Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

Arnold Kennedy: jews vs Judahites

 

The SHEER HATRED we see dripping off the following words cannot alter a tittle of God's Word, and will simply strengthen our resolve:

Arnold wrote: Race hatred in the way you advocate is a heresy.

Frank replied:  Well, Arnold, I could NOT agree with you more about this. Jk is ONLY following the chauvenist choosen dictum and religion of the Levite editors which him mand many others, maybe even including you, would label as "scripture."

Arnold: This applies to all your fellow travelers who are race haters, white supremacists and anti-Semites,


Frank: I am not one of these. Never have been, never will be.

Arnold:  who do not understand the present position of God's chosen people who are presently set aside for judgment.   

Frank:  Now regarding the New Kingdom which arrived at ad70, which Jesus is the King of,

 

Arnold: "why disagree".

 

 

What you folks hope you can do, which you CANNOT do, is TO slam us over the head with racial epithets in a FUTILE attempt to impose YOUR values and YOUR race on me and mine, just like FAGGOT LOVER Cardinal Law and his pack of kikes did by marching to the South to force niggers into public schools built by WHITE men, while his own congregation sent their children to all-White Catholic schools and kikes sent their niglets to nigger-free jew schools to learn the despicable TalMUD!

 

You cannot ever do that.  Your right to impose your niglet son on my racially pure White Daughter, as MLK "dreamed" so much about, is a NIGHTMARE to us and will NEVER HAPPEN, and our RIGHT to prevent it will be met with VIOLENCE in addition to EXILE:  http://fathersmanifesto.net/pollblacks.htm

 

Frank, you do NOT have a right to impose your latrino offspring on our WHITE offspring, and never will, no matter how much you WHIIIIIIIINE about "racism" and "hatred".

 

Arnold, we do NOT have to accept a SINGLE jew, and NEVER will, no matter how many times and ways you redefine "jew".

 

If there IS anything we "hate", it's one who would sling slurs like this just to try to gain an advantage in a debate they know they already LOST.

 

But obviously YOUR sheer HATRED is based on your fear or HATRED of the White Race, or racial purity, or God's Word, or something Jesus said about "not of my sheep".

 

 

 

From: Jacob Israel

Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:39 AM

Subject: ~Uncensored Re: Christian Israel Identity Problems..doc


resent, as the first one didn't appear to post!

Dear Arnold,

 

<snipped> We've got no reason to lie about this as you continuously claim, we've got no reason for getting so emotionally involved as you seem to keep getting, and we've got no reason to intentionally misrepresent what you write as you infer.  If you want to continue dialog in a respectful manner, then let's take this to the next step, but if your next reply is like this one, then this is my last post on this subject.  Please see my highlighted replies below.

 

John Knight

 

On 11/21/06, Arnold Kennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz > wrote:

MINE ARE IN RED.  

CONSIDER AGAIN:

MAT 23:29 WOE UNTO YOU, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! BECAUSE YE BUILD THE TOMBS OF THE PROPHETS, AND GARNISH THE SEPULCHRES OF THE RIGHTEOUS,  AND SAY, IF WE HAD BEEN IN THE WHICH KILLED THE PROPHETS. ISRAELITES KILLED THE PROPHETS.

 

 

How do you KNOW Jesus is not referring to the evil scumbag Edomite kikes who insinuated their way into the priesthood as Nethinims?:

Ezr 2:70

So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.


 

 

MAT 23:32 FILL YE UP THEN THE MEASURE OF YOUR FATHERS. YE SERPENTS, YE GENERATION OF VIPERS, HOW CAN YE ESCAPE THE DAMNATION OF HELL?  WHEREFORE, BEHOLD, I SEND UNTO YOU PROPHETS, AND WISE MEN, AND SCRIBES: AND SOME OF THEM YE SHALL KILL AND CRUCIFY; AND SOME OF THEM SHALL YE SCOURGE IN YOUR SYNAGOGUES, AND PERSECUTE THEM FROM CITY TO CITY: DAYS OF OUR FATHERS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PARTAKERS WITH THEM IN THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS. WHEREFORE YE BE WITNESSES UNTO YOURSELVES, THAT YE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THEM

WHEN JESUS SAID, "BEHOLD I SEND UNTO YOU PROPHETS".  WHO IS THE "YOU"?   HOW DARE YOU CHANGE THE IDENTITY AND SAY THAT THE FATHER SENT THE PROPHETS UNTO EDOMITES AND THAT THEY KILLED THE PROPHETS AND THEN KILLED JESUS. 

