that between circumcision and uncircumcision. Again, no distinction between types of uncircumcision (whether 'heathen' or 'Gentile/Israelite') is made... they are all in one lot, as far as Paul has let on. Verse 8 continues by calling the uncircumcision simply 'Gentiles', which Paul in no way differentiates between those to whom he was sent, simply referring to them as 'heathen' in verse 9 of Chapter two. Paul did not say he was sent to the diasporia; in fact, nowhere in the word of God does Paul make such a declaration! Nowhere in the Bible does he ever differentiate between 'types of Gentiles' he was sent to. He simply says 'heathen', 'uncircumcision', or 'Gentiles'. There is no reason to put words or Israelites into his mouth.

     There is no question that Paul wrote to a mixed audience, though. As Philip Mauro commented, regarding the audience of the letter:

"After speaking in the first person of the Jews, the Apostle, addressing the Gentile Galatians, says by way of contrast: "For you are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek." The contrast between the "we" of verses 24,25 and the "you" of verse 26, is very significant...." (The Christian's Relationship To The Mosaic Law)

     In verse twelve Paul uses the word 'Gentiles' but has given no reason to believe he is referring to anyone but the aforementioned 'uncirc./heathen'. The same is true in the rest of the chapter. So then, we have been given not even a hint that a specific type of 'uncirc.' is being referred to in this book, leading straight up to a most pivotal verse, Galatians 3:7.

     Identity may claim that Paul's usage of 'we' in Galatians 3:23-25 is making grammatical company with the Galatians.    Based upon that reasoning, the House of Israel scattered abroad never ceased identifying with 'Israel,' or 'Ephraim,' as we know they most certainly did... I'd be interested in seeing in the O.T. that the scattered house would still be identified as such. It is a misleading declaration that cannot be proven, except by assumptions - assumptions that Paul didn't hold, state, or imply.

II. For What Purpose Galatians Was Written

     The most important chapter in Galatians, relative to this present discussion, is the third. In this chapter, the language of Paul dispels any teaching that the book was written only to teach that those which were previously carnal sons are still carnal sons, but only in Jesus Christ. Verse 7 of chapter 3 is the great battleground of this teaching; which states, 'they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.' The question arises as to whom are 'those of faith.' Is this to be taken at face value, meaning precisely what it says, referring to all those 'circumcised of the heart', or are we to understand that this is meant only for those who were 'previously sons?' In looking at this verse, and most others, the question that will determine the answer is whether the verse was intended to be understood inclusively or exclusively. Is the phrase 'they which are of faith' inclusive or exclusive? We will address this more later...

     Identity states that this passage is written only to those previously carnal 'sons', telling them that they only remain carnal sons if born-again. Even if this were the intent of the verse (which it is not), what difference would it make to the heathen to whom Paul was sent, and to whom he is writing? After all, verse 8 refers to verse seven as talking about 'heathen.'

     What purpose can we find for Paul's writing this letter? Was it for the purpose of:

1. Reminding them that, even though one is an Israelite (in the flesh) he must also be born again to be an  inheritor of the promises, but he doesn't have to be circumcised; or
2. Teaching that Christ is the eternal fulfillment of all physical shadows, neither circ. or uncirc. availeth anything, but being circumcised in the heart by Jesus Christ, or
3. Simply sharing with them that an Israelite doesn't need to be circumcised any more. (But non-Israelites do, by default of any exclusionary reference).

     Can we even establish that Paul was writing to the Galatians for any specific purpose? I think so. Gal 2:21 clearly establishes the intent of his writing (as 3:5 confirms) as being the irrelevancy of the law, and 6:15-16 ends the book with a clear declaration as to the nature of the heart as being the only pre-requisite for citizenship in the 'Israel of God."

     What needs to be recognized are the distinctive promises made - some being after the flesh (which was already fulfilled - Joshua 21:44-45; I Kings 8:56), and the other after the Spirit to Abraham and his Seed, which is Jesus Christ (Gal 3:7-8), as this is the root of the issue.. but we will address the fruit issues.

So, I'll simply start by declaring that the adoption of sons does not belong to any Israel after the flesh, as Romans 9:6 clearly declares, saying they are NOT the children of God (If true of the House of Judah, then even more true of House of Israel - Jer. 3:. But the adoption, rather, belongs to Jesus Christ, who gives it to anyone that calls upon His Name. Because 'the children of the flesh are not counted as the seed', the children of the Spirit (by faith in Jesus Christ - children of promise) are (Gal 3:29). There are no other alternatives, except to say that there are no children.

     Again, the flesh profiteth nothing, and as the next verse in Romans 9 states, 'the children of the promise are counted for the seed'. There is no longer any Amos 3:2 relationship with a nation after the flesh. The 'nation' of I Peter 2:9 is the heavenly nation of the kingdom of God, including all ambassadors upon the earth (Matthew 16:18-19).

     The Transfiguration is a good illustration of this point. The men wanted to exalt Moses and Elijah on an even level with Christ, but God said, 'hear ye him', and then they saw no other but Jesus...

     In terms of the everlasting covenant, Jesus Christ was, and is, the total and complete fulfillment. We are not waiting for any future fulfillment in the flesh. The heirs of the Gospel covenant have always been those in Christ, in both the Old Testament times, and the New. Hebrews 11 clearly shows that salvation then is the same that it is today, their faith was accounted to them for righteousness until 'the seed should come to whom the promises were made' (Who is Christ, of course - not Anglo-Saxonism).

     The book of Galatians is complete in its explanation of this covenant, and the means by which one must enter into it. Identity's exegesis excludes this promise/inheritance for those whom they claim are not Israelites after the flesh (as if that meant anything), but they fail in their attempt to show this from scripture, outside of some unbiblical assumptions relative to Paul's audience of Gentiles. Therefore, their exegesis is built as a house of cards that stands or falls on one point: exclusion. What I mean by this is that their doctrine of exclusion (excluding non-Israelites from the inheritance of sons) cannot stand if it can be proven that Paul's letters are written in an inclusionary way (including 'those which are of faith' as being the children of God - and if children, then heirs according to the promise, etc.).

     Therefore, the fundamental flaw of Identity's exegesis is the attempt to convert clearly inclusionary verses into an intent of exclusion. They have to work pretty hard to make the kingdom inheritance exclusionary based upon physical lineage ! One would think in ALL THE PASSAGES where the fleshly distinctions are cast away (in the context of salvation and inheritance) it would be clearly stated that this doesn't apply to strangers (in terms of inheritance) In fact, I don't find ONE such Scripture! But I find plenty of such that say that 'as many as', etc. (which are worked upon by Identity to say otherwise).

     This is the bottom line that must be established in the issue of who is heir: exclusion versus inclusion. In reading these pivotal passages, the face value, common sense intent is twisted by Identity's teachings to appear exclusionary, instead of inclusionary. Here are a number of verses given for example: Gal. 6:16 'as many as walk according to this rule, ... the Israel of God' See also Eph. 3:6; Heb. 6:12; Gal. 3:22; Gal 3:29; Gal.3:7; Rom. 4:16 Rom. 8:14; John 1:12-13; I Cor 7:19 and Philippians 3:3.

     In all of these cases, no clarification is made as to the we's, as many as's, ye's, to them's, or any other inclusionary statement made relative to those in Jesus Christ except by bold assumption. In I Cor 10:32, Paul had the perfect opportunity to distinguish, but didn't. The only distinction in Gentiles is between those who are in Christ, and those who are not; the same and only distinction between all men! Romans 9:6-11 again plainly (no wonder Paul had to write this so often, knowing that, otherwise, people would believe what the Judaizers, Christian Identity and Dispensationalism are teaching) differentiates between men: those in Christ, and those not. One would think that if there was a third inheritance (1. Damnation; 2. Salvation and inheritance for Israelites; or as you teach, 3. Salvation with no inheritance for saved heathen), Paul would say so. The only distinction for Israelites (after the flesh) and non-Israelites (after the flesh) is uncircumcision vs. circumcision of the heart (Joel 2:13).

