Even prior to hearing the possibility that white Europeans are the true descendants of the chosen people, I have found it very difficult to understand why Christians would rubberstamp the actions of such an evil leader as Netanyahu. This man (not sure he’s human) confirmed which entity he worships when he proudly signed his people up to be lab rats for Pfizer. Even in the Old Testament, the kings of Israel who failed to follow God‘s commandments were punished or allowed to be taken into captivity and defeated in battle. Why do modern Christian Zionists forget those lessons, and assume that any leader of Israel must be blindly supported? Even Jesus recognized a synagogue of Satan, and remarked on the fact that there are people who call themselves Jews but are not. Why do we (Christians) lack curiosity in regard to such critical matters?
I think that christians lack curiosity (and discernment) because they follow the fake apostle Paul rather than the messiah himself. As a result of which, they have largely abandoned reading the old testament. Many christians do not forget the lessons you mentioned, they have never learned them to begin with.
As a ‘lapsed Catholic’ of 30+ years I thoroughly enjoyed this read! And, having seen the musical starring my teenage heartthrob Donny Osmond, this part made me smile:
“I really rather fancy the idea that I might be descended from one of those entertaining brothers in Joseph And His Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat.”
Someone who actually facilitates a relationship with Christ, rather than counting worldly things like Church attendance and the label of “Christianity” as some kind of qualifier for salvation in Heaven.
Thanks for your opinion. I do find it noteworthy that your opinion is the same opinion that every institutionalized church has been propagating since the council of Nicaea.
Please answer me this:
Did Jesus tell the Pharises:
"Because you do not believe me, you are not my people."
or
"You do not believe me because you are not of my people."
What is the difference in meaning between these?
What would the implications be of the institutional church to have reversed the meaning in translation?
I'll be happy to reply with Scripture, but I'll do so to the "opinion" above so he can choose in the future to use God's word as an reply, rather than a canned religious one...
I would quote Scripture as a reply to such an important question:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." (I Cor 15:1-4, Acts 16:31 - AV-KJB).
It's trusting this gospel that puts an individual into the body of Christ. It's study of the scriptures, rightly divided (2 Tim 2:15), that establishes him in the knowledge of the truth.
It seems to require a blind faith and a belief in a book written thousands of years ago by who knows and the new testament by who knows. And King James was a tyrant like all the other bloodlines who ran the British Empire
The idea of blind faith is an ignorant assertion. My faith isn't "blind" - I honestly do nothing 'blindly' these days. You're talking to a sceptic (me) who doesn't even believe that space travel and outer space is real.
If Christ was not real - I'd definitely understand that to be the case. I'd be happy to discuss this further with you or give my personal testimony, but it would be hard to shorten my story. Basically though, my friend, I have found that ultimately, everyone--worldwide--actually believes in God, but people who love sin (or you could even say, do not *hate* sin) are opposed to God and His word, so their hate expresses itself as scepticism.
The world is in such shambles because of sin, and most Churches failing to understand who Christ is and what He wants out of us. We are supposed to be fighting *against* sin, but Churches aren't preaching anything like that, heck most of them are political buildings.
I don't read the Bible at all. I tried but it's too hard. I have several of them. I was raised Irish Catholic through the 50s and 60s very strict times. I raised my children the same. I even had a big family because I didn't want to use artificial birth control as it was taught to be a sin. Then I dropped away from all that when my children were grown. It's imperative now that I get straight with my creator. That's what I'm searching for. How can we put our trust in books written thousands of years ago. I think the bloodline people wrote the old testament and the new testament wasn't written until hundreds of years later, so how can we be sure of anything. Also what about all the people everywhere else who never heard of the Bible or Jesus etc. They have their own version of God. God should be for everyone. Just being a good person and trying your best should please God enough. Maybe we just die and that's it. I definitely don't want to come back. Seriously would God want us learning verses off by heart and all that or just uttering a sincere prayer of thanks to be alive in the morning and thanks for getting us through the day and that we had enough food to eat etc. Anyway that's what I'm thinking today
FM, the Bible is not understood unless the Spirit of Truth reveals it. You must first trust the gospel of your salvation, realizing you are a sinner in need of a Savior.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." - 2 Cor 5:21
By trusting in what Christ did for you, freely, apart from anything you can do, He will save you and make you righteous. You will pass from death into life, with the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit.
If you then start in the Book of Romans in the Authorized King James Bible, He will begin to teach you and give you understanding, line upon line, precept upon precept. Nothing in this world can compare to the peace, joy and hope it brings.
Yeah, it can be a struggle to read, I always get sleepy, etc. I didn't know the Bible was true until I first found out God was real and working in my life. I'd recommend for you to pray, talk to Him; Perhaps call Him, “Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus Christ,” tell Him everything you'd like answers to.
Jesus is the one, true God. But God is the perfect judge, so if people like hunter-gatherers (the ones guided by the Spirit who hate evil, the ones with a full conscience and full regard for others) never heard of Him, it isn't that big of a deal in the end, because God doesn't judge based on what people legitimately cannot understand.
So, you can know who Jesus is, *without* actually hearing His name *and* without His Word, but here in the West we likely have no excuse - because we all have those advantages.
It's also extremely important to understand that Christ works through His Holy Spirit, so He can reveal Himself to people all over the world, under any circumstances. Don't forget that He is all-powerful! Great questions!
Someone has convinced you that a book, a history and a religion about a specific people and their relationship with their God is not about that people, but rather of another people, but no then it's about everyone, except no maybe it's tied to this or that which we'll just make up out of thin air. That's a very padded debate to have in modern Christianity.
By your view, whatever was promised to the Israelites, well God didn't really mean that. See it's actually for everyone. So all that Old Testament stuff is bollocks, right, except wait we believe it too, because you know adam and eve. But those racist covenants, those must be wrong. Yes we are improving god's word in the woke era. Oh wait.
But it's the same because it's all judaeo-christian now right, oh, it's only been called that since the 1970s? Wonder why. And they contradict each other? Am i not supposed to believe two contradictory things at the same time now? I have footbal to watch!
I think we should maybe read our Bible and see if God discriminates. Let's go do that a bit then.
Yes, as the place the Christ would come. They would be the first to hear the word of the Christ and to spread it throughout the world, there could be no more special role.
they are the covenant partner: the new covenant as per Jeremiah 31:31 is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Without Israel, the covenant is obsolete. “Gentile” or non-Israelite believers are grafted into that covenant, but are not the carrier. The special role remains, bc God does not revoke a calling. Jesus - as far as he is the Messiah of Israel will return to his physical as well as his spiritual people
You appear to be referencing Romans 11. But if you look at the KJB context, we who believe in this dispensation of grace are partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree by grace through faith alone. No covenant. No difference whether "Jew" or Gentile. By the time you get to Ephesians, we are no more children tossed to and fro, but mature adults standing fast in the faith of Christ.
there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in regard to the way of salvation: only through Christ, agreed. There is, however, still a difference in role and calling - and the moment of revelation/recognition. For whatever reason, God has bound himself to a physical people and that remains; gentile / non-Israelites believers join their story through faith, just like Ruth. If you look throughout Israel’s history, there always remained a faithful remnant, and I believe this is true here, also. Not every Israelite will be saved, but there remains a special calling on a physical Israel (again, we can debate who this is today). I believe here what’s at stake is the reliability of the word of God and his faithfulness. Also, in regard to the land of Israel: Joel 3:2 speaks of the nations being judged for scattering God’s people and dividing up HIS land (which he has given Israel as an inheritance). The triangle God-Israel-land of Israel must remain, otherwise God is not to be trusted. Whoever are the rightful descendants of Israel: they will have to return to the land in order for the redemptive process to be able to come to its conclusion. If white Europeans are the descendants: they will have to make their way to the land of Israel at some point ;)
No. Christ is the vine. Those that believe in him and follow him are either kept on the vine or grafted on. Those that do not are cut from it and die. Then they are cast into the flames. It cannot be any clearer. Israel ceased to exist for around 1400 years.
sorry, but if you say Israel ceased to exist, you make God a liar. See for example Jeremiah 31:
35Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day, who sets in order the moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD of Hosts is His name:
36“Only if this fixed order departed from My presence,
declares the LORD,
would Israel’s descendants ever cease
to be a nation before Me.”
37This is what the LORD says:
“Only if the heavens above could be measured
and the foundations of the earth below searched out
would I reject all of Israel’s descendants
because of all they have done,”
declares the LORD.
Also, Romans 9-11. Israel is not being replaced, gentile believers are grafted into the redemptive story of God with Israel. There is no loss in it for us. It only demonstrates the faithfulness of God.
33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third.
36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way.
37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’
39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”
What is the world? Paul professed that the gospel had already been preached "unto the ends of the world" in his own time. He died by 62 AD. So did the South American Indians or Sub-Saharan Africans, or the Chinese and Japanese, have a chance to hear the Gospel by then?
apparently, the fullness of the gentiles/nations had not yet come in at the time of his writing. and who says he is talking only space and not also time?
I recall hearing a biblical scholar say we are all misinterpreting the word Israel. He said being in the ‘state of Israel’ means to be one with God - it’s not a physical place.
1) The Bible is not *all* about that. Sorry, but your claim here is simply untrue.
2) As with every other Christian doctrine, it's crucial to find the position that reconciles *all* the biblical data, rather than picking and choosing which passages to attach weight to.
3) As a test of our love for the truth, God has arranged for the Bible to .mislead. those who do not genuinely love the truth. This short article explains: https://www.bayith.org/BTRBFB1of3_condensed.htm
Good question! Yes, I also recall a lot of so-and-so begat so-and-so who begat so-and-so. Historically, lineage has been super important to the ruling classes.
God has clearly allowed his enemy to corrupt scripture, to invert meanings, and to mislead his flock!
You agree with William Finck on this!
So where are the errors?
How do we find out what original scripture said?
How do we find out what the words *meant* to those *specific* people being addressed at that specific time?
You'll have a lot of explaining to do, to make biblical salvation not be about Yaweh's covenant people.
How about you pick a page from chtistogenea.org and we'll review that specific text? Maybe we can find an error together, because I need help finding one.
James, have you read the great Steve - Slayer of the Hokey Stick - McIntyre's recent tweet in which he goes down a related rabbit hole? The maths says the nearest genetic descendants of Israelites in the late Old Testament period are Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims.
I'm afraid the assumptions he makes about identity of his source samples do not conform with our understanding of the history of the Israelites. His source samples include, as far as I can tell, Hittites and Edomites.
Still, great to see that there's interest in the subject on Twitter as well!
I would love to answer all that you have said. The square and level which is the Word of God and history to corroborate are the only tools needed. Most will never use the tools but accept what they are told. Call yourself what you want but only a true child of God who trusts in Jesus Christ alone be they Jew or Gentile are God’s chosen ones. As a nation God has chosen Israel though most are lost and much of what it does is wrong perhaps. Since it is Independence Day, I will give you this nevertheless.
249 Years of Blessing’s
We are blessed to live in America’s 249 years of existence. The past hasn’t been easy for everyone or perfect for everyone. To those we are sorry and offer our deepest condolences.
As a nation we have never been perfect but abundantly blessed in many ways.
We were blessed to live in the freest of the world, the richest of the world and the land of opportunity. More importantly because of the signature blessing of the founding of our country and the great sacrifices, we have lived in religious freedom.