 

But this is exactly what happened, Arnold. God sent Jesus ONLY to the House of Israel, and of course this EXCLUDED "they who say they are jews and are not but are of the synagogue of satan", and AGAIN it was THEY who murdered the prophet, and this time it was Jesus they murdered.


 

MAT 21:33 HEAR ANOTHER PARABLE: THERE WAS A CERTAIN HOUSEHOLDER, WHICH PLANTED A VINEYARD, AND HEDGED IT ROUND ABOUT, AND DIGGED A WINEPRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, AND LET IT OUT TO HUSBANDMEN, AND WENT INTO A FAR COUNTRY:  AND WHEN THE TIME OF THE FRUIT DREW NEAR, HE SENT HIS SERVANTS TO THE HUSBANDMEN, THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE FRUITS OF IT.  AND THE HUSBANDMEN TOOK HIS SERVANTS, AND BEAT ONE, AND KILLED ANOTHER, AND STONED ANOTHER.  AGAIN, UNTO THEM LIKEWISE.  BUT LAST OF ALL HE SENT UNTO THEM HIS SON.  HE SENT OTHER SERVANTS MORE THAN THE FIRST: AND THEY DID, SAYING, REVERENCE MY SON.  BUT WHEN THE HUSBANDMEN SAW THEY WILL THE SON, THEY SAID AMONG THEMSELVES, THIS IS THE HEIR; COME, LET US KILL HIM, AND LET US SEIZE ON HIS INHERITANCE.  AND THEY CAUGHT HIM, AND CAST HIM OUT OF THE VINEYARD, AND SLEW HIM. 

"LAST OF ALL HE SENT UNTO THEM HIS SON".  UNTO EDOMITES?  NEVER! ONE MOMENT YOU SAY THAT JESUS WAS NOT SENT BUT ONLY TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, AND THEN YOU DENY WHAT JESUS SAID IN MATT. 21 AS ABOVE THAT " LAST OF ALL HE SENT HIS SON UNTO THEM".

THEN YOU TRANSFER THE IDENTITY FROM ISRAELITES TO EDOMITES.  I WROTE LONG AGO ABOUT SHELDON EMRY'S ERRORS YET IT DID NOT REGISTER.  THE ONES WHO KILLED JESUS WERE THOSE THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL WERE SENT TO.  DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE PROPHETS WERE SENT TO EDOMITES?  THIS SWITCH IS THE CI  IDENTITY PROBLEM!

 

 

I haven't read Sheldon Emry, but maybe I should, because if you disagree with him so vehemently on this topic, then he's probably on to something good.  Jesus was sent only to the House of Israel, BUT He had to go to the evil scumbag Edomite jews to inform them that the Kingdom of God, which they had USURPED from the Israelites, would be taken BACK FROM them and handed TO the House of ISRAEL:

Mat 21:43

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Mat 21:44

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mat 21:45

And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

The pharisees were correct.  He WAS speaking of them.  And it was to ONE nation, who HAD borne fruits, to whom it would be handed, and that ONE nation is the House of ISRAEL!

 


 

MAT 21:45 AND WHEN THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND PHARISEES HAD HEARD HIS PARABLES, THEY PERCEIVED THAT HE SPAKE OF THEM. WHO WERE THEY THEN?  THEY WERE THOSE THE PROPHETS WERE SENT TO AS BEING ISRAELITES.

 

 

Where do the Edomites fit into all this, then, if they're not the chief priests and Pharisees, and "they who say they're jews and are not but are of the synagogue of satan"?


THEN JESUS SAYS TO THE JEWS, IN MATT 21:41 "THEY SAY UNTO HIM, HE WILL MISERABLY DESTROY THOSE WICKED MEN, AND WILL LET OUT HIS VINEYARD UNTO OTHER HUSBANDMEN, WHICH SHALL RENDER HIM THE FRUITS IN THEIR SEASONS".  IT IS THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL THAT ARE "THE OTHER HUSBANDMEN".

 

Agreed.


IT WAS THE UNBELIEF OF JUDAH IN THE VINEYARD  THAT MADE THEM "ENEMIES".  THEY WERE NOT EDOMITES, EVEN IF THERE WERE EDOMITES PRESENT.  

Disagreed. How do you KNOW they were not Edomites?  