     Christian Identity will then point to Romans 9:6, as if by Paul telling the Romans that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel', people are only being subtractd from Israel, not Gentiles added thereto. As far as the subtraction of Romans 9 is concerned, the Israelites after the flesh are excluded from the eternal Israel (Christ) if they do not take hold of his covenant, which is the point made in this verse.. the next verse talks about the addition, as it says, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called', meaning those in Jesus Christ, otherwise called the children of promise, which would be as the sand of the seashore!

     The unbelieving Israelites can be added back to the root, which is Christ, but only 'if they abide not yet in unbelief' (Romans 11:23). In a nut shell, all Israel has been cut off (v.23; Matthew 3:10), and the kingdom given to Christ (Matt 21:38; Heb 1:2; 11:10,13,16; Eph 2:20), who allows all those of faith to be grafted back, with the heathen, that he may have mercy upon all.

     And Jesus Christ is, indeed, all in all.

 

III. The Separation of Salvation from the Inheritance

     The most obvious fatal flaw of Identity's doctrine is the assertion that all the inheritance promised to the fathers was not solely in Jesus Christ, but actually belongs to Israel after the flesh, and therefore, is not for the 'heathen,' regardless of their station in Christ. This error is the reason Paul stood before Agrippa, and the very reason why wrote the book of Galatians as he did. It is also simply the other side of the Dispensationalist coin (See Also Three Errors of Dispensationalism), which also declares that the flesh gains merit with God. Instead of saying "the Jews (carnal nation of Palestine) are God's chosen people on account of their lineage" (which is also what Judaism teaches), Identity teaches that the diasporia (and the House of Judah) after the flesh are God's chosen people on account of their lineage, if they are in Christ." This is why it is not a half-truth to say that, because Jesus Christ is Israel, it all depends on our station in Him, for salvation and inheritance of the promises which are received through Him alone.

     The children of Abraham are consistently referred to, not as according to flesh but, as according to the spirit. Galatians 3:7 is simply the most direct statement, in this regard. By the way, there is no switch in context from 3:7 to 3:8-9, where Paul identifies the justification of the heathen... The most significant aspect of this verse, however, is that it declares that the justification of the heathen is the focus of the "Abrahamic covenant", which Paul declares to be the GOSPEL! Why is it the Gospel? Because, as verse 3:16 tells us, "to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The promise was given to Abraham and his seed, who is Christ Jesus. Acts 13:23 tells us that, "Of this man's (David's) seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour" (see Matthew 1:1). So, therefore, the promise referred to was that the Saviour would be raised to redeem to his people from their sins, and the 'Gentiles.. to open their eyes.. that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in (Christ)' (Acts 26:17-18). It was this same faith (and only this faith) in the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, that brought a good report and, thereby, inheritance, to the Old Testament Israel, as well.

     The "Abrahamic Covenant" was a promise made to Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, that he would be made great, the father of many nations, and that in Him would all nations of the earth be blessed, with curses falling upon those that cursed Him, etc. This is why Galatians 3:8 called the "Abrahamic covenant" 'the gospel'. The Old Testament/Covenant was always a covenant of promise... for salvation and inheritance through Jesus Christ to those of faith. He is the inheritor of all promises, and The Heir of all things (Matthew 21:43; Heb 1:2). The inheritance is all His. None belonged to ANYBODY outside of Him, whether Jew, Gentile, or newly re-Israelited Gentiles. It IS the whole story to say that Jesus is Israel and the inheritance is in Him, as he is the all in all...

     In addition, Ezek 44:28, Jer 10:16 and Ezek 46:16, concur that the inheritance is for the stranger, as well. Gal 3:14 declares that, 'the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.' Ezek 47:22-23 clearly states, 'The strangers.. shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.., saith the Lord GOD.' Why, you may ask? Acts 26:18 concurs that Jesus Christ came 'To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light.., that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.' In Col 1:12, Paul clarifies, by saying that, '(the) Father,.. hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:' Eph 1:11 concurs by saying, 'In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.'

     The middle wall of partition broken down was not simply that between Israel and Judah, but between them both as well as the Gentiles, within whom they mixed, making peace as a result of former hatreds. This is why God scattered Israel among the Gentiles, so that they could be brought back in on their shoulders, and in their arms. There is no doubt that Ezek. 36, etc. teaches that God will call them back, but this does not teach a distinction in inheritances. In fact, Joel 2:32, and I Cor 1:2 makes a point to declare that there is no distinction!

     Romans 4 makes it clear enough that all of faith are the children of Abraham (v. 11), with no distinction between circ. or non (v. 12) or any other stated reason! Identity's distinction between Gentiles IS NOT FOUND in this explanation of grace by faith bringing the promise to be heir of the world (v. 13-14, 16, with verse 17 putting 'many nations' in to further prove my point)

 

A. Inheritance is promise - one in the same - for all those in Christ!

     Romans 1:1-2, in conformity with what I've just written, calls the Gospel the same promise of the Prophets. The significance of this broad declaration is that there is no separating the gospel of the New Testament from the inheritance of the Old Testament, and also the inheritance spoken of in the New Testament, from the promise of the Old Testament. The promise is identified in many ways, but it is still the same promise. It is identified with eternal life (Heb 9:15; 1 Jhn 2:25; Heb 11:39; Eph 3:6; 2:12; I Tim 4:, the land of Promise (2 Pet 3:13; Heb 11:9-10), and the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Luke 24:49; Galatians 3:14; Acts 1:4 Acts 2:33). The inheritance was by promise as well (Gal 4:23,28,30; Heb 6:12-17; Gal 3:8,18; Eph 3:6 & others we'll see in a bit) Gal 3:18 concurs, 'For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.' As does Gal 3:17 'And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.' As you can tell, Scripture equates the inheritance as being the same thing as the promise, which is what the Scripture teaches.

     We can also see from Scripture that the inheritance/promise is given with Holy Spirit', with the holy Spirit referred to as simply the down-payment of the promises of inheritance (Eph 1:14; I Cor 1:22; 5:5; Gal 3:27; Romans 4:11-13), which was to be received at the return of Christ. Romans 8:15 even goes as far as calling the indwelling of the Spirit adoption, declaring that those with the Spirit are the children of God, heirs, and joint-heirs. This fact alone destroys any possibility for a distinction between believers, as we are indwelt with the same Spirit- the Spirit of adoption! The adoption of son and heirs - joint-heirs! And it is not the children of the flesh, but the children of the promise (Those born again in Jesus Christ) which are counted for the seed... Which is no surprise, as Philippians 1:19 calls Him the 'Spirit of Jesus Christ'.

     For then to all become the children of God, (also called the seed, as they are in Christ), proves that they all are inheritors of the same promises... This is the clearest contradictor of Identity's doctrine, as one cannot separate the holy Spirit of Adoption from inheriting the promise of sons. The only alternative this leaves them is declaring that non-Israelites aren't indwelt with the Spirit! A few verses will suffice to show that all the seed are inheritors:

Galatians 3:29 'And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:7 '..they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham'
Romans 4:16 'Therefore it (the inheritance) is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not only to that which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham'
Romans 8:14 'For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God'
Romans 8:17 'And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ
Romans 9:7 'Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.' (Jesus Christ, of whom Isaac was a picture, of course)
John 1:12-13 'as many as received him, to them gave he power to be sons of God; even to them that believe on his name' (see Romans 8:17 Mt 3:9 Mt 5: Mt 5:45 Rom 8:16 Rom 8:21 Rom 9:8 Rom 9:26 Gal 3:7 Gal 3:26 Gal 3:8 Gal 4:3 Gal 4:25-31 1 Jhn 3:10)

     Which relationship proves the inheritance for all, as all saved are children, and all children are heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. This also is relative to the promises that go all the way back to Exodus 6:7 and before... the adoption of children. II Corinthians 6 declares this adoption, according to promise, plain, saying to ALL believers are the temple of God, 'as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.. And (I) will be a Father to you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters', which Paul calls in the next verse the 'promises'! This is also found in Hosea 2:32, Ezek 36:28; Romans 9:25-26, Zech 8:8, among others...