In fact the first President, George Washington, would have never been elected probably if James Madison had not had the backing of Pastor John Leland and the Baptists of Virginia.
John Leland and the Baptists fought for religious freedom which had been denied them down through the dark ages. Everyman of every religion had the right to worship as he pleased. God in the garden gave man that right to choose and later he gave that right to Cain. It’s sad to see men choose wrong for their eternal
life would hang on their choice. However, to set up a religious government based on one faith or a denomination over another was a monster as we saw first through the Roman Catholic control of all of Europe then the state Protestant Churches and into even America where Baptists were flogged and put in prison by state churches.
John Leland promised James Madison and the the Baptists votes if he would give us the Bill of Rights and religious freedom. James Madison agreed and the rest is history. Secular government came about by a Baptist. A church government would no longer be the case.
We are blessed to live in the greatest missionary minded country in the whole world. England sent missionaries a few years earlier but only 20 years between Carey of England and Judson of America. Both started mission societies and modern missions.
America has sent missionaries and supported indigenous missionaries and missionary projects around the world since near its beginning.
The door is shutting fast. CBDC or Central Bank Digital Currency will nearly shut down missionary work around the world and it’s coming fast. In fact Europe set a goal for the European Community in Oct. 2025. Missions giving will be stopped by those governments who hate Christianity.
Thank God we have had this opportunity to serve God freely, go to the church of our choice freely and give to missions freely. It’s coming to an end. We should pray daily for mission’s continuance and for those whom we are their lifeline.
May we give God thanks for His blessings, ask for His protection and grace to continue in faith and practice serving Him faithfully at home and abroad. May we thank Him for His blessings to send us faithful men and women who have blazed the trails before us to serve God. We have been truly blessed.
We are homesick for heaven, tired of the wars and rumors of wars and pandemics yet thankful for all God has given us here in America. One day soon, we will take our flight.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 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.
1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
Squire Parsons sang a song he wrote called “I’m Kind of Homesick for a Country, to Whence I’ve Never Been Before”. Friend, I am thankful for my earthly country, but now I’m ready to take my heavenly flight!
You are absolutely right to want to find the position that is scripturally correct. (Such a position will inevitably turn out to be "historically viable", as you put it :oD)
It seems to me, though, that you are losing sight of some key scriptural principles in regard to the topic of the nation of Israel...
1) Biblically, one does not need to be racially Jewish for God to consider you part of the nation. Ruth is an obvious example, but there are plenty of others. She was a Moabitess, but became a part of the nation of Israel by identifying with Israel and marrying into Israel. Biblically, a person is seen by God as part of the physical nation of Israel if they genuinely believe themselves to be Jewish, and if they identify with the nation of Israel, and if they endeavour to live according to their understanding of the Jewish faith.
2) By contrast, one can be a 100% pure-bred Jew and NOT be considered part of the nation by God - if one does not obey the strictures in point 1). Biblically, you are "cut off".
3) I'm afraid the implications of points 1) and 2) are that Finck's conclusions are upside-down.
P.S. There's a lot more I could say in response to your piece, but I want to keep this initial reply short - and hence manageable for all concerned :o)
Thank you, Matt. I like your point about Ruth. Except there are lots of other instances where God is clearly very picky about bloodline purity, even to the point of cutting off poor old Esau for intermarrying with the wrong tribes.
Sorry, but I'm not sure how anyone can take that article seriously. For example:
* How *anyone* can read the first chapter of Ruth in the KJV and conclude that Ruth was racially an Israelite rather than a Moabite is beyond me (which is why the article has to attack the KJV translation despite it being the product of men vastly more qualified in translation than the people behind the article).
* The article claims that, "When the Israelites entered the promised land, after their 40 years wandering during the exodus, the land of Moab was the first land they conquered. Yahweh [sic] had commanded Israel to totally exterminate the occupants of the lands they were to settle, in Moab they did so." Yet later in the same article, we are told that NOT all Moabites had been exterminated after all.
* The people behind the article seem blissfully unaware that non-Jewish people who converted, in OT times, to the faith of Israel and who identified with Israel and who lived in Israel, became part of the nation of Israel. Therefore, Ruth was no longer legally to be considered a Moabitess once she'd converted.
P.S. I can't wait to read this guy's evidence that Rahab too was actually Israelite!
According to my reading of that (and more) Ruth was racially an Israelite because Israelites had invaded the region, and slain and driven-out the Moabites long prior to Ruth's birth.
If this is indeed historical fact, then the ** being eradicated part ** makes it unlikely for racial Moabites to ** not be eradicated ** in the region called Moab at that time.
I'm not sure what needs explaining to you at this point. Is it the calling an Israelite from Moab a moabite that's difficult for you? Perhaps some examples may help concretize the abstraction:
- If, say, an arab army invades and occupies Spain, would you be shocked if, after 150 years of that, contemporary writers refer to those new populations as Spaniards?
- If a man of Pashtun lineage, living in America, who's grandfather was born in America, is called an American, is that surprising?
In the case of "Ruth the Moabite", it is churlish to deny out-of-hand, that the term "Moabite" could have been used as in the above examples, "Spaniard" and "American". That would be a spectacularly peculiar stance to take, since we all know that it is common for such labels to be used to refer to a *region* of origin rather than an *ethnic* origin.
The question of Ruth's lineage is of great consequence, and it behooves us to consider all evidence that helps to resolve rather than obscure, a clear picture without contradictory narratives.
Our best understanding will get scripture, contextual language, lineage and historical events lined-up with less internal contradiction than alternative options.
"I'm not sure what needs explaining to you at this point."
Well, for starters I need you to explain these 3 things:
a) Why do you assume that, when the Word of God says Naomi, "went to sojourn in the country of Moab", she must have gone to the part of Moab controlled by Israel rather than to the part that still belonged to Moab? (As your beloved article admits later on, "There was a country which continued to be called *Moab* and to belong to the Moabites, which was only a small portion of the original land.") How can you be so sure Naomi didn't go there?
Since God had brought a famine on Israel (Ruth 1:6), it surely makes more sense that Naomi would leave the whole land of Israel. Also, if she was in fact still in Israeli territory then she wouldn't need to *hear* "how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread"- for she would see it with her own eyes.
Furthermore, if the area she went to was the part under Israeli control, then the bit in the article that cynically retranslates "Your God shall be my God" to "Your judge shall become my judge" would make no sense, because Ruth was supposedly already under the same Judge as all the other Israelites.
b) I also need you to explain how you can possibly know for a fact that, during the hundreds of years that Israel controlled the relevant portion of Moab prior to Naomi's time, not a single Moabite had ever moved back there - such that there were *definitely* no Moabites at all in the land Naomi moved to.
c) I .also. need you to explain why, if Ruth was - as I contend - a racial Moabite, you are so very determined to be so legalistic when it comes to the matter of whether or not the law about 'Moabites entering the congregation of Israel' applies here. Ruth was plainly an *exceptional* case, and the Bible makes it very clear that exceptional circumstances sometimes mean the standard rules do not apply. I can easily produce a dozen examples from Scripture, but Matthew 12:1-4 should suffice for any genuine believer.
Sincere thanks for your gracious reply, James. I very much appreciate it.
Regarding Esau, Hebrews 12:16-17 indicates to me that God cut him off for 'selling his birthright for just one morsel of meat' - rather than for, "intermarrying with the wrong tribes" :o)
"Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."
Please put me right if I'm missing something here.
To me., the clear thrust of Scripture is that God is *infinitely* more concerned about what's in a person's *heart* than in their DNA (consider Esther, or Uriah, or Rahab, or the Hebrew midwives).
As Romans 2 puts it, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; ... But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly". If a person loves and identifies with the nation of Israel, and has a genuine faith in the God of Israel, then God sees them as part of the nation :o)
Why don't you read Genesis from the last verse of chapter 26 through to about the tenth verse of chapter 29? There you shall see that Esau had taken Hittite wives, that Rebecca his mother saw that and lamented; That it was a grief of mine to her and that she despaired of her life if Jacob did the same.
So Rebecca compelled Jacob to steal Esau's blessing, and when it was all said and done, Rebecca conveying her plight to her husband (28:46) Isaac gave Jacob instructions as to where to get a wife, and told him that if he did so, that he would inherit the promises to Abraham.
It was all about race, and it still is. I would be willing to answer every question you might have. But if you protest the idea, especially for your own personal feelings, then it would probably be futile.
1) Please cite the passage that says "inherit[ing] the promises to Abraham" was contingent on Jacob following Isaac's instructions regarding a wife; as Genesis 28:2-4 makes no explicit linkage as far as I can see.
2) If you stand back and view Scripture as a whole, it is very obviously NOT "all about race". Do you really imagine Rebecca would have been grieved if the wives Esau had taken were God-fearing, Israel-loving, proselyte Jews - who just happened to have been born to parents outside of her culture?
3) Isaac's "instructions as to where to get a wife" were doubtless inspired by God. (In Isaac's case at least, God had made him and Rachel for each other.) But regardless, the instructions were designed to ensure Isaac would end up with a wife from the same (God-knowing and God-fearing) culture as his.
This entire answer proves to me that you are entirely clueless. You do not understand conditional statements. No, Jacob could not have the promises in verses 3 and 4 unless he fulfilled the condition requested of him in verse 2.
What point is there in having a discussion with a man who cannot understand simple logical concepts?
Genesis 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. 3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; 4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.
Sorry, but I think it is *you* who 'doesn't read very well'.
1) You've ducked important points I've made;
2) This is not the first time you've ducked important points I've made; and
3) You've failed to show the linkage between Jacob obtaining his wife from the right family and inheriting Abraham's blessing - despite me specifically asking you to. Had verse 3 started with something along the lines of, "Do this and God Almighty will bless you...", then I'd have accepted your claim. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. Yet I'M the one accused of making assumptions!
That makes no sense. Why would God who supposedly made all mankind decide to chose one bloodline over another and why wouldn't all bloodlines be the same? Then what type of God would do that to his own creations unless there were other Gods as powerful creating a different bloodline? You can't have it both ways. Maybe the CIA or MI6 or even Mossad wrote the Bible. I know you are going to say that's a Conspiracy Theory.......
Biblically, you can start a sentence with "biblically" but that doesn't make it biblical.
Biblically, you're propagating the 'spiritual seed' doctrine, which you will need to defend with scripture, biblically. According to this, anyone who professes to be 'christian' becomes an inheritor of the covenant. The entire work at christogenea refutes this view.
You will have to spend some time there to begin to be able to address his scriptural basis for the rejection of 'spiritual seed' doctrine.
* "[Y]ou can start a sentence with "biblically" but that doesn't make it biblical." I never claimed otherwise. I did however, explain I was trying to keep my response brief. And anyone who starts a sentence with "biblically" is very obviously inviting people to ask them to prove their subsequent claims.
* "Biblically, you're propagating the 'spiritual seed' doctrine, which you will need to defend with scripture, biblically. According to this, anyone who *professes* to be 'christian' becomes an inheritor of the covenant." Are you mental? (Seriously.)
* "The entire work at christogenea refutes this view. You will have to spend some time there to begin to be able to address his scriptural basis for the rejection of 'spiritual seed' doctrine." Thanks. I think I'll begin with the page, "Jews and Jewish Treachery" as that certainly looks to be a balanced and biblical place to start (not).