 

 


IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE JESUS AND WHO IT IS THAT HE SAYS THE FATHER SENT THE SON, THEN I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH YOU.  I HAVE ONLY CORRESPONDED FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS ON THE LIST.

 

It's not Jesus I disagree with, it's your misinterpretation of what Jesus said.  Who do you believe it was who had so much political power in Judaea that they managed to prevent the House of Israel from rebuilding the temple 500 years earlier?  Where do you think those folks went?

Ezr 4:1

Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel;

Ezr 4:2

Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye [do]; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.

 Ezr 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.

 Ezr 4:24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

 

 


I HAVE MADE COMMENTS BELOW, BUT WHAT IS ABOVE IS THE ESSSENCE OF MY RESPONSE.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:20 PM

Subject: Re: Christian Israel Identity Problems..doc


 

Welcome back, Arnold.  We see that you're stronger than ever, so our prayers must have been heard!

 

My replies below in BLUE:

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:35 PM

Subject: Christian Israel Identity Problems..doc


 

Dear Eli,

Whilst in hospital I wrote two long papers on the "Jews", "Judahite", "Judean" issue, but was not satisfied with either of them because somewhere I have come up with seeming ambiguity each time.   Obviously the problem was with the definitions. So it has been necessary to sort these out. Accordingly I have liaised with a skilled professional technical writer who, and in my view, has done an excellent job in giving better shape to my papers. This man is also skilled in Latin, Hebrew and Greek, so that is a plus. One of my papers was named; " Christian Israel's Identity Problems" and I have let that stand because it is a statement that says there is a problem.

 

Now Eli, you are not going to like this paper as he has not been kind to you but neither am I.  I believe you will be man enough to consider the points objectively. From what is said I hope that you will see how CI is turning into an unbalanced "religion".   This is what has been worrying me in the "Jews" sector.

 

Now, come on, Arnold, in the same paragraph you ask us to be objective, you launch into this claim about "unbalanced religion".  A sign that your health truly  has returned );  PERHAPS YOU DID NOT READ WHAT THE PAPER SAID "RELIGION" IS.  IF YOU DID, YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT..

 

One of my original paragraphs read, "It is entirely probable that descendants of Judah of both New and Old Testament times [as Israelites] may be found within modern Jewry.   This will explain the remarkable stories of a few "Jews" coming to believe in Jesus Christ in history and likewise today.  Their presence may well explain the overall cleverness of "Jews" in today's society. Such a part of modern "Jews" could be converted!"  

 

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Arnold.  But this is all you have here, and we are entitled to disagree with it, right?  I disagree.  I've witnseed first hand how the jews do the same thing in Iran and China, without the necessity of having this ancient genetic affinity you think we have with jews [who're our arch enemy who I am certain have never been even remotely related to Israelites].  YOU ARE STILL EQUATING RELIGION WITH RACE WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER.  JESUS SAID HIS ENEMIES WERE THOSE TO WHOM HE LET OUT THE VINEYARD WHO WOULD NOT LET HIM REIGN OVER THEM.  JESUS LET OUT THE VINEYARD TO ISREALITES.  JESUS CALLS THEM "HIS CITIZENS".  WHY DISAGREE?

Why disagree?  Because it's wrong?  Because it's non-Scriptural?  Because it insults the very CAUSE of Jesus?  Because it makes His Crucifixion in vain?  Because you don't have a shred of Scriptural or historical or modern evidence that it's true?  Because every fiber of my body tells me that your vested personal interest has overtaken your usual objectivity?  Because every jew I've ever met and spoken with and debated with and emailed with and been insulted by disputes your own words?  Because jews themselves claim to be a race, "modern" jews claim to be descendants, not religious coherents, of the race who crucified Him, and DNA evidence proves that jews have NO Israelite DNA?  Because Jesus called them a race of vipers, and there's no evidence that this race of vipers has ANY Iraelite blood in its veins?  Because their Talmud claims that a jew who is baptized is subject to the DEATH penalty unless they do so to deceive Christians?   Because jews who DO claim to have been baptized STILL claim to be jews, but that they now "follow Jesus"?  Because 70% of the "jews" in "Israel" claim to be agnostics?  Because such a belief UNDERMINED the entire moral fabric of this putative Christian nation?  Because continuing to follow such a belief would PREVENT us from taking the corrective action we KNOW we must take?   Because it benefits NOBODY but jews, and certainly is a huge DETRIMENT to Israelites, a SLAP across God's Face, and makes His Crucifixion in vain?