 

B. Land of Promise

     As the land of rest is clearly a major part of the inheritance (Deut 25:19, etc.), Identity must teach that non-Israelites cannot take part in the rest in Christ or the New Jerusalem, which is again the same issue as the indwelling of the Spirit of Adoption.

     Of course, the first assumption in this position is that the land which was promised as an eternal possession was temporal. This is not the case, however. The book of Hebrews is the only reference that need be visited, to show conclusively that Abraham regarded the eternal promise as referring to a city "whose builder and maker is God." This is identified as "a better country, that is, an heavenly" (11:10,16). In fact, verses 9,10 and 16 differentiate between the temporal land of promise, and the eternal land of promise, which they were still awaiting, when the book of Hebrews was written:

"By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

"But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."

     Regarding the time of the fulfillment of the promises of a temporal land, we have seen all promises given to the nation of Israel after the flesh at Sinai were fulfilled in the flesh as well (Joshua 21:44-45; I Kings 8:53).

 

C. Separation of Body of Christ from non-Israelites

     Identity teaches that Ephesians is written solely to Israelites, who, alone, (they say) constitute the 'far off' of 2:13 (even though, again, no distinction is made as to types of Gentiles, simply broad, inclusionary statements), and that the 'wall of partition' was simply between the houses of Israel and Judah... Therefore, they must take the position that when Paul writes, 'hath made both one', and 'make in himself of twain one new man', he is speaking only regarding Israel and Judah's relationship.. This being the case, they must account for what 'man' the heathen are in. Some teach that they are not in any way members of the body of Christ! We know that this is not Biblical, as Ephesians 2:16 only mentions one body.. I Corinthians 1:13 even asks the question, 'Is Christ divided?'

     Ephesians 3:1 has Paul, again, declaring that he is the apostle to the heathen (Gal 1:16; 3:, declaring of these heathen, that they are the beneficiaries of the 'mystery of his will' (1:9), that they would be 'gather(ed) together in one' (1:10), and, by being in such position they 'should be fellowheirs, and OF THE SAME BODY, and partakers of the promise in Christ BY THE GOSPEL.' Verse nine declares that this is for 'all men'. The foundation being established of to whom Paul was sent ('ethnos' including, but not exclusively those scattered, etc.) demands that this body is of all saved in Christ...

     Ephesians 4:5 even declares that there is but 'one body', with absolutely no distinction, explanation, or even hint that it is exclusive, instead of inclusive! Romans 12:5 says we being many are one body in Christ (no hint of exclusion). Romans 5:17-18 declares that this one body of Christ is for 'they which receive.. the gift of righteousness (inclusion, not exclusion)', by which righteousness (of Christ) 'the free gift came upon all men' (Identity, perhaps, teaches that this is not talking about the body of Christ, or that Paul made a mistake in saying 'all men' instead of 'all sons'). Romans 7:4 describes this life in Christ (salvation) as being a marriage (as in a bride). Ephesians 3:6 again says they are 'the same body.' To say otherwise is blasphemy (John 10:1). Regarding the temple of His body, I Corinthians 3:9;16-17 declares that heathen are 'God's building'. II Cor. 5:1-5 (II Cor. being written to 'all the saints') discusses the earnest of the spirit in relationship with this house.. I Cor. 12:13 declares that 'the body is one', 'for by one Spirit are we baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles (with no hint of exclusion).. and have been ALL MADE TO DRINK INTO ONE SPIRIT. Along these most important lines, I Cor. 6:15 declares that all saved Corinthians (no context that would state otherwise) 'are the members of Christ', saying that 'he that is JOINED UNTO THE LORD is one Spirit' , which brings up the Spirit issue again: They must cover their tracks by teaching that non-Israelites aren't partakers of the holy Spirit! They must, if they are going to say that the heathen are not inheritors. As we saw, the giving of the holy Spirit was the seal of the inheritance/promise (Eph 1:13; Luke 24:49 Acts 1:4 Acts 2:33).

     The bottom line is that one cannot assume that a writer is writing to someone if the writer doesn't say so. Any attempt to say that Paul was writing exclusively and not inclusively is committing a gross violation of Biblical exegesis. Because there is no declaration of exclusion, inclusion must be accepted as the clear meaning of 'they which are of faith', and 'they which be of faith', and 'and if ye be Christ's', etc. Many teach that the word 'ethnos' (heathen, nation) doesn't mean Gentiles always, but can also mean 'Israelites'. As we have seen, the word ethnos is a general term which is defined by its context. It is defined by its adjective. Of course, the 'every', and 'our' are adjectives that modify ethnos. The scriptures that are exclusionary, such as Luke 7:3-5, serve a specific purpose; In other words, that ethnos means nothing but 'nation', the context determining the shade of meaning, it is pure speculation to say that the uses of ethnos mean something outside of the context which clearly establishes their meaning (such as Galatians' 3:7-8's 'heathen').

     The foundational principle of all is that the flesh means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to being unto Him a people, and any attempt to create a distinction is adding to the clear message of the New Covenant "children of flesh are not the children of God" and "as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and upon the Israel of God" God is no respecter of persons.. ANY exclusion is pure speculation.

     The Scripture that they feel best supports them is the undoing of their position and the supporting of the present. This is the 'afar off' references of Romans and Ephesians 2:13. Instead of narrowing the field to simply Israelites, this widens the scope of the promises. Paul, in addressing Romans and Ephesians, addresses this to all saints, with absolutely no distinction. This is the 'mystery of the gospel', that Christ sent out and scattered the northern tribes within the heathen, to allow the elect from every nation to become a member of His Body/Temple by 'taking hold of His Covenant which he made with God, the Father, after the 'axe was laid to the root (not the branches, mind you) of the trees...' (Matthew 3:7-10) 'God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all...' 'For of Him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever'.

Source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTi ... ntity.html

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

There is one blessing with this Christian Identity heresy. By deciphering it, we have also deciphered the lies of the Jews, because Jewish ethno-centrism is so similar to C.I.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Bluejelly, just listening to your interview here. A few things:

I disagree with Gordzilla that this guy is misrepresenting CI. He has represented it fairly accurately. I am not surprised that CIs use the Hebraic expressions like Yahweh and Yashua. I can't remember who it was I was talking to the other day, maybe Christopher Marlowe, about the Masoretic distortions of the Bible. Yahweh, the tetragrammaton, appears to have been a Kabbalistic (and Masonic) name inserted into the Masoretic text of the Old Testament Hebrew translation. Interestingly, the much older Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) omits the tetragrammaton. As for "Yeshua" or its many variations, there is no scholarship to prove that it was the Hebrew name for Jesus. It is a guess name.

Bluejelly, I got the impression you weren't buying the BS this guy was telling you. You quickly picked up on the contradiction: that Christian Identity is a glorified Jewry. Now why don't others see that? Because they are carnally minded. They miss the whole point that, as you said, Christianity is universal, not exclusive, like the Jews thought the scriptures were. And Christian Identity is just carrying on the tradition of the Pharisees by teaching this exclusivity nonsense. Jesus preaching against this is what got Him killed. As if God would create the planet with a bunch of humans and then select only a small group as his chosen people. It's a ridiculous notion and you have every right to be repulsed by this.

But you can see why this exclusivity doctrine is so seductive. People get to feel higher and more important than others. It's an ego thing, all about self.

Jesus spent a great deal of time trying to show the Jews that the Bible was meant for all humans. But they couldn't get it through their thick heads and they were judged in 70AD for their transgressions against the prophets and for killing Christ—and for failing to bring truth to the rest of the world, the only thing they were chosen to do and only for a time. They failed miserably. Not only did they not spread God's free and universal truth, they forsook God and worshipped other Gods and killed God's active messengers. You read the Old Testament and you can see how many prophets died at the hands of the Jews because the Jews didn't like what they spoke. And what the prophets spoke was usually centred around repentance.