You're right my representation of universalist "spiritual seed" doctrine was incorrect: "anyone who *professes* to be 'christian' becomes an inheritor of the covenant".
The doctrine of the Institutionalized Church (Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox) is that anyone can become Christian, right? But conditions for various rewards vary by sect, is that right?
Anyway that seems relevant to the whole story, really. One view leads to the destruction of white nations, as a unique and identifiable people, the other leads to our preservation. Which side are you on here?
If you want to pick on some christogenea topic why not the one we already had: Was Ruth an Israelite?
How on earth does your second paragraph lead to your third???
As to the question of Ruth, I have not changed my mind. She was obviously a Moabitess. Not that it affects the general point I'm trying to make though.
Matt I have answered all of your contentions, plus a few, here, in an excerpt from a more recent presentation I did in 2023. I even put it on this website, so you do not have to go to my own.
"I have answered all of your contentions ... in an excerpt from a ... presentation I did in 2023"
1) I'm afraid the excerpt you cite only covers the issue of Ruth. It does not address my more general contentions regarding James' article, as set out here:
3) It is hard to take your excerpt seriously when it (a) calls God "Yahweh"; (b) strips the Lord Jesus Christ of every single title, and (c) argues that King David would have been a "bastard" had Ruth been a racial Moabite.
LOL @ your man-made ordinances. Dozens of times, or more, did the apostles use the terms "Jesus", "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" without accompanying titles. It is pathetic to think I am being irreverent, according to your own private standards.
As for your attitudes in relation to the Old Testament, the covenants were exclusively for the children of Israel, and although people from certain other nations, not from any other nation, could join themselves to Israel the law provided that could only happen after meeting certain strict requirements.
Christ came only for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", and Paul professed maintaining that assertion in several different ways in his epistles and statements in Acts.
You are obviously ignorant as to the very purpose of a Messiah in the first place.
Yes, if David was a Moabite, he indeed would have been a bastard. I am using language found in Scripture itself, in places such as Hebrews chapter 12, Dueteronomy chapter 23 and Zechariah chapter 9. I am using it in the same general context, according to the law.
The children of Israel were cut off for their sin, but ALL promises of reconciliation and redemption, as well as salvation, were made to those very people who had been cut off. That is the entire theme of the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, for starters. YOUR interpretations set the promises, the covenants, and the prophets at naught.
"Yes, if David was a Moabite, he indeed would have been a bastard. I am using language found in Scripture itself, in places such as Hebrews chapter 12, Dueteronomy [sic] chapter 23 and Zechariah chapter 9. I am using it in the same general context, according to the law."
1) If, as you claim, David's ancestors going back hundreds of years were all Israelites, and if one of his (8) great grandparents was Moabite, how exactly would that make him "a Moabite"?
2) I'm well aware that the word "bastard" appears in the Bible, thanks. My issue (fairly obviously to anyone with any wisdom) is your claim that David would have been a bastard if one of his great grandmothers was Moabite, when surely the biblical definition of a "bastard" is someone who's parents were not married.
3) "I am using [the term bastard] in the same general context, according to the law." I would LOVE to hear how you justify this.
1) "Christ" is a title, so that line of argument is a pile of pants. The books of the NT that were written to Christians almost NEVER refer merely to "Jesus". Yet 25% of the times you refer to the Lord in your 'excerpt', you strip Him of every title.
2) I agree with virtually every word of your subsequent 2 paragraphs, so I'm staggered you'd write, "You are obviously ignorant as to the very purpose of a Messiah in the first place." When have I ever so much as HINTED that I don't agree with your preceding 2 paragraphs? Judgmental much? Jump to conclusions much? What a grave accusation to be throwing around without any justification. What a sound man of God you must be.
3) I also agree with these remarks by you: "The children of Israel were cut off for their sin, but ALL promises of reconciliation and redemption, as well as salvation, were made to those very people who had been cut off. That is the entire theme of the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, for starters." So you can imagine .I. was laughing out loud myself to read, "YOUR interpretations set the promises, the covenants, and the prophets at naught."
The utmost impiety, perhaps aside from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is to teach men that Yahweh God would set aside His law.
Matthew 5: 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
* Elijah and the Priestly Role at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:30-40) ("Elijah, who was not a Levitical priest, built an altar and offered a sacrifice to God during his confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Under the Mosaic Law, only priests were authorized to offer sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7)".); and
* Christ's Interaction with the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11) ("The Mosaic Law prescribed stoning as the penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22)")
As I have already explained elsewhere in this thread,
"[T]he Bible makes it very clear that exceptional circumstances sometimes mean the standard rules do not apply. I can easily produce a dozen examples from Scripture, but Matthew 12:1-4 should suffice for any genuine believer."
And if you agree with so much, why do you not understand that God would not violate His Own law? See the opening verses of Romans chapter 7, with a background in Hosea 2:19-20. Yahweh God was manifest in the flesh so that He could fulfill His promises while at the same time demonstrating that He keeps His law, even if Israel did not. That was the path to reconciliation that He chose from the beginning, that is why He is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world", etc.
Why do YOU not understand that one of the key messages that the Lord Jesus shared during His incarnation was that it is *NOT* good to apply the law mindlessly. It is legalistic to insist that the law never be 'violated' under *any* circumstances.
Sure enough, Christ Himself 'violated' the law when he refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery. As you must surely know, the law required her to be stoned to death.
1) The *Gospels* invariably just say, "Jesus"; but that's because they are not primarily written to *Christians* - and God did not want to require readers to prejudge Christ's true nature. The *Epistles*, by contrast, are written to professing Christians (as your article presumably was) - and they almost NEVER just say "Jesus".
2) Are you seriously not going to apologise for the false accusation you made against me in point 2) above?
3) Are you seriously not going to apologise for the false accusation you made against me in point 3) above either???
P.S. Talking of "making assumptions", your cited excerpt says, "As we read in the opening verses of the Book of Ruth, there was a famine in Moab". Please could you point me to ANY point in Ruth where it says there was a famine in Moab?
LOL a famine in the land ... so they still had some bread in Moab, which happened to be not many miles from Judah. Easy mistake to make. But you should be reading those opening verses of Genesis chapter 28.
1) If there was a famine in *Moab*, why on earth did Naomi's husband take her and their two sons there?
2) You seem to (again) be assuming that they went to the portion of 'Moab' occupied/controlled by Israel, rather than to the truly Moab part farther away?
3) Potentially, other Israelites moved to Moab to escape the famine in Israel. But there are several reasons why others might not have chosen to go. You DO love making assumptions, don't you :o(
P.S. You're well aware that I had already read the opening verses of Genesis 28 before you penned this. Stop changing the subject. And instead start to PRAY before you reply.
Now silly, you are focusing on what was obviously an editing glitch. Why don't you focus on the actual points made in the article? I gave specific reasons why Ruth was an Israelite in Moab.
But you do not want to believe them, because your god is a hypocrite who violates his own laws. However the God of Israel, who is also Jesus Christ, is not a hypocrite.
Jesus spoke about fulfilling the Old Covenant and establishing a New Covenant in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:17, he says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." This suggests he saw his mission as completing or perfecting the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) rather than discarding it. In Luke 22:20, during the Last Supper, Jesus says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." This establishes the New Covenant, rooted in his sacrifice, which replaces the Old Covenant’s sacrificial system. The concept is further developed in Hebrews 8:6-13, which describes Jesus as the mediator of a "new covenant," superseding the old one, which is called "obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13).
The Jew's covenant with God was fulfilled in Jesus. They are no longer *covenant* people. True Christians are under the New Covenant of Jesus' sacrifice of His blood on the cross. He said so himself.
That is precisely what is up for debate in this podcast. Are they the children of the covenant or not? Your text assumes the answer to the question at hand, but does not support the conclusion.
Clearly, the Bible says God made a Covenant with the Jews. That they had a covenant really isn't in question at all. It is clear in the Old testament that they did. The question is are they still under that Covenant and my point was that no, they are not, because that Covenant was fulfilled in Jesus and there is a New Covenant which they are not a part of unless they accept him as their Savior.
I didn't listen to the whole podcast, but if the debate is whether there was a covenant or not, then clearly the Bible isn't involved and I just don't care what they say because if they're not including the Old Testament Bible, they're not talking about the history of the Jews anyway.
The point is that the covenant was with the white europeans and not the jews.
So when you write "God made a Covenant with the Jews" that can't be true if the guest is correct, because then the Jews are not the descendents of the Israelites.
And it's not just a scriptural view that bears against the mainstream narrative; by the secular historical and archaelogical clues we've been able to assemble, they're about as much inheritors of God's covenant as overripe bananas on the car seat.
I suppose my wordy things won't trigger many wigglings in you but who knows -- perhaps one blessed reader. :)
I think the guest is dead wrong. I used the term "Jews" because that is how most people label them. Abraham was not a "white European" or a Jew. Neither was Moses. Neither were the slaves in Egypt. The Hebrews were the covenant people - Jesus called the leaders of the Jewish religion of his time "a brood of vipers" from " the synagogue of Satan". So, in short, don't buy any of it. Only God knows who his remnant is - and they do not follow Talmud or Kabbalah.
Coming from the man who wrote this - "My instincts, at any rate, tell me that these ‘hummingbirds’ are not a literary invention but a genuine thing." Hmmmm. And would you find my "instincts" to be as valuable as your own? No, I thought not. Not to worry, though, my "instincts" never lead. I prefer provable facts. But you do whatever pays the bills; seems to be working so far. And thank you for your inspiration; I have decided to add "irritant" to my profile description. 😉
What prompted this outburst of aggression and snark? Did I attack you personally? And how does this fir in with your homilies on ego, Jesus being the only thing, etc.?
I responded to your challenge regarding the scripture on the Covenant in the same manner it was presented. I simply mirrored *your* "aggression" back at you. Apparently you did not like it. This could have been an enlightening discussion, but your challenge changed the tone completely. You invited me to answer you in a very "aggressive" manner. As a student of my Lord and Savior, and having dealt with many people in my life, the "why" is clear to me.
However you choose to perceive it, this is not a "personal attack"; again, it is just a mirror. We all need an above the neck check once in a while. I am just a miserable soul, saved by Christ, using the same tools He used - Scripture and Truth - to confront....is it ignorance, or arrogance? Did you really not know the scripture in Genesis, James? If not, you could have just thanked me for enlightening you.....but......crickets on that, I guess. If you DID know it, well, that is inconvenient, because it further shines a light on your; dare I say it; arrogance, aggression and disingenuine "you were mean to me - I therefore challenge your claim as a Christian" answer.
And challenging that I am a Christian? Really???
Proverbs 27:6; "Faithful are the wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Everyone loves a kiss-ass, don't they? Truth; never well liked; is often painful, because it challenges our ever so monstrous egos. Your "aggressive" challenge on the well known Biblical covenant; a covenant at the *center* of three major world religions; spoke volumes; words that you did not say, yet conveyed clearly. I financially support you on this Substack and have enjoyed many of your insights and guests but have also found the sometimes arrogant superiority in your writing; and especially your challenge to me; off-putting. (Sigh). Jesus says blessed are the humble. Humility; a virtue sorely missing in the world today. Not sure you agree with or believe that. I am not smart enough to intellectually wrangle with a man of your stature, but I do know Scripture. And, saying that, I actually like you. You are an interesting guy; the kind of quirky "friend" that would be fun to.....discuss things with. (I would love to share a pint, but beer hates me). So ignore this whole thing and have a great day. What do I know? Just another ignoramus out in cyber space. Blessings and peace.