How many more reasons are there?  Thousands.  Because cathoholics are so desperate to convince us that Jesus was a jew that they have now appointed a jew as pope and radical zionist jew Kissinger as adviser to the jew pope?

 

Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:35 PM

Subject: Christian Israel Identity Problems..doc


Dear Eli,

Whilst in hospital I wrote two long papers on the “Jews”, “Judahite”, “Judean” issue, but was not satisfied with either of them because somewhere I have come up with seeming ambiguity each time.  Obviously the problem was with the definitions. So it has been necessary to sort these out. Accordingly I have liaised with a skilled professional technical writer who, and in my view, has done an excellent job in giving better shape to my papers. This man is also skilled in Latin, Hebrew and Greek, so that is a plus. One of my papers was named; “Christian Israel’s Identity Problems” and I have let that stand because it is a statement that says there is a problem.

 

Now Eli, you are not going to like this paper as he has not been kind to you but neither am I.  I believe you will be man enough to consider the points objectively. From what is said I hope that you will see how CI is turning into an unbalanced “religion”.  This is what has been worrying me in the “Jews” sector.

 

Now, come on, Arnold, in the same paragraph you ask us to be objective, you launch into this claim about "unbalanced religion".   A sign that your health truly  has returned );

 

One of my original paragraphs read, “It is entirely probable that descendants of Judah of both New and Old Testament times [as Israelites] may be found within modern Jewry.  This will explain the remarkable stories of a few “Jews” coming to believe in Jesus Christ in history and likewise today.  Their presence may well explain the overall cleverness of “Jews” in today’s society. Such a part of modern “Jews” could be converted!” 

 

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Arnold.  But this is all you have here, and we are entitled to disagree with it, right?  I disagree.  I've witnseed first hand how the jews do the same thing in Iran and China, without the necessity of having this ancient genetic affinity you think we have with jews [who're our arch enemy who I am certain have never been even remotely related to Israelites].

 

Because CI cannot prove to the contrary about modern Jewry, I have not agreed with the blind hatred of CI for the religious term “Jews” [as if this was a racial term]. You yourself know the prophecies of the reconnection between the two Houses.  I have deleted sections concerning God’s purposes in all this, and the reasons why Judahites who had the potential to believe hated Jesus so much as Judeans did, because at this point it is the fundamental problem that must be cleared up once and for all.

 

 

If by "Judahite", you mean an Israelite of the House of Judah, then I'd greatly appreciate your citing a passage or two which suggests that Judahites "hated Jesus so much".  Without that, I believe you're in error, and thus your entire thesis is based on your own preconceived notions and biases rather than Scripture.

 

 

If you take note of all this, and quit all the ongoing generalizations nonsense about “Jews”, I believe Eli that you can lead CI in a right direction and away from the religion it is, and with the trumpet no longer making an uncertain or confused sound, the battle will then be winnable. What are most important are the working definitions, and I am not going to communicate any more outside of these.

 

The re-write follows, and after that some comment on recent emails.  I will close at the end of all this.

 

Christian Israel’s Identity Problems.

This paper addresses the need to sort out the chaos and confusion by the indiscriminate use of terms associated with the inhabitants of Palestine in the Old Testament days, New Testament days and today.  Too many people use too many terms without consideration of their proper or appropriate meaning to the confusion of themselves and everyone who has to read their work.

The paper presents a set of principles everyone should work by who is trying to study, understand or discuss anything to do with the inhabitants of the Biblical land.

This paper will also look at the statements by Pastor Eli James:

1.              The fact is that the Jews are a non-Israelite, non-Judahite people of Edomite/Canaanite origin”

2.              “This substitution of the word 'Jew' for 'Judah' is a Jewish scribal device designed to fool us into thinking that Jews and Judahites are one and the same people”

3.              “Jews cannot be converted”.

 

It will also look briefly at what it is that “ardent believers” actually believe. This paper does not contradict the Biblical exclusiveness of Israel.  It is also timely to remind one and all that Biblical Law states that Israelites were not to abhor an Edmonite, because he is Israel’s brother. [The supposed transfer of “Edomite” to anything else makes a lie to strict not concordance meaning of “brother”]. Therefore, everyone should be very careful as to exactly what abuse and epithets they are hurling at whom.