Keep asking questions, bluejelly.

Edit: just thinking...the Christian Identity doctrine tends to give validity to the notion that Christianity is a Jewish conspiracy. Is that why some on this board always focus on CI when attacking Christianity? Too afraid to take on legitimate orthodox Christianity? Having said that, Christian Identity does not help international Jewry directly. It just deceives and confuses gentiles.

If you care to read this book, it will clear up a lot of things for you about Jews, Christians, and Israel.

The Hope of Israel, what is it? Phillip Mauro http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/p ... israel.pdf

"Not giving heed to Jewish fables" - Titus 1:14

[GordZilla]

To be clear; I didn't say he was misrepresenting CI, I stated that I didn't think he was a very good representative, and mostly because of the other nonsense he had to say on a variety of fronts -he discredited himself. Small potatoes to be sure, but I like to be clear.

 

[Roy Hobs]

I'm someone who is wrestling with the CI doctrine.  Most of my spirit wants to reject it.  But there are Scriptures hard to refute.

Does any Bible believing person here on this forum have a good response to the Verse in which Jesus says that He only came for the House of Israel?  

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-24.htm

Parallel this verse to the Scriptures in the OT which designate that the promises were given to Abraham and HIS SEED.  His Seed in his lineage.....ie., his blood kin.  


Thanks for the help.  

Ps.....Please...............this Post is not meant for anyone other than Bible believing people.  I do not wish to argue Religion.  I believe in Faith.  That means that I am believing in something that which is unseen and cannot be proven in material fact.  I believe in faith.  I'm not going to try and convince anyone otherwise and I just want to be left alone in my belief and I will leave you alone.  I would appreciate it if those who do not believe would spare their opinions here on this Post.  Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Hi guys, thanks for listening. I wasn't nervous talking to that guy, it is just the way I sound, I'm thinking when I talk, I change what I am saying mid sentence and stumble around often.

I don't think there is a right and wrong belief system except what works. Believing and acting on something that is not true can be more successful than believing something that is true. I believe the theories of darwin but I am not against people following CI as it is a good counter belief system (much like creativity) against jewish domination, it's better than that shit can of a religion judeo christainity. Sure people will say CI is judaism like, if so why not fight fire with fire, hell we outnumber them greatly, use their tricks against them and they are screwed. I rather base my life on facts and things which are reasonable to assume.

Roy Hobs, I didn't click on that link but the woman at the well story sounds pretty much what it sounds like. Jesus told her to get lost and that he has only come to help jews, after she lowered herself enough under insults agreeing with jesus she is not even fit to eat the crumbs of jews, he did a magic trick on her kid. Following it further, the Jews rejected him as a nutcase (perhaps early type of Tay-Sachs) and thought what is not good for jews also is not good for gentiles, packaged up his writings and promoted it to the goy.

I have studied Christianity quite abit, I really just treat the whole bible as a joke now, but that is my opinion.

Roy if you are interested in the CI perspective on the woman at the well, story is there.

[youtube:kbulmgqs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x4Vd-mhn5A[/youtube]kbulmgqs]

 :up:

[Michael K.]

Dear Roy Hobbs,

Here is the approximate and unofficial Orthodox Christian answer to your question, in my opinion:

Matthew 15:25 (KJV) reads:

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The word of the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The argument hinges on the meaning of "the house of Israel." The CI adherents cling to the fleshy interpretation that this literally constitutes a reference to bloodline.  The spiritual interpretation is that it refers to those who worship the God of Israel, who is the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with love and in faith.  Which do you choose: confidence in the flesh or confidence in the Spirit?  You must choose to be a spiritual man to see spiritual things.  If you remain in spiritual bond to the flesh you will die in it.

And in this Gospel story, a demon possessed woman of pagan Tyre and Sidon who knows not of the God of Israel begs Jesus to cast out the demon in her, presumably picked up through her own sin.  At first he doesn't want to bother with her because she is a spiritual dog, but he relents when he sees true humility in her and great faith as well.  So is the message that Jesus is really exclusive to Israel alone?  No, because he has mercy in abundance for anyone who comes with humility and faith.

Matthew 8 (King James Version):

5  And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

 6  And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

 7  And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

 8  The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

 9  For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

 10  When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 11  And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

 12  But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 13  And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

A Merry Christmas and Blessed Nativity to you.

[Michael K.]

Arabic icon of St. George.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Roy Hobbs, in addition to what Michael K. spoke:

Mistaken Identity Doctrine

Jesus is Israel

Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. "

Christian Identity is gaining incredible popularity, in part because they are correct in their declaration that the "Jews" (Romans 2:28) in Palestine today are NOT THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD (For more information on this subject, please visit Jesus is Israel). This fact is easily proven from Scripture, and leads many to assume that the Israel must, then, be some other nationalistic people.

    However, Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is Israel (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15), and that all promises were made to Him and find fullness in Him (Gal 3:16, II Cor 1:20).   "Israel" is the proper name of Jesus Christ (Hos. 11:1; Matt 2:18; cf. Gal 3:16).  This name was lent to Jacob as a symbol of Jesus Christ's role as the "fullness of nations".  When the axe was sunk through the root (Matt. 3:7-10) of  "Israel after the flesh" in AD70, all that stood was the superior eternal nation called the "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:15-16).

     Christian Identity mistakes Israel as a temporal people, instead of the spiritual/eternal nation in the body of Christ that is taught in the Bible.  As a result, this view teaches that temporal standards serve as a means of either redemption or inheritance -- instead of basing inheritance and redemption on the spiritual standard of Jesus Christ alone.  This results in a fleshly nationalistic view, as held by first-century Judaism and modern Dispensationalism.   It seeks to take glory away from Jesus Christ... so walk circumspectly around this one, if you must study it.

There are two aspects to God's plan of Redemption.  The temporal, and the eternal/spiritual.  Identity focuses on the temporal -- which is a part -- but only the inferior part.  Jesus Christ alone is the fullness, and He should not be associated with any nationalistic movement.

     Before proceeding into the articles and books, please read the two following Philip Mauro chapters, so as to understand the framework of this debate.  This issue, as all others, rests more on the chosen method of Bible interpretation (hermeneutic), instead of the interpretation itself.

Philip Mauro  -  From "The Hope of Israel"

- How are the Prophecies of Blessing to Israel to be Interpreted?
- How the O.T. Prophecies of Israel were Interpeted by Paul

Phillip Mauro: The Hope of Israel - http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/p ... israel.pdf

Source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTi ... index.html

Merry Christmas to you, too, Michael K, and to everyone here at TIU!

[Anonymous]

Hey if any of you would like to come onto my show and discuss Christianity i would like to have you on.

[Roy Hobs]

Michael, Timothy and Blue Jelly..................thank you.  Sincerely.  Merry Christmas to you all as well.  I will study this issue over this welcomed holiday.  I hope and pray that 2012 will give us hope.  I fear not, however.  Greetings.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Hey if any of you would like to come onto my show and discuss Christianity i would like to have you on.

What kinds of things would you talk about on your show?

Some more for ya, Roy:

PREMISE #1: JESUS CHRIST IS ISRAEL

Jesus is the builder of the tabernacle of David -- He is the great King, both of the temporal and eternal worlds.  His supremacy over Jews as well as Gentiles is prophetically seen in Abraham's role as the father of both Ishmael and Isaac.    In Jesus Christ alone is the pattern of the Old Covenant body realized in His eternal glorious "One Body" --  The Body of Christ, The House of David (Isaiah 22:22) -- the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:15-16).

Exodus 4:22 "Israel is my son, even my firstborn"
Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
Matthew 2:15 "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. "
Zechariah 6:12 "Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH: and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord."
Isaiah 22:20,21 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."
Jeremiah 2:3 "Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord."