Genesis 17; 1-4"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram[b]; your name will be Abraham,[c] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old *must be circumcised*, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an *everlasting covenant*. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
You can interpret that however you like. I am clear what God meant. The covenant people are the descendants of Abraham who are circumcized. Clearly, most who claim Jewish heritage cannot trace their family history back to Israel. Most were converts. If you want to make some obscure case that somehow that meant "white europeans", have at it. I am not moved. No rancor, just totally disagree.
Thanks for those posts. Question is whether abraham and jacob's seed, referenced many times, in a long train of stories hyperfocused on descent, lineage and ethnic identity, really means
"spiritual seed"?
or is "spiritual seed" a made-up invention of institutional churchianity?
Maybe seed really means seed, as in sperma. The exigesis of this is covered in depth at... you know where to find it now!
Let's check our Bibles!
Does it say:
"I will make many nations your seed"
or..
"I will make nations [genetically related tribes of people] of you[out of yourr seed], and kings will come from you"
-------
How do the meanings for these translations differ?
Is it just possible that the organized religions were created to control people in various ways? My understanding is that god is the animating processes of nature playing out across time.
Organized religion absolutely created for control, but having an actual relationship with Christ is much different than the institution of organized religion like Christianity. I don't even attend "Church," as they're effectively used as political buildings, and it's nearly impossible to find a good one anymore.
However there are some God-conscious church fellowships we can tap into through the internet and the two that come first to mind are Keith Malcomson in Ireland and Shiloh in Auckland NZ. Both are fully focused on God and His Word.
Yes the great subversion happened when the Edomites (Patrician network in Rome) gave up trying to kill all the Christians outright, and decided to create a replacement religion under the same name. The big breakthrough came at the council of Nicea.
Paul isn't the 'father of the church'. There's no official stamp handed down from him. It was a political move, by the enemies of Christ.
The great inversion -- the replacement theology -- introduced to apostolic Christianity -- by satan -- was to mistranslate scripture and impose doctrine to make it appear a universalist religion: i.e. that any anthropomorpic entity that can repeat 'Jesus is lord! may thereby enter into the kingdom of heaven and receive eternal salvation.
The heresy that 'all may be saved' was then used to propagate 'all must be saved', as an excuse for a program of imperial christianity - which largely served to fill the coffers of the long-ensconced merchant princes of Amsterdam and London (*india company*)
There's so much to learn, but we have all the time in heaven. Be good to each other.
James! As a Nigerian Christian, I’ve had similar thoughts — but from the black African perspective.
However, I’ve realized that religion- specifically Christianity—has been manipulated for political and imperial gain, so by saying “who’s God’s chosen people” — is what the Zionists and others, like Constantine with the Roman Empire have used for centuries.
I’m actually going to write about this tomorrow, but this we need to understand the “myth” of Christianity, rather than taking it seriously.
A prime example is the rapture, which I discuss here. It’s not real, but we think it to be:
This is what Jesus had to say about the Old Testament:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." [Matt 5: 17]
I was just looking at Finck in connection with Jerm’s podcast with him. While I cannot dive into and refute his records, I want to raise a theological objection:
As you brought up Joseph: There are countless parallels between the Joseph-story and the Jesus story: one of the main ones is that Joseph’s brothers’ rejection of him as their leader and subsequent sale to foreigners led to “the nations” being saved by Joseph’s leadership in Egypt. He was already a quasi-king in Egypt, while his brothers still deemed him dead and his claims from his dreams obsolete. Only in the end of the story he reveals himself to his blood brothers and is honored by them. The same with Jesus: his “brothers in the flesh” had to reject him so that the Gospel would go out to the nations where his kingship would be accepted, while his own family - at least the gross of them - had rejected and would continue to reject him as their Messiah. Only in the end, redemption will circle back to his own people and he will re-establish the Kingdom of Israel, as reflected in Acts 1:6-7: Jesus doesn’t deny the re-establishment of a physical kingdom, but says that first the nations would have to be reached.
In Romans 9-11, Paul discusses exactly the same process of redemption: rejected by his people, Jesus’ salvation would go out to the world first and only when “the fullness of the gentiles has come in,” then “all Israel” will be saved, while they now still have a veil over their eyes (just like Joseph’s brothers simply didn’t recognize Joseph at their first reunion - and yet they still got fed and sustained by him!). If this is indeed God’s plan of redemption, there had to remain a physical remnant of Israel who keep rejecting Jesus. In that sense, it doesn’t add up for me that the white Christian nations could be the descendants of Israel… because biblically, redemption ends in Israel’s recognition of their Messiah whom they have until then rejected.
While I certainly agree with you on Israel as a State and political Zionism, there also seems to be too much evidence to me that at least some of those who consider themselves descendants of Israel today indeed are. Just because we have a corrupt “Jewish” state and leadership as well as “influencers”, that doesn’t mean that “Jews” are not legitimate heirs of Israel that have carried their tradition through millenia, no? I’ve been living in Israel for several years now and while I am the first to point out the issues of the main streams of Judaism, one can’t deny that there is a special spirit blowing here. And if anything, the fierce rejection of Jesus among “Jews” seems to be to me a telltale sign that he is closer to them that they might think!
In any case, this redemptive succession seems to me completely at odds with Finck’s thesis.
As always, I can only invited to come and visit this little nation here in the middle east - not the state, but the people!
In the next day or 2, I'm hoping to write up my top 7 reasons for believing Finck is wrong and White Europeans do *NOT* represent "the nation of Israel" in God's eyes. Your point here about Joseph and his brethren will find its way into my top 3 for sure.
In the meantime, judging by your various posts here, you are a rare breed today - i.e. an actual, bona fide, God-fearing Christian - and I'd be honoured if you'd permit me to have direct email comms with you. I can be reached at meon dot min at yahoo dot com :o)
If you believe what Douglas Reed wrote in the early 1950s in ‘The Controversy of Zion,’ the reason much of the Old Testament portrays a God who has a chosen people and who behaved destructively towards any people that is not or which disobeys ‘The Law’ is that it was written by a band of fanatical Levites as a political strategy to build and consolidate their (earthly) power. They were succeeded by the Pharisees, then the Talmudists and most recently called themselves Zionists. They are now embedded as the globalists at the helm of the Western world which they are destroying with the willing help of the Islamists. We know what Christ thought of the Pharisees! We must always see our elites as our enemy.
The whole idea of lineage of "chosenness" is utter malarkey, and so are any arguments that start with that concept.
And for those citing "God's covenant" with the Israelites, have you even reflected on the origins of the practice of circumcision? It's rite (pun intended) there in Genesis, where old Abe is 100% on board with sacrificing his son, Isaac. He sacrifices a ram instead, but then he and the big man upstairs agree that he and all his descendants will excise (a vital) part of their ding-dong.
The "covenant" is a direct substitute for child sacrifice, which was practiced by the Israelites. The whole concept is misguided, sick, disgusting, and harmful. That's what y'all are debating about.
p.s. any god that demands sacrifices is also a depraved sleazebag
You were criticising our God, Yaweh, for testing Abraham in a test not intended to result in sacrificing Isaac.
I understood everything you wrote, friend / fiend. Think about what you wrote.
Combine it with the fact that child sacrifice was actually practiced in the ancient world and that they were pagan rites from the christian perspective.
Can you see some problem with you trying to cast shade on the Christian not-child-sacrificer who was surrounded by child-sacrificers?
It seems to me that the lesson of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac was to show that we, his children, are truly utterly in his hands, and that his will will be done. But he doesn't will us to adopt the pagan rites of child sacrifice (which we tolerate to this day, to our great chastisement!) I think you've come at it from the perspective of "Child sacrifice? That's outrageous! Why would a God even suggest that?" And Im telling you, it was a common, pagan practice. That is the context framing the story.
The test of the story is, "Do you love and obey your creator with all your heart such that you would give up that which is most precious to you, to follow his word?"
The faithful man may be required to give up his most precious posession in order to obey his creator, but it is not the will of our God that we sacrifice our own children upon his altar, unlike the Pagans all around, who sacrificially murder their own offspring as a matter of routine ritual. That's the coherent reading of the script, mister reading comprehension.
Tell us now, "Portraits in Fitness", do you support "A Woman's Right to Choose™?"
Even prior to hearing the possibility that white Europeans are the true descendants of the chosen people, I have found it very difficult to understand why Christians would rubberstamp the actions of such an evil leader as Netanyahu. This man (not sure he’s human) confirmed which entity he worships when he proudly signed his people up to be lab rats for Pfizer. Even in the Old Testament, the kings of Israel who failed to follow God‘s commandments were punished or allowed to be taken into captivity and defeated in battle. Why do modern Christian Zionists forget those lessons, and assume that any leader of Israel must be blindly supported? Even Jesus recognized a synagogue of Satan, and remarked on the fact that there are people who call themselves Jews but are not. Why do we (Christians) lack curiosity in regard to such critical matters?
I think that christians lack curiosity (and discernment) because they follow the fake apostle Paul rather than the messiah himself. As a result of which, they have largely abandoned reading the old testament. Many christians do not forget the lessons you mentioned, they have never learned them to begin with.
What about Paul is fake?
I think what might be fake is the people saying that Paul rejects the Old Testament!
It seems like Peter actually thought Paul was a real apostle.
Luckily you aren't fooled, right?
hey it's all made up shit to get the losers to follow the satanic jew god
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-3z665-2627c975
The whole world lies in the lap of the evil one. El comportamiento nunca miente. By their fruit, you shall know them..
As a ‘lapsed Catholic’ of 30+ years I thoroughly enjoyed this read! And, having seen the musical starring my teenage heartthrob Donny Osmond, this part made me smile:
“I really rather fancy the idea that I might be descended from one of those entertaining brothers in Joseph And His Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat.”
Excellent post James! 👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-3z665-2627c975
We are all God's children. He created us all equally, but we are all on different levels of our spiritual journeys.
All believers are God's children.
Non-believers effectively belong to the evil one. God's true children do not fall.
If William Finck is correct about scripture, you are not. Do you have any argument against his translations of the scripture?
I'd be glad to read them! It's definitely something I'm still learning about.
I'm more about getting to know *who* Christ is; I prefer cutting out the middleman.
Yep, i agree
We’re ALL “God’s chosen people”. I really doubt if he discriminates? What sort of God is he if he does?
All true believers are His chosen people.
And what, pray tell, is a "true believer"?
Someone who actually facilitates a relationship with Christ, rather than counting worldly things like Church attendance and the label of “Christianity” as some kind of qualifier for salvation in Heaven.
Thanks for your opinion. I do find it noteworthy that your opinion is the same opinion that every institutionalized church has been propagating since the council of Nicaea.
Please answer me this:
Did Jesus tell the Pharises:
"Because you do not believe me, you are not my people."
or
"You do not believe me because you are not of my people."
What is the difference in meaning between these?
What would the implications be of the institutional church to have reversed the meaning in translation?
I'll be happy to reply with Scripture, but I'll do so to the "opinion" above so he can choose in the future to use God's word as an reply, rather than a canned religious one...
"Canned religious response?" Thanks for the insult, Dawn? I respond to people online with what I know they'll actually read.