1.1.                          Terminology

Trying to have a debate about a subject in which one word can mean something different to each party in the debate is a pointless exercise for all concerned.  Therefore, we must have a list of definitions that people can refer to and hopefully use in a consistent manner. 

None of these terms require any elaborate language skills to determine or verify their meaning or their scope (that is, who and/or what is included in the definition).  As such, they should be treated as facts until someone can provide authoritative proof to the contrary (which does NOT mean referring to the words listed in a concordance or a Beginners Guide to Hebrew and Greek etc).  The ultimate authoritative guide is that the assigned meanings fit with usage of the corresponding words in the Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible.

Judaism:         This is the name of a man-made religion built around the Talmud (otherwise generally known as/based on the Tradition of the Elders).  Anyone in the world can become a follower of Judaism. 

This is the biggest jew lie around, Arnold.  Please don't fall for it like Paul did--who, after he quit, wrote more than thirty times "the jews tried to KILL me". Even jews themselves openly brag that a jew who's father is a jew but his mother is not, is NOT ever accepted as a jew in their minds.  Even though the "law of return" in Israel accepts a person who has only one grandfather who was a jew, such jews are not accepted as jews in Israel once they get there.

                        As a religion, the word Judaism does not have a racial meaning.  That would be as silly as saying Baptist or Anglican always refers to Anglo-Saxons.

 

But even you must know that only racial jews practice Judaism, and the only people who practice Judaism are racial jews?

                        Judaism is the national religion of the Israeli State in the modern day Middle East.

"National religion"?  In a state where 70% of the jews claim to be agnostics?  That's a new one.

 

Jew:             A follower of Judaism.  There are people of every race, colour and creed who have converted to Judaism.  As a religious term, it is nonsense, an oxymoron, to refer to a “Jewish Race”.

 

You need to take this one up with the rabbis, Arnold:

 

 


The preface of The Jewish Encyclopedia, signed by Cyrus Adler, has among others this statement:

'An even more delicate problem that presented itself at the very outset was the attitude to be observed by the encyclopedia in regard to those Jews who, while born within the Jewish community, have, for one reason or another, abandoned it. As the present work deals with the Jews as a race, it was found impossible to exclude those who were of that race, whatever their religious affiliations might have been.'

"In the same encyclopedia is a statement by Joseph Jacobs, B.A., formerly president of the Jewish Historical Society of England:

'Anthropologically considered, the Jews are a race of markedly uniform type, due either to unity of race or to similarity of environment.'

 

The jews think they're a race, but they want us to believe that they think they're not a race.

 

 

                        The word Jew was introduced into the first English translations of the Bible because people calling themselves by that name had been happily walking around the planet using that name before the English translations were printed.  So rather than translate the Hebrew and Greek words correctly, the first religious translators simply used the every day religious word that was in common use to refer to people who were accepted at face value as being the racial descendants of the people discussed in the Bible.  Subsequent popular English translations have simple copied the original in this instance (and many other equally stupid instances).

                        So the primary source of confusion is the religious translators of one religion using the religious term of a different religion in a racial context.  Again, it is a silly as saying Protestant always refers to Anglo-Saxons.  Anyone who persists in using a religious word in a racial context is simply putting their ignorance on display for the rest of the educated world see.

 

Whew.   The difference is, Arnold, that I as an Anglo Saxon CAN walk into a Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or Episcopalean church any day and be accepted instantly, but I'd be worried about being shot just coming CLOSE to a synagogue, much less walking into the inner sanctum where not even jew women are allowed.  Surely you know this, Arnold--unless things are that much different in New Zealand?

 

                        Anyone wishing to participate in a debate in which the words Jew or Judaism are used, should first of all go through their Bible and carefully mark each use of the words Jew, Jews, Judaism, Jewry, Judea, Judean and Judah to indicate the underlying Hebrew or Greek word (see below).  Anyone who cannot or will not do that simple exercise is not in a position to even begin to know the first thing about what they are trying to debate.

 

You never did provide any specific corrections to the list at http://fathersmanifesto.net/judaean.htm so can we presume that you agree?  If you don't agree, please tell us which part your believe is in error.

 

 

Iouda (Greek) and Yehudah (Hebrew) – with their appropriate grammatical derivatives:

                        It does not take very much research to determine that in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts covering Old Testament times that this word refers to a person or the name of geographical region.