#2: REJECTION OF ISRAEL BRINGS DESTRUCTION

There are two sides to the coin of ancient Israel's history.  The touch of God upon the pinnacle of Sinai must be balanced against the touch of God upon the pinnacle of the temple in A.D.70.   The first was felt at the formation of the nation, the latter at its dissolution.   It is important to realize that Preterists don't see the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 as punishment from God for the murder of Christ, as much as the natural consequence of having rejected him.  in other words, the Jewish nation destroyed itself by rejecting Jesus as Israel.

Hosea 13:9 "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help."

Source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyAr ... srael.html

It's simply a case of the Old Testament pointing ahead to Christ and the New Testament pointing back to Christ. Christian Identity throw that out the window and have the New Testament pointing back to them; meanwhile, the Jews believe the Old Testament points ahead to them while the New Testament points back to them as the focus of the Bible. They are both wrong. It's all about Jesus, always has been. Instead of God having a chosen people, He has a chosen person: His Son. His body is made up believers, and they, too, are called Israel.

1. JESUS OF BETHLEHEM, GOD'S CHOSEN PERSON

David Chilton
The Restoration of Israel - "In His sovereign grace God has chosen to save some out of Israel, even as He has condemned Israel as a whole, so that "Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened" in their unbelief, like the ungodly Pharaoh of Egypt (v. 7; cf. 9:14-18). For the majority of ethnic Israel, "God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, to this very day" (v. 8; cf Acts 28:25-28). Upon those excommunicated from the covenant will come the curses of the Old Testament: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bend their backs forever" (v. 9-10). Nevertheless, God still had His elect among ethnic Israel. Like Paul, they would be saved. God's rejection of Israel was not total."
   
Holman Bible Dictionary
THE NEW COVENANT CHURCH IS THE TRUE ISRAEL  - "Christ claimed His servant-messiahship, for He is the Son of David, fulfilling the promise of God in the Old Testament. Jesus is the King but rejected every political interpretation of His messianic vocation. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). "

Philip Mauro
The Hope Of Israel, What Is It? - "There are certain Prophetic passages in the Old Testament, which, apart from the light afforded by the New, might be taken as relating to "Israel after the flesh," and as foretelling the restoration, at some future day, of their national greatness. The erroneous doctrine of the teachers of Israel was based upon an unspiritual interpretation of their own Scriptures; for "they know not the voices of their prophets which were read every sabbath day."

James B. Jordan
The Future of Israel Re-examined   - "Just as the fullness of the Gentiles eventually led to the fullness of Israel, so the fullness of faithful Churches today can and will lead to the fullness of unfaithful liberal and dead orthodox Christian communities."

Samuel Lee
"I have but just returned from the morning service at the Cathedral, where I had much comfort in delivering a sermon on the Divinity of our Lord, showing that He was the Jehovah of the Mosaic and patriarchal dispensations incarnate. This consideration I find a most edifying and instructive one; it seems to open to me the doctrines of the prophetic Scriptures in a most encouraging point of view, and to ascribe positively to Christ all that has been said in the Psalms and Prophets of the right, etc., of the Lord, i.e., of Jehovah. I think my next must be an expansion of this consideration to show how intimately the doctrines of Scripture are connected with the true interpretation of prophecy. I have occasionally mentioned this to you generally. I now feel more particularly its value; and, as it will enable me to throw an immense amount of light on the Old Testament, and hence make the reading of it very profitable, and connect it closely with the New Testament, I cannot help thinking the endeavour will have great good both with myself and others, especially as it will have the effect of dispelling some of the Jewish--may I not say Egyptian--darkness under which it labours with the many. I got leave yesterday for *[ * Pupil at Blind Asylum.] Miss W. to come to the Cathedral today. She was "much gratified" and hopes to come again. So it always is with the things or persons we love; we no sooner have the pleasure of seeing them but we want to see them again. Well, I suppose I must ask leave again for her. The housekeeper at the asylum (for the blind) spoke very highly of her, particularly as exerting a very good influence upon those about her. This "liked me much." . . . Just returned from church. Mr C. preached a very good and really evangelical sermon. Some parts of it were echoes of mine this morning.' " ('41 PARK STREET, BRISTOL,
'Aug. 31, 1851.)

Ovid Need, Jr.
Israel's Identity  (Introduction to " Israel's Identity/Israel's Conversion.")   - "There are those who hold that the true Israel of God are those who can trace their blood line to Abraham through Isaac, if it were possible. There are those who claim that people who have gone through and keep certain rituals and ceremonies are the true Israel.  There are those who claim that the White Anglo-Saxon race is the true Israel. Midst all the voices calling out, "We are the true Israel of God," or "They are the true Israel," it seems that God's voice (Word) is ignored.
Israel Restored   - "Leviticus 26:14-39 describes the "destruction" of Israel. Then vv. 40-46, describes the restoration of Israel. The question we would like to address is this -- is the promised restoration the restoration of the Old Testament national Israel, is it the New Testament Israel of God or does it refer to both."
Dead Bones , Ez 37  - "The clear understanding of this vision is that God's Spirit could and would overcome the miserable condition of the Israelite nation. The promise here is that the Spirit would reestablish Israel into its covenant relationship with the Lord, where it would be blessed by the Lord."
The Ensign, Christ  (Isa 11:10-12)  - "Adam's spiritual death resulted in Adam being the root of the fallen nation of sinners. Every one of Adam's seed was born a part of that nation of sinners. Christ tells his disciples here that through his death, he will become the root of a new nation. This new nation will love God. This new nation will have both the desire and power to do what Adam failed to do --- obey and please the heavenly Father. (Php. 2:13.)"
Can Jesus be the Messiah of the Jews today?  - "The Christian Church, in which the promised completion of the theocracy begins to be realized, is the elect race, which consists of believing Israelites. (b) Their election to participation in the completed salvation is accomplished in baptism, in which God makes them a holy nation by equipping them with His Spirit, and granting them the full forgiveness of sin. (c) All Israelites who would not obey the demand of the message of salvation are excluded from the elect race. (d) Wherever individual Gentiles are received in to the Church through baptism, they are joined to the elect race, whose substance is formed by believing Israel."
Galatians   - "Being a child of God by faith in Christ is the same as being a child of Abraham. Those who are sons of God are the children of Abraham as promised by God, and, accordingly, they alone are the heirs to the promise given by God to Abraham, (3:24) which we have already defined. Throughout this letter, Paul continually stresses the fact that heirship has nothing to do with physical birth, physical location nor with religious practices, i.e., keeping the laws of the Jews religion. (1:13.) At every turn, Paul points out that heirship is based upon faith: only those who are the sons of God are the children of Abraham according to the promise given to Abraham. The blessings of that promise are passed down by faith, not by race nor nationality."

[Anonymous]

Tim, Discuss the bible, some hard questions etc.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I'll give it some thought. I would like to know the gist of the questions before hand so that I may properly prepare.

[Anonymous]

We can go where ever you like. I would like to discuss some of the themes and stories in the OT, some of the sayings of Jesus and also the actions of Paul. Why not also discuss the woman at the well too.

[Roy Hobs]

Well....I finally listened to the interview.  

I have to say that I'm completely embarrassed to be White and to have any inclination towards the theories of CI.  

This guy, whoever he is, does not represent ME.  That is certain.  It almost felt like a set up.  Of course I know it wasn't.  I'm just very paranoid nowadays.  This guy sounded so OFF THE MARK I didn't think it was real.  

This is why I could never join this camp in any way shape or form.

What a joke this guy is/was.  Embarrasing.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think he was full of shit, I was not impressed how he did not answer my questions properly and made stuff up on the fly. It was not a setup interview, I was recording the conversation and he did not know it was being recorded unless he recognized the beeps, I did ask him at the end if it would be ok to upload the conversation which he agreed. His claims of darwin being a cocaine addict are completely unfounded, I did a quick search of google and did not find anything about this, I think he make that claim up himself and simply called it an undeniable fact. I think the only fact about this guy is he makes up his own undeniable facts and thats a fact.