I would quote Scripture as a reply to such an important question:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." (I Cor 15:1-4, Acts 16:31 - AV-KJB).
It's trusting this gospel that puts an individual into the body of Christ. It's study of the scriptures, rightly divided (2 Tim 2:15), that establishes him in the knowledge of the truth.
Religion is the devil's playground.
It seems to require a blind faith and a belief in a book written thousands of years ago by who knows and the new testament by who knows. And King James was a tyrant like all the other bloodlines who ran the British Empire
The idea of blind faith is an ignorant assertion. My faith isn't "blind" - I honestly do nothing 'blindly' these days. You're talking to a sceptic (me) who doesn't even believe that space travel and outer space is real.
If Christ was not real - I'd definitely understand that to be the case. I'd be happy to discuss this further with you or give my personal testimony, but it would be hard to shorten my story. Basically though, my friend, I have found that ultimately, everyone--worldwide--actually believes in God, but people who love sin (or you could even say, do not *hate* sin) are opposed to God and His word, so their hate expresses itself as scepticism.
The world is in such shambles because of sin, and most Churches failing to understand who Christ is and what He wants out of us. We are supposed to be fighting *against* sin, but Churches aren't preaching anything like that, heck most of them are political buildings.
I don't read the Bible at all. I tried but it's too hard. I have several of them. I was raised Irish Catholic through the 50s and 60s very strict times. I raised my children the same. I even had a big family because I didn't want to use artificial birth control as it was taught to be a sin. Then I dropped away from all that when my children were grown. It's imperative now that I get straight with my creator. That's what I'm searching for. How can we put our trust in books written thousands of years ago. I think the bloodline people wrote the old testament and the new testament wasn't written until hundreds of years later, so how can we be sure of anything. Also what about all the people everywhere else who never heard of the Bible or Jesus etc. They have their own version of God. God should be for everyone. Just being a good person and trying your best should please God enough. Maybe we just die and that's it. I definitely don't want to come back. Seriously would God want us learning verses off by heart and all that or just uttering a sincere prayer of thanks to be alive in the morning and thanks for getting us through the day and that we had enough food to eat etc. Anyway that's what I'm thinking today
FM, the Bible is not understood unless the Spirit of Truth reveals it. You must first trust the gospel of your salvation, realizing you are a sinner in need of a Savior.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." - 2 Cor 5:21
By trusting in what Christ did for you, freely, apart from anything you can do, He will save you and make you righteous. You will pass from death into life, with the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit.
If you then start in the Book of Romans in the Authorized King James Bible, He will begin to teach you and give you understanding, line upon line, precept upon precept. Nothing in this world can compare to the peace, joy and hope it brings.
Yeah, it can be a struggle to read, I always get sleepy, etc. I didn't know the Bible was true until I first found out God was real and working in my life. I'd recommend for you to pray, talk to Him; Perhaps call Him, “Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus Christ,” tell Him everything you'd like answers to.
Jesus is the one, true God. But God is the perfect judge, so if people like hunter-gatherers (the ones guided by the Spirit who hate evil, the ones with a full conscience and full regard for others) never heard of Him, it isn't that big of a deal in the end, because God doesn't judge based on what people legitimately cannot understand.
So, you can know who Jesus is, *without* actually hearing His name *and* without His Word, but here in the West we likely have no excuse - because we all have those advantages.
It's also extremely important to understand that Christ works through His Holy Spirit, so He can reveal Himself to people all over the world, under any circumstances. Don't forget that He is all-powerful! Great questions!
If you don't mind, I replied to your question to the other commenter below.
Joanie, you have not lost your touch. Exactly, and what do they believe?
Someone has convinced you that a book, a history and a religion about a specific people and their relationship with their God is not about that people, but rather of another people, but no then it's about everyone, except no maybe it's tied to this or that which we'll just make up out of thin air. That's a very padded debate to have in modern Christianity.
By your view, whatever was promised to the Israelites, well God didn't really mean that. See it's actually for everyone. So all that Old Testament stuff is bollocks, right, except wait we believe it too, because you know adam and eve. But those racist covenants, those must be wrong. Yes we are improving god's word in the woke era. Oh wait.
But it's the same because it's all judaeo-christian now right, oh, it's only been called that since the 1970s? Wonder why. And they contradict each other? Am i not supposed to believe two contradictory things at the same time now? I have footbal to watch!
I think we should maybe read our Bible and see if God discriminates. Let's go do that a bit then.
(biblical) Israel was “chosen” as in appointed to a specific role in the redemption of the world
give your head a wobble
What scripture is that?
Yes, as the place the Christ would come. They would be the first to hear the word of the Christ and to spread it throughout the world, there could be no more special role.
they are the covenant partner: the new covenant as per Jeremiah 31:31 is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Without Israel, the covenant is obsolete. “Gentile” or non-Israelite believers are grafted into that covenant, but are not the carrier. The special role remains, bc God does not revoke a calling. Jesus - as far as he is the Messiah of Israel will return to his physical as well as his spiritual people
How do you explain "A bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord."
Are you saying God contradicts himself?
Where does it say that gentiles are "grafted in", in specific terms.
Romans 11:17-19
You appear to be referencing Romans 11. But if you look at the KJB context, we who believe in this dispensation of grace are partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree by grace through faith alone. No covenant. No difference whether "Jew" or Gentile. By the time you get to Ephesians, we are no more children tossed to and fro, but mature adults standing fast in the faith of Christ.
there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in regard to the way of salvation: only through Christ, agreed. There is, however, still a difference in role and calling - and the moment of revelation/recognition. For whatever reason, God has bound himself to a physical people and that remains; gentile / non-Israelites believers join their story through faith, just like Ruth. If you look throughout Israel’s history, there always remained a faithful remnant, and I believe this is true here, also. Not every Israelite will be saved, but there remains a special calling on a physical Israel (again, we can debate who this is today). I believe here what’s at stake is the reliability of the word of God and his faithfulness. Also, in regard to the land of Israel: Joel 3:2 speaks of the nations being judged for scattering God’s people and dividing up HIS land (which he has given Israel as an inheritance). The triangle God-Israel-land of Israel must remain, otherwise God is not to be trusted. Whoever are the rightful descendants of Israel: they will have to return to the land in order for the redemptive process to be able to come to its conclusion. If white Europeans are the descendants: they will have to make their way to the land of Israel at some point ;)
No. Christ is the vine. Those that believe in him and follow him are either kept on the vine or grafted on. Those that do not are cut from it and die. Then they are cast into the flames. It cannot be any clearer. Israel ceased to exist for around 1400 years.
sorry, but if you say Israel ceased to exist, you make God a liar. See for example Jeremiah 31:
35Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day, who sets in order the moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD of Hosts is His name:
36“Only if this fixed order departed from My presence,
declares the LORD,
would Israel’s descendants ever cease
to be a nation before Me.”
37This is what the LORD says:
“Only if the heavens above could be measured
and the foundations of the earth below searched out
would I reject all of Israel’s descendants
because of all they have done,”
declares the LORD.
Also, Romans 9-11. Israel is not being replaced, gentile believers are grafted into the redemptive story of God with Israel. There is no loss in it for us. It only demonstrates the faithfulness of God.
Matthew 21:
The Parable of the Tenants
33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third.
36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way.
37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’
39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”
Israel the country I was referring to of course. Deutoronomy 28:15-65 tells of the punishment for disobedience to God
"64 Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other."
John 8:31-47. Jews who do not follow Christ are not of sons of Abraham.
Dispensationalism is around 200 years old, no one before the 1800s believed it.
The "covenant" is a substitute for child sacrifice. Are you on board with that?
The alternative being child sacrifice, makes me glad that I'm in the covenant.
All that vile child sacrifice, that literally happened and happens, is pagan.
What is the world? Paul professed that the gospel had already been preached "unto the ends of the world" in his own time. He died by 62 AD. So did the South American Indians or Sub-Saharan Africans, or the Chinese and Japanese, have a chance to hear the Gospel by then?
Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:6.
apparently, the fullness of the gentiles/nations had not yet come in at the time of his writing. and who says he is talking only space and not also time?
Asking this very question is antithetical to God.
We’re all fragments of God (or Universe if you prefer)
I recall hearing a biblical scholar say we are all misinterpreting the word Israel. He said being in the ‘state of Israel’ means to be one with God - it’s not a physical place.
We always worth remembering that scriptures have been translated and re-interpreted many times over! It’s our job to look for the original meaning.
Agreed!
When I read my bible, I read that Israel are the peoples who descend from Jacob.
Have you noticed how the bible is all about who descended from whom?
Why would that be, if lineage didn't matter?
1) The Bible is not *all* about that. Sorry, but your claim here is simply untrue.
2) As with every other Christian doctrine, it's crucial to find the position that reconciles *all* the biblical data, rather than picking and choosing which passages to attach weight to.
3) As a test of our love for the truth, God has arranged for the Bible to .mislead. those who do not genuinely love the truth. This short article explains: https://www.bayith.org/BTRBFB1of3_condensed.htm
We DO reconcile ALL the Biblical data. So explain Jeremiah 31:31 and Hebrews 8:8.
Good question! Yes, I also recall a lot of so-and-so begat so-and-so who begat so-and-so. Historically, lineage has been super important to the ruling classes.
God has clearly allowed his enemy to corrupt scripture, to invert meanings, and to mislead his flock!
You agree with William Finck on this!
So where are the errors?
How do we find out what original scripture said?
How do we find out what the words *meant* to those *specific* people being addressed at that specific time?
You'll have a lot of explaining to do, to make biblical salvation not be about Yaweh's covenant people.
How about you pick a page from chtistogenea.org and we'll review that specific text? Maybe we can find an error together, because I need help finding one.
That makes more sense!
James, have you read the great Steve - Slayer of the Hokey Stick - McIntyre's recent tweet in which he goes down a related rabbit hole? The maths says the nearest genetic descendants of Israelites in the late Old Testament period are Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims.
https://x.com/ClimateAudit/status/1939364986469462266
Thanks for the interesting link!
I'm afraid the assumptions he makes about identity of his source samples do not conform with our understanding of the history of the Israelites. His source samples include, as far as I can tell, Hittites and Edomites.
Still, great to see that there's interest in the subject on Twitter as well!
I would love to answer all that you have said. The square and level which is the Word of God and history to corroborate are the only tools needed. Most will never use the tools but accept what they are told. Call yourself what you want but only a true child of God who trusts in Jesus Christ alone be they Jew or Gentile are God’s chosen ones. As a nation God has chosen Israel though most are lost and much of what it does is wrong perhaps. Since it is Independence Day, I will give you this nevertheless.
249 Years of Blessing’s
We are blessed to live in America’s 249 years of existence. The past hasn’t been easy for everyone or perfect for everyone. To those we are sorry and offer our deepest condolences.
As a nation we have never been perfect but abundantly blessed in many ways.
We were blessed to live in the freest of the world, the richest of the world and the land of opportunity. More importantly because of the signature blessing of the founding of our country and the great sacrifices, we have lived in religious freedom.
In fact the first President, George Washington, would have never been elected probably if James Madison had not had the backing of Pastor John Leland and the Baptists of Virginia.