                        It takes a similar small amount of effort to determine that when these two words are used in the context of the New Testament times, they should be translated Judah when referring to the son of Jacob, and Judea when referring to a geographical region.

Ioudias (Greek) and Yehudi (Hebrew) – with their appropriate grammatical derivatives:

                        Likewise, when these two words are used in manuscripts covering Old Testament times, they should be translated as Judahite – someone or something that is associated with Judah.

                        When they are used to cover New Testament times, they should be translated as Judean – someone or something that is associated with Judea.

Edom (Old Testament) or Idumea (New Testament):

                        The country in which the descendants of Esau were living.

Edomite: A descendant of Esau.

Dispersion: Israelites outside Judea.

Greeks and Hellenes:

                        Typically refers to people living in areas of the former Greek empire and includes dispersed Israelites.

Judeans:             People living in the Kingdom ruled by Herod and/or people living only in the Roman province of Judea – often treated (incorrectly) as synonymous (Herod’s Kingdom was much larger than the Roman province).  It includes all people living there, including Edomites and Israelites.

1.2.                          Before making any distinctions

Before making any distinctions between groups of people in terms of belief and disbelief, everyone must:

a.              Recognise that Israelites do not automatically believe God.  If they did, there would have been no captivities.  If they did, Jesus would not have needed         to be crucified.

Jesus came only to the House of Israel to bring the House of Israel back to God's Law.  How many actually believed doesn't change His Mission statement, does it? 

Colossians 2:14 God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.

How much more might Jesus have accomplished had the evil scumbag Edomite jews not crucified Him first?

 

b.             Identify explicitly who is being addressed.  For example:

John 8 starts by stating that the people came to Jesus in the Temple.  That means all kinds of people who were in the temple, irrespective of their belief / disbelief at that point in time and irrespective of whether they were Judean or Dispersion, Israelite or Edomite.  (By the way, in NT days, no people other than Edomites and Israelites were allowed to be in the Temple.)

 

 

 

Obviously, God disagrees.  How can we permit Edomites, the ONLY race who Got HATES, into HIS temple?  Wasn't that the whole problem in the first place?:

 

Was not Esau Jacob's brother? says the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals, Malachai 1:3

 

As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau.", Romans 9:13

 

 

After the people were gathered around Jesus, then John tells us the Sadducees and Pharisees addressed Him.

c.              Once the makeup of the audience has been properly identified, then you can analyse the discussion and actions.  For example:

i.                We see in John 8:30 that some of that mixed audience of people believed Jesus and some did not.  That simply means that some Israelites believed Him, but some Israelites and the Edomites did not. Remember, if all Israelites automatically believed Jesus, He would not have had to die.  They didn’t, so He did.

ii.              We see the same thing in John 6 when Jesus was addressing the people in the synagogue in Capernaum – again the audience consisted only of Israelites and Edomites and we are told there were a number of Jesus disciples there.  Were some of these disciples Edomites? Possibly.  Were some of the disciples Israelites?  Absolutely.

 

WHY would Jesus appoint as one of His Twelve Disciples, who were to go to the house of ISRAEL, an Edomite?   That I do not understand.  There's speculation that Judas was an Edomite, or a jew--but I don't even believe that.  I believe Jesus appointed TWELVE DISCIPLES, that all of them were of the House of ISRAEL, not the house of Judah, and not a jew, and that ONE of them from the House of ISRAEL, Judas, betrayed Him.

 

In verse 66 we are told that as a consequence of what Jesus was saying, many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him.  Therefore, those that turned back certainly included Israelites who would not accept what Jesus was saying.

We also read that Jesus did not do many mighty works in Capernaum “because of their unbelief” – not that He could not; He just did not waste His time and energy on such a pointless task.  We know Capernaum was not an Edomite town, so it is highly unlikely that the predominate group in the town, let alone in the synagogue, was Edomite.  So who were the ones guilty of such unbelief that Jesus declined to perform mighty works in their presence? Predominately, disbelieving Israelites.

 

 

 

Arnold, it was in His own HOUSEHOLD, not in Capernaum, that Jesus didn't do mighty works. Capernaum was quite a hike from Nazareth, yet they all spent a lot of time in Capernaum.

 

Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

 

Mar 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

 

 

Mat 4:13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali:

 

Mat 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

 

 

iii.             We see the same thing in Acts 28.  The audience that came to Paul consisted of Judeans who were in Rome.  At the conclusion of the discussion, we are told that some believed and some did not.  Those that disbelieved included Israelites and Edomites – because not all Israelites believe God.

iv.            The very fact that Jesus questioned whether He would find The Belief when He returns (Luke 18:8) means that few Israelites would have that Belief at His return.