[Roy Hobs]

At first I thought he was Brother Nathanial Kapner!    He had that same tone of voice and ARROGANCE.  The ci community should silence this guy.  He is a poor representative.  About the only guy I can semi-tolerate is Eli James.  But I can't take his laugh..........so I just don't listen anymore.  You have to wonder why he is always laughing.  

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Yeah, I think he was full of shit, I was not impressed how he did not answer my questions properly and made stuff up on the fly. It was not a setup interview, I was recording the conversation and he did not know it was being recorded unless he recognized the beeps, I did ask him at the end if it would be ok to upload the conversation which he agreed. His claims of darwin being a cocaine addict are completely unfounded, I did a quick search of google and did not find anything about this, I think he make that claim up himself and simply called it an undeniable fact. I think the only fact about this guy is he makes up his own undeniable facts and thats a fact.

Bluejelly,

What parts of the following do you agree and disagree with? I'm kind of curious...

----------

88 PRECEPTS
By David Lane (P.O.W.)

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth."

   
Before we start i would like to say that until the White race realizes that there is only one source from which we can ascertain lasting truths, there will never be peace or stability on this earth. In the immutable Laws of Nature are the keys to life, order, and understanding. The words of men, even those which some consider 'inspired' are subject to the translations, vocabulary, additions, subtractions, and distortions of fallible mortals. Therefore, every writing or influence, ancient or modern, must be strained through the test of conformity to Natural Law. The White Peoples of the earth must collectively understand that they are equally subject to the iron-hard Laws of Nature with every other creature of the Universe, or they will not secure peace, safety, nor even their existence. The world is in flames because Races, Sub-races, Nations, and Cultures are being forced to violate their own Nature- ordained instincts for self-preservation. Many men of good will, but little understanding, are struggling against symptoms which are the result of disobedience to Natural Law. As is the Nature of man, most take narrow, provincial stances predicated on views formed by immediate environment, current circumstances, and conditioned dogma. This is encouraged by that powerful and ruthless Tribe which has controlled the affairs of the world for untold centuries by exploiting Man's most base instincts. Conflict among and between the unenlightened serves as their mask and shield. A deeper understanding of the Fundamental Laws that govern the affairs of Men is necessary if we are to save civilization from its usurious executioners. These few pages are not intended to provide a detailed system of government, but as PRECEPTS which, when understood, will benefit and preserve a People as individuals and as a Nation.

1. Any religion or teaching which denies the Natural Laws of the Universe is false.

2. Whatever People's perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature's Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.

3. God and religion are distinct, separate and often conflicting concepts. Nature evidences the divine plan, for the natural world is the work of the force or the intelligence men call God. Religion is the creation of mortals, therefore predestined to fallibility. Religion may preserve or destroy a People, depending on the structure given by its progenitors, the motives of its agents and the vagaries of historical circumstances.

4. The truest form of prayer is communion with Nature. It is not vocal. Go to a lonely spot, if possible a mountaintop, on a clear, star-lit night, ponder the majesty and order of the infinite macrocosm. Then consider the intricacies of the equally infinite microcosm. Understand that you are on the one hand inconsequential beyond comprehension in the size of things, and on the other hand, you are potentially valuable beyond comprehension as a link in destiny's chain. There you begin to understand how pride and self can co-exist with respect and reverence. There we find harmony with Nature and with harmony comes strength, peace and certainty.

5. Secular power systems protect and promote religions, which teach of an after-life. Thus, people are taught to abandon defenses against the predators of this life.

6. History, both secular and religious, is a fable conceived in self-serving deceit and promulgated by those who perceive benefits.

7. Religion in its most beneficial form is the symbology of a People and their culture. A multiracial religion destroys the senses of uniqueness, exclusivity and value necessary to the survival of a race.

8. What men call the 'super natural' is actually the 'natural' not yet understood or revealed.

9. A proliferation of laws with the resultant loss of freedom is a sign of, and directly proportional to, spiritual sickness in a Nation.

10. If a Nation is devoid of spiritual health and moral character, then government and unprincipled men will fill the vacancy. Therefore, freedom prospers in moral values and tyranny thrives in moral decay.

11. Truth requires little explanation. Therefore, beware of verbose doctrines. The great principles are revealed in brevity.

12. Truth does not fear investigation.

13. Unfounded belief is pitfall. A People who do not check the validity and effect of their beliefs with reason will suffer or perish.

14. In accord with Nature's Laws, nothing is more right than the preservation of one's own race.

15. No greater motivating force exists than the certain conviction that one is right.

16. Discernment is a sign of a healthy People. In a sick or dying nation, civilization, culture or race, substance is abandoned in favor of appearance.

17. Discernment includes the ability to recognize the difference between belief and demonstrable reality.

18. There exists no such thing as rights or privileges under the Laws of Nature. The deer being stalked by a hungry lion has no right to life. However, he may purchase life by obedience to nature- ordained instincts for vigilance and flight. Similarly, men have no rights to life, liberty or happiness. These circumstances may be purchased by oneself, by one?s family, by one?s tribe or by one's ancestors, but they are nonetheless purchases and are not rights. Furthermore, the value of these purchases can only be maintained through vigilance and obedience to Natural Law.

19. A people who are not convinced of their uniqueness and value will perish.

20. The White race has suffered invasions and brutality from Africa and Asia for thousands of years. For example, Attila and the Asiatic Huns who invaded Europe in the 5th century, raping, plundering and killing from the Alps to the Baltic and the Caspian Seas. This scenario was repeated by the Mongols of Genghis Khan 800 years later. (Note here that the American Indians are not ?Native Americans,? but are racially Mongolians.) In the 8th century, hundreds of years before Negroes were brought to America, the North African Moors of mixed racial background invaded and conquered Portugal, Spain and part of France. So, the attempted guilt-trip placed on the White race by civilization's executioners is invalid under both historical circumstance and the Natural Law which denies inter-specie compassion. The fact is, all races have benefited immeasurably from the creative genius of the Aryan People.

21. People who allow others not of their race to live among them will perish, because the inevitable result of a racial integration is racial inter-breeding which destroys the characteristics and existence of a race. Forced integration is deliberate and malicious genocide, particularly for a People like the White race, who are now a small minority in the world.

22. In the final analysis, a race or specie is not judged superior or inferior by its accomplishments, but by its will and ability to survive.

23. Political, economic, and religious systems may be destroyed and resurrected by men, but the death of a race is eternal.

24. No race of People can indefinitely continue their existence without territorial imperatives in which to propagate, protect, and promote their own kind.

25. A People without a culture exclusively their own will perish.

26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one?s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one?s own race who commit treason against one's own kind and against the nations of one?s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one?s People, one's culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one?s territorial imperative.

28. The concept of a multi-racial society violates every Natural Law for specie preservation.

29. The concept of 'equality' is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation, or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence.

30. The instincts for racial and specie preservation are ordained by Nature.

31. Instincts are Nature?s perfect mechanism for the survival of each race and specie. The human weakness of rationalizing situations for self-gratification must not be permitted to interfere with these instincts.

32. Miscegenation, that is race-mixing, is and has always been, the greatest threat to the survival of the Aryan race.

33. Inter-specie compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal. If a wolf were to intercede to save a lamb from a lion, he would be killed. Today, we see the White man taxed so heavily that he cannot afford children. The taxes raised are then used to support the breeding of tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom then demand the last White females for breeding partners. As you can see, man is subject to all the Laws of Nature. This has nothing to do with morality, hatred, good or evil. Nature does not recognize the concepts of good and evil in inter-specie relationships. If the lion eats the lamb, it is good for the lion and evil for the lamb. If the lamb escapes and the lion starves, it is good for the lamb and evil for the lion. So, we see the same incident is labeled both good and evil. This cannot be, for there are no contradictions within Nature's Laws.