John Leland and the Baptists fought for religious freedom which had been denied them down through the dark ages. Everyman of every religion had the right to worship as he pleased. God in the garden gave man that right to choose and later he gave that right to Cain. It’s sad to see men choose wrong for their eternal
life would hang on their choice. However, to set up a religious government based on one faith or a denomination over another was a monster as we saw first through the Roman Catholic control of all of Europe then the state Protestant Churches and into even America where Baptists were flogged and put in prison by state churches.
John Leland promised James Madison and the the Baptists votes if he would give us the Bill of Rights and religious freedom. James Madison agreed and the rest is history. Secular government came about by a Baptist. A church government would no longer be the case.
We are blessed to live in the greatest missionary minded country in the whole world. England sent missionaries a few years earlier but only 20 years between Carey of England and Judson of America. Both started mission societies and modern missions.
America has sent missionaries and supported indigenous missionaries and missionary projects around the world since near its beginning.
The door is shutting fast. CBDC or Central Bank Digital Currency will nearly shut down missionary work around the world and it’s coming fast. In fact Europe set a goal for the European Community in Oct. 2025. Missions giving will be stopped by those governments who hate Christianity.
Thank God we have had this opportunity to serve God freely, go to the church of our choice freely and give to missions freely. It’s coming to an end. We should pray daily for mission’s continuance and for those whom we are their lifeline.
May we give God thanks for His blessings, ask for His protection and grace to continue in faith and practice serving Him faithfully at home and abroad. May we thank Him for His blessings to send us faithful men and women who have blazed the trails before us to serve God. We have been truly blessed.
We are homesick for heaven, tired of the wars and rumors of wars and pandemics yet thankful for all God has given us here in America. One day soon, we will take our flight.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 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.
1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
Squire Parsons sang a song he wrote called “I’m Kind of Homesick for a Country, to Whence I’ve Never Been Before”. Friend, I am thankful for my earthly country, but now I’m ready to take my heavenly flight!
Happy Independence Day to all!
You are absolutely right to want to find the position that is scripturally correct. (Such a position will inevitably turn out to be "historically viable", as you put it :oD)
It seems to me, though, that you are losing sight of some key scriptural principles in regard to the topic of the nation of Israel...
1) Biblically, one does not need to be racially Jewish for God to consider you part of the nation. Ruth is an obvious example, but there are plenty of others. She was a Moabitess, but became a part of the nation of Israel by identifying with Israel and marrying into Israel. Biblically, a person is seen by God as part of the physical nation of Israel if they genuinely believe themselves to be Jewish, and if they identify with the nation of Israel, and if they endeavour to live according to their understanding of the Jewish faith.
2) By contrast, one can be a 100% pure-bred Jew and NOT be considered part of the nation by God - if one does not obey the strictures in point 1). Biblically, you are "cut off".
3) I'm afraid the implications of points 1) and 2) are that Finck's conclusions are upside-down.
P.S. There's a lot more I could say in response to your piece, but I want to keep this initial reply short - and hence manageable for all concerned :o)
Thank you, Matt. I like your point about Ruth. Except there are lots of other instances where God is clearly very picky about bloodline purity, even to the point of cutting off poor old Esau for intermarrying with the wrong tribes.
It would have cost less effort to type 'ruth' in the search bar at christogenea.org. Here you go: https://christogenea.org/podcasts/bible-discussion/ruth-was-israelite-ruth-was-not-moabite-race
That is fascinating. thank you.
Sorry, but I'm not sure how anyone can take that article seriously. For example:
* How *anyone* can read the first chapter of Ruth in the KJV and conclude that Ruth was racially an Israelite rather than a Moabite is beyond me (which is why the article has to attack the KJV translation despite it being the product of men vastly more qualified in translation than the people behind the article).
* The article claims that, "When the Israelites entered the promised land, after their 40 years wandering during the exodus, the land of Moab was the first land they conquered. Yahweh [sic] had commanded Israel to totally exterminate the occupants of the lands they were to settle, in Moab they did so." Yet later in the same article, we are told that NOT all Moabites had been exterminated after all.
* The people behind the article seem blissfully unaware that non-Jewish people who converted, in OT times, to the faith of Israel and who identified with Israel and who lived in Israel, became part of the nation of Israel. Therefore, Ruth was no longer legally to be considered a Moabitess once she'd converted.
P.S. I can't wait to read this guy's evidence that Rahab too was actually Israelite!
According to my reading of that (and more) Ruth was racially an Israelite because Israelites had invaded the region, and slain and driven-out the Moabites long prior to Ruth's birth.
If this is indeed historical fact, then the ** being eradicated part ** makes it unlikely for racial Moabites to ** not be eradicated ** in the region called Moab at that time.
I'm not sure what needs explaining to you at this point. Is it the calling an Israelite from Moab a moabite that's difficult for you? Perhaps some examples may help concretize the abstraction:
- If, say, an arab army invades and occupies Spain, would you be shocked if, after 150 years of that, contemporary writers refer to those new populations as Spaniards?
- If a man of Pashtun lineage, living in America, who's grandfather was born in America, is called an American, is that surprising?
In the case of "Ruth the Moabite", it is churlish to deny out-of-hand, that the term "Moabite" could have been used as in the above examples, "Spaniard" and "American". That would be a spectacularly peculiar stance to take, since we all know that it is common for such labels to be used to refer to a *region* of origin rather than an *ethnic* origin.
The question of Ruth's lineage is of great consequence, and it behooves us to consider all evidence that helps to resolve rather than obscure, a clear picture without contradictory narratives.
Our best understanding will get scripture, contextual language, lineage and historical events lined-up with less internal contradiction than alternative options.
"I'm not sure what needs explaining to you at this point."
Well, for starters I need you to explain these 3 things:
a) Why do you assume that, when the Word of God says Naomi, "went to sojourn in the country of Moab", she must have gone to the part of Moab controlled by Israel rather than to the part that still belonged to Moab? (As your beloved article admits later on, "There was a country which continued to be called *Moab* and to belong to the Moabites, which was only a small portion of the original land.") How can you be so sure Naomi didn't go there?
Since God had brought a famine on Israel (Ruth 1:6), it surely makes more sense that Naomi would leave the whole land of Israel. Also, if she was in fact still in Israeli territory then she wouldn't need to *hear* "how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread"- for she would see it with her own eyes.
Furthermore, if the area she went to was the part under Israeli control, then the bit in the article that cynically retranslates "Your God shall be my God" to "Your judge shall become my judge" would make no sense, because Ruth was supposedly already under the same Judge as all the other Israelites.
b) I also need you to explain how you can possibly know for a fact that, during the hundreds of years that Israel controlled the relevant portion of Moab prior to Naomi's time, not a single Moabite had ever moved back there - such that there were *definitely* no Moabites at all in the land Naomi moved to.
c) I .also. need you to explain why, if Ruth was - as I contend - a racial Moabite, you are so very determined to be so legalistic when it comes to the matter of whether or not the law about 'Moabites entering the congregation of Israel' applies here. Ruth was plainly an *exceptional* case, and the Bible makes it very clear that exceptional circumstances sometimes mean the standard rules do not apply. I can easily produce a dozen examples from Scripture, but Matthew 12:1-4 should suffice for any genuine believer.
Sincere thanks for your gracious reply, James. I very much appreciate it.
Regarding Esau, Hebrews 12:16-17 indicates to me that God cut him off for 'selling his birthright for just one morsel of meat' - rather than for, "intermarrying with the wrong tribes" :o)
"Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."
Please put me right if I'm missing something here.
To me., the clear thrust of Scripture is that God is *infinitely* more concerned about what's in a person's *heart* than in their DNA (consider Esther, or Uriah, or Rahab, or the Hebrew midwives).
As Romans 2 puts it, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; ... But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly". If a person loves and identifies with the nation of Israel, and has a genuine faith in the God of Israel, then God sees them as part of the nation :o)
Why don't you read Genesis from the last verse of chapter 26 through to about the tenth verse of chapter 29? There you shall see that Esau had taken Hittite wives, that Rebecca his mother saw that and lamented; That it was a grief of mine to her and that she despaired of her life if Jacob did the same.
So Rebecca compelled Jacob to steal Esau's blessing, and when it was all said and done, Rebecca conveying her plight to her husband (28:46) Isaac gave Jacob instructions as to where to get a wife, and told him that if he did so, that he would inherit the promises to Abraham.
It was all about race, and it still is. I would be willing to answer every question you might have. But if you protest the idea, especially for your own personal feelings, then it would probably be futile.
1) Please cite the passage that says "inherit[ing] the promises to Abraham" was contingent on Jacob following Isaac's instructions regarding a wife; as Genesis 28:2-4 makes no explicit linkage as far as I can see.
2) If you stand back and view Scripture as a whole, it is very obviously NOT "all about race". Do you really imagine Rebecca would have been grieved if the wives Esau had taken were God-fearing, Israel-loving, proselyte Jews - who just happened to have been born to parents outside of her culture?
3) Isaac's "instructions as to where to get a wife" were doubtless inspired by God. (In Isaac's case at least, God had made him and Rachel for each other.) But regardless, the instructions were designed to ensure Isaac would end up with a wife from the same (God-knowing and God-fearing) culture as his.
This entire answer proves to me that you are entirely clueless. You do not understand conditional statements. No, Jacob could not have the promises in verses 3 and 4 unless he fulfilled the condition requested of him in verse 2.
What point is there in having a discussion with a man who cannot understand simple logical concepts?
"Jacob could not have the promises in verses 3 and 4 unless he fulfilled the condition requested of him in verse 2."
PROVE IT.
LOL you obviously do not read very well.
Genesis 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. 3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; 4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.
Should I explain this word-for-word?
Sorry, but I think it is *you* who 'doesn't read very well'.
1) You've ducked important points I've made;
2) This is not the first time you've ducked important points I've made; and
3) You've failed to show the linkage between Jacob obtaining his wife from the right family and inheriting Abraham's blessing - despite me specifically asking you to. Had verse 3 started with something along the lines of, "Do this and God Almighty will bless you...", then I'd have accepted your claim. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. Yet I'M the one accused of making assumptions!
That makes no sense. Why would God who supposedly made all mankind decide to chose one bloodline over another and why wouldn't all bloodlines be the same? Then what type of God would do that to his own creations unless there were other Gods as powerful creating a different bloodline? You can't have it both ways. Maybe the CIA or MI6 or even Mossad wrote the Bible. I know you are going to say that's a Conspiracy Theory.......
Because our race was known as "adamkind". The nephelim and beasts of the field were already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created.
That's who Cain went out and fornicated with, in the land of Nod.
It all clicks.
Here you go: https://christogenea.org/podcasts/bible-discussion/ruth-was-israelite-ruth-was-not-moabite-race
Biblically, you can start a sentence with "biblically" but that doesn't make it biblical.
Biblically, you're propagating the 'spiritual seed' doctrine, which you will need to defend with scripture, biblically. According to this, anyone who professes to be 'christian' becomes an inheritor of the covenant. The entire work at christogenea refutes this view.
You will have to spend some time there to begin to be able to address his scriptural basis for the rejection of 'spiritual seed' doctrine.
* "[Y]ou can start a sentence with "biblically" but that doesn't make it biblical." I never claimed otherwise. I did however, explain I was trying to keep my response brief. And anyone who starts a sentence with "biblically" is very obviously inviting people to ask them to prove their subsequent claims.
* "Biblically, you're propagating the 'spiritual seed' doctrine, which you will need to defend with scripture, biblically. According to this, anyone who *professes* to be 'christian' becomes an inheritor of the covenant." Are you mental? (Seriously.)
* "The entire work at christogenea refutes this view. You will have to spend some time there to begin to be able to address his scriptural basis for the rejection of 'spiritual seed' doctrine." Thanks. I think I'll begin with the page, "Jews and Jewish Treachery" as that certainly looks to be a balanced and biblical place to start (not).
You're right my representation of universalist "spiritual seed" doctrine was incorrect: "anyone who *professes* to be 'christian' becomes an inheritor of the covenant".
The doctrine of the Institutionalized Church (Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox) is that anyone can become Christian, right? But conditions for various rewards vary by sect, is that right?
Anyway that seems relevant to the whole story, really. One view leads to the destruction of white nations, as a unique and identifiable people, the other leads to our preservation. Which side are you on here?
If you want to pick on some christogenea topic why not the one we already had: Was Ruth an Israelite?
What do you think now?
How on earth does your second paragraph lead to your third???
As to the question of Ruth, I have not changed my mind. She was obviously a Moabitess. Not that it affects the general point I'm trying to make though.
Matt I have answered all of your contentions, plus a few, here, in an excerpt from a more recent presentation I did in 2023. I even put it on this website, so you do not have to go to my own.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-167841661
How anybody can read chapter 1 of anything in the KJV and make assumptions without any appropriate Biblical context, I cannot take seriously.
"I have answered all of your contentions ... in an excerpt from a ... presentation I did in 2023"
1) I'm afraid the excerpt you cite only covers the issue of Ruth. It does not address my more general contentions regarding James' article, as set out here:
https://delingpole.substack.com/p/who-are-really-gods-chosen-people/comment/132098116
2) The excerpt you cite doesn't cover any of the following 3 contentions I've made so far on the subject of Ruth:
https://delingpole.substack.com/p/who-are-really-gods-chosen-people/comment/133078697
3) It is hard to take your excerpt seriously when it (a) calls God "Yahweh"; (b) strips the Lord Jesus Christ of every single title, and (c) argues that King David would have been a "bastard" had Ruth been a racial Moabite.
LOL @ your man-made ordinances. Dozens of times, or more, did the apostles use the terms "Jesus", "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" without accompanying titles. It is pathetic to think I am being irreverent, according to your own private standards.
As for your attitudes in relation to the Old Testament, the covenants were exclusively for the children of Israel, and although people from certain other nations, not from any other nation, could join themselves to Israel the law provided that could only happen after meeting certain strict requirements.
Christ came only for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", and Paul professed maintaining that assertion in several different ways in his epistles and statements in Acts.
You are obviously ignorant as to the very purpose of a Messiah in the first place.
Yes, if David was a Moabite, he indeed would have been a bastard. I am using language found in Scripture itself, in places such as Hebrews chapter 12, Dueteronomy chapter 23 and Zechariah chapter 9. I am using it in the same general context, according to the law.
The children of Israel were cut off for their sin, but ALL promises of reconciliation and redemption, as well as salvation, were made to those very people who had been cut off. That is the entire theme of the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, for starters. YOUR interpretations set the promises, the covenants, and the prophets at naught.
"Yes, if David was a Moabite, he indeed would have been a bastard. I am using language found in Scripture itself, in places such as Hebrews chapter 12, Dueteronomy [sic] chapter 23 and Zechariah chapter 9. I am using it in the same general context, according to the law."
1) If, as you claim, David's ancestors going back hundreds of years were all Israelites, and if one of his (8) great grandparents was Moabite, how exactly would that make him "a Moabite"?
2) I'm well aware that the word "bastard" appears in the Bible, thanks. My issue (fairly obviously to anyone with any wisdom) is your claim that David would have been a bastard if one of his great grandmothers was Moabite, when surely the biblical definition of a "bastard" is someone who's parents were not married.
3) "I am using [the term bastard] in the same general context, according to the law." I would LOVE to hear how you justify this.
1) "Christ" is a title, so that line of argument is a pile of pants. The books of the NT that were written to Christians almost NEVER refer merely to "Jesus". Yet 25% of the times you refer to the Lord in your 'excerpt', you strip Him of every title.
2) I agree with virtually every word of your subsequent 2 paragraphs, so I'm staggered you'd write, "You are obviously ignorant as to the very purpose of a Messiah in the first place." When have I ever so much as HINTED that I don't agree with your preceding 2 paragraphs? Judgmental much? Jump to conclusions much? What a grave accusation to be throwing around without any justification. What a sound man of God you must be.
3) I also agree with these remarks by you: "The children of Israel were cut off for their sin, but ALL promises of reconciliation and redemption, as well as salvation, were made to those very people who had been cut off. That is the entire theme of the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, for starters." So you can imagine .I. was laughing out loud myself to read, "YOUR interpretations set the promises, the covenants, and the prophets at naught."
The utmost impiety, perhaps aside from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is to teach men that Yahweh God would set aside His law.
Matthew 5: 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Are you ill?
In Scripture, God sets aside His law on any number of occasions, when the circumstances are extreme enough.
Consider, for example:
* Hezekiah’s Passover Celebration (2 Chronicles 30:1-27);
* Elijah and the Priestly Role at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:30-40) ("Elijah, who was not a Levitical priest, built an altar and offered a sacrifice to God during his confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Under the Mosaic Law, only priests were authorized to offer sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7)".); and
* Christ's Interaction with the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11) ("The Mosaic Law prescribed stoning as the penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22)")
As I have already explained elsewhere in this thread,
"[T]he Bible makes it very clear that exceptional circumstances sometimes mean the standard rules do not apply. I can easily produce a dozen examples from Scripture, but Matthew 12:1-4 should suffice for any genuine believer."
And if you agree with so much, why do you not understand that God would not violate His Own law? See the opening verses of Romans chapter 7, with a background in Hosea 2:19-20. Yahweh God was manifest in the flesh so that He could fulfill His promises while at the same time demonstrating that He keeps His law, even if Israel did not. That was the path to reconciliation that He chose from the beginning, that is why He is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world", etc.
Why do YOU not understand that one of the key messages that the Lord Jesus shared during His incarnation was that it is *NOT* good to apply the law mindlessly. It is legalistic to insist that the law never be 'violated' under *any* circumstances.
Sure enough, Christ Himself 'violated' the law when he refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery. As you must surely know, the law required her to be stoned to death.
I look a little more at this topic of 'violating' God's law in a post I submitted a few mins ago here: https://delingpole.substack.com/p/who-are-really-gods-chosen-people/comment/133732965
Ironically, it turns out that you are a Pharisee (and in more ways than one).
LOL you need to spend five minutes with a copy of Strong's.
Lol indeed.
1) The *Gospels* invariably just say, "Jesus"; but that's because they are not primarily written to *Christians* - and God did not want to require readers to prejudge Christ's true nature. The *Epistles*, by contrast, are written to professing Christians (as your article presumably was) - and they almost NEVER just say "Jesus".
2) Are you seriously not going to apologise for the false accusation you made against me in point 2) above?
3) Are you seriously not going to apologise for the false accusation you made against me in point 3) above either???
P.S. Talking of "making assumptions", your cited excerpt says, "As we read in the opening verses of the Book of Ruth, there was a famine in Moab". Please could you point me to ANY point in Ruth where it says there was a famine in Moab?
LOL a famine in the land ... so they still had some bread in Moab, which happened to be not many miles from Judah. Easy mistake to make. But you should be reading those opening verses of Genesis chapter 28.
1) If there was a famine in *Moab*, why on earth did Naomi's husband take her and their two sons there?
2) You seem to (again) be assuming that they went to the portion of 'Moab' occupied/controlled by Israel, rather than to the truly Moab part farther away?
3) Potentially, other Israelites moved to Moab to escape the famine in Israel. But there are several reasons why others might not have chosen to go. You DO love making assumptions, don't you :o(
P.S. You're well aware that I had already read the opening verses of Genesis 28 before you penned this. Stop changing the subject. And instead start to PRAY before you reply.
This reply shows that you could not understand my answer.
Now silly, you are focusing on what was obviously an editing glitch. Why don't you focus on the actual points made in the article? I gave specific reasons why Ruth was an Israelite in Moab.
But you do not want to believe them, because your god is a hypocrite who violates his own laws. However the God of Israel, who is also Jesus Christ, is not a hypocrite.
That is the difference between us, Matt.
Jesus spoke about fulfilling the Old Covenant and establishing a New Covenant in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:17, he says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." This suggests he saw his mission as completing or perfecting the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) rather than discarding it. In Luke 22:20, during the Last Supper, Jesus says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." This establishes the New Covenant, rooted in his sacrifice, which replaces the Old Covenant’s sacrificial system. The concept is further developed in Hebrews 8:6-13, which describes Jesus as the mediator of a "new covenant," superseding the old one, which is called "obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13).
The Jew's covenant with God was fulfilled in Jesus. They are no longer *covenant* people. True Christians are under the New Covenant of Jesus' sacrifice of His blood on the cross. He said so himself.
Almost good up to the end: "The Jew's covenant"
That is precisely what is up for debate in this podcast. Are they the children of the covenant or not? Your text assumes the answer to the question at hand, but does not support the conclusion.
Clearly, the Bible says God made a Covenant with the Jews. That they had a covenant really isn't in question at all. It is clear in the Old testament that they did. The question is are they still under that Covenant and my point was that no, they are not, because that Covenant was fulfilled in Jesus and there is a New Covenant which they are not a part of unless they accept him as their Savior.
I didn't listen to the whole podcast, but if the debate is whether there was a covenant or not, then clearly the Bible isn't involved and I just don't care what they say because if they're not including the Old Testament Bible, they're not talking about the history of the Jews anyway.
The point is that the covenant was with the white europeans and not the jews.
So when you write "God made a Covenant with the Jews" that can't be true if the guest is correct, because then the Jews are not the descendents of the Israelites.
And it's not just a scriptural view that bears against the mainstream narrative; by the secular historical and archaelogical clues we've been able to assemble, they're about as much inheritors of God's covenant as overripe bananas on the car seat.
I suppose my wordy things won't trigger many wigglings in you but who knows -- perhaps one blessed reader. :)
I think the guest is dead wrong. I used the term "Jews" because that is how most people label them. Abraham was not a "white European" or a Jew. Neither was Moses. Neither were the slaves in Egypt. The Hebrews were the covenant people - Jesus called the leaders of the Jewish religion of his time "a brood of vipers" from " the synagogue of Satan". So, in short, don't buy any of it. Only God knows who his remnant is - and they do not follow Talmud or Kabbalah.
"they do not follow Talmud or Kabbala" <- v The guest would agree with this!
Please show me this passage in the Bible where it says “God made a Covenant with the Jews”.
Coming from the man who wrote this - "My instincts, at any rate, tell me that these ‘hummingbirds’ are not a literary invention but a genuine thing." Hmmmm. And would you find my "instincts" to be as valuable as your own? No, I thought not. Not to worry, though, my "instincts" never lead. I prefer provable facts. But you do whatever pays the bills; seems to be working so far. And thank you for your inspiration; I have decided to add "irritant" to my profile description. 😉
What prompted this outburst of aggression and snark? Did I attack you personally? And how does this fir in with your homilies on ego, Jesus being the only thing, etc.?