34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature's perfect mechanism for specie preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; its purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either. Understand that for thousands of years our females bore children at an early age. Now, in an attempt to conform to and compete in an alien culture, they deny their Nature-ordained instincts and duties. Teach responsibility, but, also, have understanding. The life of a race springs from the wombs of its women. He who would judge must first understand the difference between what is good and what is right.

35. Homosexuality is a crime against Nature. All Nature declares the purpose of the instinct for sexual union is reproduction and thus, preservations of the specie. The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females, as well as elements such as territory and power, which are necessary to keep them.

36. Sexual pornography degrades the Nature of all who are involved. A beautiful nude woman is art; a camera between her knees to explore her private parts is pornography.

37. That race whose males will not fight to death to keep and mate with their females will perish. Any White man with healthy instincts feels disgust and revulsion when he sees a woman of his race with a man of another race. Those, who today control the media and affairs of the Western World, teach that this is wrong and shameful. They label it ?racism.? As any ?ism,? for instance the word ?nationalism,? means to promote one?s own nation; ?racism? merely means to promote and protect the life of one?s own race. It is, perhaps, the proudest word in existence. Any man who disobey these instincts is anti-Nature.

38. In a sick and dying nation, culture, race or civilization, political dissent and traditional values will be labeled and persecuted as heinous crimes by inquisitors clothing themselves in jingoistic patriotism.

39. A People who are ignorant of their past will defile the present and destroy the future.

40. A race must honor above all earthly things, those who have given their lives or freedom for the preservation of the folk.

41. The folk, namely the members of the race, are the Nation. Racial loyalties must always supersede geographical and national boundaries. If this is taught and understood, it will end fratricidal wars. Wars must not be fought for the benefit of another race.

42. The Nations? leaders are not rulers, they are servants and guardians. They are not to serve for personal gain. Choose only a guardian who has no interest in the accumulation of material things.

43. Choose and judge your leaders, also called guardians, thus: Those who seek always to limit the power of government are of good heart and conscience. Those who seek to expand the power of government are base tyrants.

44. No government can give anything to anybody without first taking it from another. Government is, by its very nature, legalized taking. A limited amount of government is a necessary burden for national defense and internal order. Anything more is counterproductive to freedom and liberty.

45. The Organic founding Law, namely the Constitution of a Nation, must not be amendable by any method other than unanimous consent of all parties thereto and with all parties present. Otherwise, the doors are opened for the advent of that most dangerous and deadly form of government, democracy.

46. In a democracy those who control the media, and thus the minds of the electorate, have power undreamed by kings or dictators.

47. The simplest way to describe a democracy is this: Three people form a government, each having one vote. Then two of them vote to steal the wealth of the third.

48. The latter stages of a democracy are filled with foreign wars, because the bankrupt system attempts to preserve itself by plundering other nations.

49. In a democracy that which is legal is seldom moral, and that which is moral is often illegal.

50. A democracy is always followed by a strongman... some call him dictator. It is the only way to restore order out of the chaos caused by a democracy. Pick your strongman wisely! He must be a guardian in his heart. He must be one who has shown that his only purpose in life is the preservation of the folk. His ultimate aim must be to restore the rule of Law based on the perfect Laws of Nature. Do not choose him by his words. Choose one who has sacrificed all in the face of tyranny; choose one who has endured and persevered. This is the only reliable evidence of his worthiness and motives.

51. A power system will do anything, no matter how corrupt or brutal, to preserve itself.

52. Tyrannies cannot be ended without the use of force.

53. Those who commit treason disguise their deeds in proclamations of patriotism.

54. Propaganda is major component in all power systems, both secular and religious; false propaganda is a major component of unprincipled power systems. All power systems endeavor to convince their subjects that the system is good, just, beneficent and noble, as well as worthy of perpetuation and defense. The more jingoistic propaganda issued, the more suspicious one should be of its truth.

55. Political power, in the final analysis, is created and maintained by force.

56. A power system, secular or religious, which employs extensive calls to patriotism or requires verbosity and rhetoric for its preservation, is masking tyranny.

57. Propaganda is a legitimate and necessary weapon in any struggle. The elements of successful propaganda are: simplicity, emotion, repetition, and brevity. Also, since men believe what they want to believe, and since they want to believe that which they perceive as beneficial to themselves, then successful propaganda must appeal to the perceived selfinterest of those to whom it is disseminated.

58. Tyrannies teach what to think; free men learn how to think.

59. Beware of men who increase their wealth by the use of words. Particularly beware of the lawyers or priests who deny Natural Law.

60. The patriot, being led to the inquisition?s dungeons or the executioner?s axe, will be condemned the loudest by his former friends and allies; for thus they seek to escape the same fate.

61. The sweet goddess of Peace lives only under the protective arm of the ready God of War.

62. The organic founding Law of a Nation must state with unmistakable and irrevocable specificity the identity of the homogeneous racial, cultural group for whose welfare it was formed, and that the continued existence of the Nation is singularly for all time for the welfare of that specific group only.

63. That race or culture which lets others influence or control any of the following will perish:
- Organs of information;
- Educational institutions;
- Religious institutions;
- Political offices;
- Creation of their money;
- Judicial institutions;
- Cultural institutions;
- Economic life.

64. Just Laws require little explanation. Their meaning is irrevocable in simplicity and specificity.

65. Men?s emotions are stirred far more effectively by the spoken word than by the written word. This is why a ruling tyranny will react more violently to gatherings of dissenters than to books or pamphlets.

66. The organic founding Law of the Nation, or any law, is exactly as pertinent as the will and power to enforce it.

67. An unarmed or non-militant People will be enslaved.

68. Some say the pen is more powerful than the sword. Perhaps so. Yet, the pen without the sword has no authority.

69. Tyrannies are usually built step by step and disguised by noble rhetoric.

70. The difference between a terrorist and a patriot is control of the press.

71. The judgments of the guardians, the leaders, must be true to Natural Law and tempered by reason.

72. Materialism is base and destructive. The guardians of a Nation must constantly warn against and combat a materialistic spirit in the Nation. Acquisition of wealth and property, as need for the well-being of one?s family and obtained by honorable means is right and proper. Exploitation, particularly through usury, is destructive to a nation.

73. Materialism leads men to seek artificial status through wealth or property. True social status comes from service to Family, Race and Nation.

74. Materialism ultimately leads to conspicuous, unnecessary consumption, which in turn leads to the rape of Nature and destruction of the environment. It is unnatural. The true guardians of the Nation must be wholly untainted by materialism.

75. The function of a merchant or salesman is to provide a method of exchange. A merchant who promotes unnecessary consumption and materialism must not be tolerated.

76. The only lawful functions of money are as a medium of exchange and especially usury are unlawful. Usury (interest) at any percentage is a high crime which cannot be tolerated.

77. A nation with an aristocracy of money, lawyers or merchants will become a tyranny.

78. The simplest way to describe a usury-based central banking system is this: The bankers demand the property of the Nation as collateral for their loans. At interest, more money is owed them that they created with the loans. So, eventually, the bankers foreclose on the Nation.

79. Usury (interest), inflation, and oppressive taxation are the theft by deception and destroy the moral fabric of the Nation.

80. Wealth gained without sacrifices or honest labor will usually be misused.

81. Nothing in Nature is static; either the life force grows and expands or it decays and dies.

82. Respect must be earned; it cannot be demanded or assumed.

83. Avoid a vexatious man, for his venom will poison your own nature.

84. Self discipline is a mark of higher man.

85. One measure of a man is cheerfulness in adversity.

86. A fool judges others by their words. A wise man judges others by their actions and accomplishments.

87. In our relationships or interactions, as in all of Nature?s Laws, to each action there is a reaction. That which we plant will be harvested, if not by ourselves, then by another.