I responded to your challenge regarding the scripture on the Covenant in the same manner it was presented. I simply mirrored *your* "aggression" back at you. Apparently you did not like it. This could have been an enlightening discussion, but your challenge changed the tone completely. You invited me to answer you in a very "aggressive" manner. As a student of my Lord and Savior, and having dealt with many people in my life, the "why" is clear to me.
However you choose to perceive it, this is not a "personal attack"; again, it is just a mirror. We all need an above the neck check once in a while. I am just a miserable soul, saved by Christ, using the same tools He used - Scripture and Truth - to confront....is it ignorance, or arrogance? Did you really not know the scripture in Genesis, James? If not, you could have just thanked me for enlightening you.....but......crickets on that, I guess. If you DID know it, well, that is inconvenient, because it further shines a light on your; dare I say it; arrogance, aggression and disingenuine "you were mean to me - I therefore challenge your claim as a Christian" answer.
And challenging that I am a Christian? Really???
Proverbs 27:6; "Faithful are the wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Everyone loves a kiss-ass, don't they? Truth; never well liked; is often painful, because it challenges our ever so monstrous egos. Your "aggressive" challenge on the well known Biblical covenant; a covenant at the *center* of three major world religions; spoke volumes; words that you did not say, yet conveyed clearly. I financially support you on this Substack and have enjoyed many of your insights and guests but have also found the sometimes arrogant superiority in your writing; and especially your challenge to me; off-putting. (Sigh). Jesus says blessed are the humble. Humility; a virtue sorely missing in the world today. Not sure you agree with or believe that. I am not smart enough to intellectually wrangle with a man of your stature, but I do know Scripture. And, saying that, I actually like you. You are an interesting guy; the kind of quirky "friend" that would be fun to.....discuss things with. (I would love to share a pint, but beer hates me). So ignore this whole thing and have a great day. What do I know? Just another ignoramus out in cyber space. Blessings and peace.
Genesis 17; 1-4"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram[b]; your name will be Abraham,[c] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old *must be circumcised*, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an *everlasting covenant*. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
You can interpret that however you like. I am clear what God meant. The covenant people are the descendants of Abraham who are circumcized. Clearly, most who claim Jewish heritage cannot trace their family history back to Israel. Most were converts. If you want to make some obscure case that somehow that meant "white europeans", have at it. I am not moved. No rancor, just totally disagree.
To add: Abraham's descendants are the believers in the Messiah God sent - Jesus. "Every tribe, every tongue, every nation".
Thanks for those posts. Question is whether abraham and jacob's seed, referenced many times, in a long train of stories hyperfocused on descent, lineage and ethnic identity, really means
"spiritual seed"?
or is "spiritual seed" a made-up invention of institutional churchianity?
Maybe seed really means seed, as in sperma. The exigesis of this is covered in depth at... you know where to find it now!
Let's check our Bibles!
Does it say:
"I will make many nations your seed"
or..
"I will make nations [genetically related tribes of people] of you[out of yourr seed], and kings will come from you"
-------
How do the meanings for these translations differ?
Perhaps you’re finally fully ‘waking up’. Small steps. If you value truth as much as you state, you’ll eventually get there. Godspeed.
Patronise me harder, baby!
Guess you prefer sycophants, hey? How charming.
no one is 'fully awake' but the most deluded and arrogant.
Is it just possible that the organized religions were created to control people in various ways? My understanding is that god is the animating processes of nature playing out across time.
Organized religion absolutely created for control, but having an actual relationship with Christ is much different than the institution of organized religion like Christianity. I don't even attend "Church," as they're effectively used as political buildings, and it's nearly impossible to find a good one anymore.
However there are some God-conscious church fellowships we can tap into through the internet and the two that come first to mind are Keith Malcomson in Ireland and Shiloh in Auckland NZ. Both are fully focused on God and His Word.
Yes the great subversion happened when the Edomites (Patrician network in Rome) gave up trying to kill all the Christians outright, and decided to create a replacement religion under the same name. The big breakthrough came at the council of Nicea.
Paul isn't the 'father of the church'. There's no official stamp handed down from him. It was a political move, by the enemies of Christ.
The great inversion -- the replacement theology -- introduced to apostolic Christianity -- by satan -- was to mistranslate scripture and impose doctrine to make it appear a universalist religion: i.e. that any anthropomorpic entity that can repeat 'Jesus is lord! may thereby enter into the kingdom of heaven and receive eternal salvation.
The heresy that 'all may be saved' was then used to propagate 'all must be saved', as an excuse for a program of imperial christianity - which largely served to fill the coffers of the long-ensconced merchant princes of Amsterdam and London (*india company*)
There's so much to learn, but we have all the time in heaven. Be good to each other.
far too sensible for these inadequate numpties
James! As a Nigerian Christian, I’ve had similar thoughts — but from the black African perspective.
However, I’ve realized that religion- specifically Christianity—has been manipulated for political and imperial gain, so by saying “who’s God’s chosen people” — is what the Zionists and others, like Constantine with the Roman Empire have used for centuries.
I’m actually going to write about this tomorrow, but this we need to understand the “myth” of Christianity, rather than taking it seriously.
A prime example is the rapture, which I discuss here. It’s not real, but we think it to be:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-shocking-truth-about-the-rapture
PS: I wrote this article about the African guide to reality: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-black-mans-guide-to-reality
Have you seen ‘Fake Ass Christians' by Mark Passio?
I haven’t! I’ll have to check it out. You have a link by chance?
This is what Jesus had to say about the Old Testament:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." [Matt 5: 17]
Hi James & readers
I was just looking at Finck in connection with Jerm’s podcast with him. While I cannot dive into and refute his records, I want to raise a theological objection:
As you brought up Joseph: There are countless parallels between the Joseph-story and the Jesus story: one of the main ones is that Joseph’s brothers’ rejection of him as their leader and subsequent sale to foreigners led to “the nations” being saved by Joseph’s leadership in Egypt. He was already a quasi-king in Egypt, while his brothers still deemed him dead and his claims from his dreams obsolete. Only in the end of the story he reveals himself to his blood brothers and is honored by them. The same with Jesus: his “brothers in the flesh” had to reject him so that the Gospel would go out to the nations where his kingship would be accepted, while his own family - at least the gross of them - had rejected and would continue to reject him as their Messiah. Only in the end, redemption will circle back to his own people and he will re-establish the Kingdom of Israel, as reflected in Acts 1:6-7: Jesus doesn’t deny the re-establishment of a physical kingdom, but says that first the nations would have to be reached.
In Romans 9-11, Paul discusses exactly the same process of redemption: rejected by his people, Jesus’ salvation would go out to the world first and only when “the fullness of the gentiles has come in,” then “all Israel” will be saved, while they now still have a veil over their eyes (just like Joseph’s brothers simply didn’t recognize Joseph at their first reunion - and yet they still got fed and sustained by him!). If this is indeed God’s plan of redemption, there had to remain a physical remnant of Israel who keep rejecting Jesus. In that sense, it doesn’t add up for me that the white Christian nations could be the descendants of Israel… because biblically, redemption ends in Israel’s recognition of their Messiah whom they have until then rejected.
While I certainly agree with you on Israel as a State and political Zionism, there also seems to be too much evidence to me that at least some of those who consider themselves descendants of Israel today indeed are. Just because we have a corrupt “Jewish” state and leadership as well as “influencers”, that doesn’t mean that “Jews” are not legitimate heirs of Israel that have carried their tradition through millenia, no? I’ve been living in Israel for several years now and while I am the first to point out the issues of the main streams of Judaism, one can’t deny that there is a special spirit blowing here. And if anything, the fierce rejection of Jesus among “Jews” seems to be to me a telltale sign that he is closer to them that they might think!
In any case, this redemptive succession seems to me completely at odds with Finck’s thesis.
As always, I can only invited to come and visit this little nation here in the middle east - not the state, but the people!
What a superb post! God bless you!
In the next day or 2, I'm hoping to write up my top 7 reasons for believing Finck is wrong and White Europeans do *NOT* represent "the nation of Israel" in God's eyes. Your point here about Joseph and his brethren will find its way into my top 3 for sure.
In the meantime, judging by your various posts here, you are a rare breed today - i.e. an actual, bona fide, God-fearing Christian - and I'd be honoured if you'd permit me to have direct email comms with you. I can be reached at meon dot min at yahoo dot com :o)
If you believe what Douglas Reed wrote in the early 1950s in ‘The Controversy of Zion,’ the reason much of the Old Testament portrays a God who has a chosen people and who behaved destructively towards any people that is not or which disobeys ‘The Law’ is that it was written by a band of fanatical Levites as a political strategy to build and consolidate their (earthly) power. They were succeeded by the Pharisees, then the Talmudists and most recently called themselves Zionists. They are now embedded as the globalists at the helm of the Western world which they are destroying with the willing help of the Islamists. We know what Christ thought of the Pharisees! We must always see our elites as our enemy.
God's chosen people are those whose names have been written in the book of life, regardless of their race, color, or creed.
The whole idea of lineage of "chosenness" is utter malarkey, and so are any arguments that start with that concept.
And for those citing "God's covenant" with the Israelites, have you even reflected on the origins of the practice of circumcision? It's rite (pun intended) there in Genesis, where old Abe is 100% on board with sacrificing his son, Isaac. He sacrifices a ram instead, but then he and the big man upstairs agree that he and all his descendants will excise (a vital) part of their ding-dong.
The "covenant" is a direct substitute for child sacrifice, which was practiced by the Israelites. The whole concept is misguided, sick, disgusting, and harmful. That's what y'all are debating about.
p.s. any god that demands sacrifices is also a depraved sleazebag
The man arguing for the child sacrificers, pretending to have a moral stance.
You do clown well, Chapeau
Whaaat? I’m against them. Reading comprehension is a skill. Learn it.
You were criticising our God, Yaweh, for testing Abraham in a test not intended to result in sacrificing Isaac.
I understood everything you wrote, friend / fiend. Think about what you wrote.
Combine it with the fact that child sacrifice was actually practiced in the ancient world and that they were pagan rites from the christian perspective.
Can you see some problem with you trying to cast shade on the Christian not-child-sacrificer who was surrounded by child-sacrificers?
It seems to me that the lesson of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac was to show that we, his children, are truly utterly in his hands, and that his will will be done. But he doesn't will us to adopt the pagan rites of child sacrifice (which we tolerate to this day, to our great chastisement!) I think you've come at it from the perspective of "Child sacrifice? That's outrageous! Why would a God even suggest that?" And Im telling you, it was a common, pagan practice. That is the context framing the story.
The test of the story is, "Do you love and obey your creator with all your heart such that you would give up that which is most precious to you, to follow his word?"
The faithful man may be required to give up his most precious posession in order to obey his creator, but it is not the will of our God that we sacrifice our own children upon his altar, unlike the Pagans all around, who sacrificially murder their own offspring as a matter of routine ritual. That's the coherent reading of the script, mister reading comprehension.
Tell us now, "Portraits in Fitness", do you support "A Woman's Right to Choose™?"
🔥🔥🔥 — 1,000% spot on!!!
Thanks, brother!
You display a very limited and distorted understanding and knowledge of the book you so roundly condemn out of hand.
How would you know what I know about that book?
pretty obvious, surely.....your superficiality and ignorance shouts out all too loudly.....as is your prejudice against it and its authors.
You know diddly.