88. These are sure signs of a sick or dying Nation. If you see any of them, your guardians are committing treason.
- Mixing and destruction of the founding race;
- Destruction of the family units;
- Oppressive taxation;
- Corruption of the Law;
- Terror and suppression against those who warn of the Nation's error;
- Immorality: drugs, drunkenness, etc.;
- Infanticide (now called abortion);
- Destruction of the currency (inflation or usury);
- Aliens in the land, alien culture;
- Materialism;
- Foreign wars;
- Guardians (leaders) who pursue wealth or glory;
- Homosexuality;
- Religion not based on Natural Law.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

On Darwin and Cocaine... he didn't get it right... but keep an eye open...:  

http://www.strangescience.net/erasmus.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=RKRCZD ... 0&lpg=PA30

And keep in mind:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath522/kmath522.htm


==================

Erasmus Darwin

Portrait detail by Joseph Wright of Derby; original at Darwin College, Cambridge.
      
December 12, 1731 - April 18, 1802
Best known as the grandfather of the biologist Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin was a philosopher, poet, scientist and physician. Well informed on all aspects of late 18th-century science and medicine, he had advanced ideas on cosmology and evolution which he recorded in verse of a high quality.

"Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland.
"Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor's sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason."

As author of Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life in 1794, he proposed the gradual evolution of animals and plants.
Initiated: 1754
St. David's Lodge No. 36, Edinburgh
Source: Denslow.10,000 Famous Freemasons. For mother lodge cf. H. L. Haywood, Supplement to Mackey Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. 1966. p. 1198.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/dar ... win_e.html

[Anonymous]

CSR, I read through those, I agree with them, but not as rules, but good ideas. The same day I called into a new nazi/christian show and spoke for an hour and abit, didn't see eye to eye on everything, some of those points came up thou, link is there if you want listen.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-115714/TS-570932.mp3

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Do you think a group of a few 1,000 people could create 5 Billion people within 70,000 years?  What's the formula?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catas ... eck_theory

[pas]

CSR wrote:

Do you think a group of a few 1,000 people could create 5 Billion people within 70,000 years? What's the formula?

So, do you have the formula to create a whole woman out of a single rib or the formula to fit all living species on a boat etc.?You of all people should know that this is a never ending discussion, CSR.

Great show, Bluejelly!Keep up the good work.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Yeah, I think he was full of shit, I was not impressed how he did not answer my questions properly and made stuff up on the fly. It was not a setup interview, I was recording the conversation and he did not know it was being recorded unless he recognized the beeps, I did ask him at the end if it would be ok to upload the conversation which he agreed. His claims of darwin being a cocaine addict are completely unfounded, I did a quick search of google and did not find anything about this, I think he make that claim up himself and simply called it an undeniable fact. I think the only fact about this guy is he makes up his own undeniable facts and thats a fact.

Were you expecting something of substance from a cult member?

[Chad]

I'm someone who is wrestling with the CI doctrine.  Most of my spirit wants to reject it.  But there are Scriptures hard to refute.

Does any Bible believing person here on this forum have a good response to the Verse in which Jesus says that He only came for the House of Israel?  

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-24.htm

Parallel this verse to the Scriptures in the OT which designate that the promises were given to Abraham and HIS SEED.  His Seed in his lineage.....ie., his blood kin.  


Thanks for the help.  

Ps.....Please...............this Post is not meant for anyone other than Bible believing people.  I do not wish to argue Religion.  I believe in Faith.  That means that I am believing in something that which is unseen and cannot be proven in material fact.  I believe in faith.  I'm not going to try and convince anyone otherwise and I just want to be left alone in my belief and I will leave you alone.  I would appreciate it if those who do not believe would spare their opinions here on this Post.  Thank you.

There is no other way to explain away the "contract" or covenants between God and Israelites.  You have to look at the whole bible in context.  CI correctly teaches that god made many covenants with one seedline, from Adam to Noah to Abraham, on down to the House of Judah (from the tribes of Benjamin and Judah), and the House of Israel (the other ten tribes).  Both houses broke the covenants by violating the commandments.  Several prophets foretold of Christ's coming, including Isaiah, and this covenant was to be made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.  Never at any time was there any mention of any other group being a party to the covenant.  When Christ came, he told the Samarian woman, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  When Christ commissioned his disciples to go out and preach the gospel, he told them not to go anywhere else except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which were all of the scattered tribes.  Those would include the 10 tribes which were in Assyrian captivity, and any other break always.  The LDS church has no DNA proof for their doctrines because they do not have a reference sample for Lamanites.  However, they believe what they believe, solely on faith; and I can say this much, it may be inconsistent for me to simultaneously believe some parts of CI and the book of Mormon, because American Indians and Anglo Saxons are obviously different DNA, nevertheless, in the face of this inconsistency, I still believe, someway, somehow, that the book of Mormon is true too: and my only reason for believing the book of Mormon too is that I believe the holy spirit resides in that church, because they obey God's commandments.  That's just me, not CI. And again, I know that is incongruous as hell but I believe it on faith with no evidence or explanation of how both CI and Mormonism could simultaneously be true.

 Back to the new covenant....  It is what it is.  Black in white. Irrefutable.  That is what the author above failed to address.  

Saint Paul was a DEEP, hard to understand fellow.  But, we can infer one thing safely from Galatians, that there is a difference between the covenant and and salvation, and that merely being an Israelite in the flesh meant nothing without the faith that made Abraham riteous. The Apostles went where they were commissioned to go.  The scripture says that in the end all nations will worship Christ, and I do not see how this would be so if Christ was not offering salvation to more than just Israelites.  Salvation is Christ's to give.  The man who was crucified beside Christ had not been baptized, but Christ offered him salvation nonetheless.  The same I believe is true of non Israelites.  It is just that the covenant was made with Israelites. Those are my thoughts anyway, and I will say that I do not represent CI or LDS.

[Chad]

I apologize for the typos.  I'm on an iPhone, which keeps auto-correcting me, and I work at a remote location in the oil patch.  I work with my hands, and I pay tithing 10% like the Lord commands.  I believe in telling the truth, and do not believe that lying is justified to deceive anybody.  I pay my taxes and if anything parasites leach off of me, not the other way around.  Quite unlike the Judaics.

There is little or no physical evidence to support the theory that Celts, Anglo Saxons, are the 10 tribes of Israel lost to history books.  However, all you have to admit, it is a mighty peculiar coincidence that these tribes disappeared at the same time and the same place our forefathers first appeared around the Caucas mountains.  And, the apostles took the gospel to locations populated by us, and we accepted the gospel and our responsible for 95% of all missionary efforts.  Jesus Christ said His sheep hear his voice and He hears them.  It is a matter of faith, not fact, when people put two and two together.

Raymond Capt wrote two books of interest to anyone wanting to debunk CI: Jacob's Pillar and the Stone of Destiny.  This book demonstrates a royal line of kings from king David all the way up to the kings of Scotland. He also demonstrates some evidence that Jacob's stone, out of which God provided water to the Hebrews in the desert, was brought to Scotland by the prophet Jeremiah, and it has been used as a coronation stone for kings. Raymond Capt also wrote another book about discovered archeological evidence of names of tribes that the Assyrians used to refer to Israelites, which also happen to be the ancient names of our forefathers. Sheldon Emry wrote a book, available online from his memorial library, called Paul and Joseph of Arimathea: missionaries to the Gentiles, which contains an appendix with the last chapter of Acts of the apostle Paul, a chapter which, if genuine, proves Paul made it to Spain, where he intended to go, and also that he made it to the British Isles, which Emry corroborates with independent evidence.  And get this, Paul encountered Druids in the British Isles who informed him that they were descended from Hebrews.  

There are other books on the subject, which, like these, are not empirical evidence, but they establish links. The biggest support for this theory is the long list of marks or fingerprints of Israel, which matches the CI theory.

However, I do agree that CI is wrong about salvation and some other things that irritate Mr Tim.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Notice that bluejelly and co. single out Christianity Identity to talk about but rarely, if ever, discuss mainline Christianity?