(Anyone who cannot perform the elementary task of determining that the English translation does not contain the Definite Article that is present in the Greek text, has no place in this debate.)

v.              Much of John 8 is explicitly reported discussion between the Pharisees and Jesus.  These verses are easily identified and do not need to be discussed here.  However, it should be crystal clear to anyone who is thinking about what they are doing, that all Pharisees cannot be labelled Edomites.  Paul equally clearly identifies himself as having been a Pharisee.  One exception is enough to prove the point.

 

BUT, Paul was an Israelite, of the House of ISRAEL, who studied under the Pharisee Gamaliel, calling the jews' bluff and "became AS a jew, TO the jews, to GAIN jews. Paul was not born a Pharisee--he was born an Israelite.  Paul was BORN as a Roman citizen, which no Pharisee could could be. (Anyone who cannot perform the elementary task of determining that "became AS" is MUCH different than "became A", has no place in this debate.)  Jesus warned SAUL to STAY AWAY from jews, and from that time forward, PAUL never preached to them again [and he writes more than thirty times "the jews tried to KILL me"].

 

1.3.                          Before making blanket statements

Before making blanket statements about who is who and what is what, consider the whole picture.  For example:

a.              The Edomites stole control over the former Israelite kingdom when the Israelites were deported (Oba 1:11, Eze 11:15 – unto us this land is given in possession, Psa 137:7)

b.             However, over 40,000 people from Judah, Benjamin and Levi came back to that same land by the royal Persian decree.

c.              The Edomites gained control of the priesthood in the new Judean nation during the period of Greek rule over Jerusalem when the Greeks made the office of the High Priest a political appointment.

d.             The Romans made the throne of the Judean nation a political appointment when they appointed Herod, an Edomite, as the first Judean king. 

Hence Jesus’ own things – the land, the priesthood and the nation – were under Edomite control (John 1:11).

e.              All through this time, that original 40,000+ people grew into a large population and comprised the bulk of the people in Galilee and a significant, but unknown proportion of the population of Judea – but they were in sufficient number that the rulers in Jerusalem “feared the people” in terms of what they might do, which means the leaders certainly did not have total control over the people.

 

The simple fact that the Edomites and not the Israelites controlled the temple is proof enough that the Israelites were a minority [and had been since the time the jews were able to block the rebuilding of the temple, through *legal* intervention].

The people of the nation chose Jesus as their king (John 12:13) but the leaders of that nation – the Edomite king and the High Priest – rejected Him and finally they killed Him.  (Based on his actions in the Sanhedrin, we can safely infer that Caiaphas was an Edomite.)  Hence it was the perceived owners of Jesus’ things – the leaders of the nation – that put the Son of God to death.

 

Agreed. Hallelujah!

 

Even the composition of the Sanhedrin was not totally Edomite. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states that by the second century BC, the High Priest presided over a group of priests, scribes and heads of families which formed the early Sanhedrin.  By Jesus’ day, the Sanhedrin had become a council of 71 members, including the High Priest, and was the central judicial authority of the nation at that time. The council members were drawn from the leading priestly families (Sadducees) and the religious instructors known as the scribes (Pharisees).

 

Josephus claims there were three separate races of jews:  Essenes, Pharisees, and Saduccees.

 

The Sanhedrin also contained some Elders who were neither Sadducees or Pharisees.  For example, Joseph of Aramatheia (the richest man of his day and an Uncle of Jesus) was a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50,51) and he was also a member of the local Roman Senate.  As shown by Luke 23:50,51, Sanhedrin business was conducted by voting.

So although the Edomites had the upper hand on the leadership positions, they certainly did not get everything there own way.  So to make the sweeping statements that label all one group as one thing and all other groups as something else is a woeful act of ignorance on the part of those making the claims.

For example, consider Nicodemus.  He was a Pharisee, but was he an Edomite or an Israelite?  After all, Jesus gave him a strong dressing down – How can you be a Maser in Israel and not know these things?  Was he an Edomite or an Israelite?

So make sure all the bases are covered before making a sweeping statement.

 

Since Nicodemus never acknowledged that he either accepted or understood what Jesus meant about "begotten of *God*", my vote is that he was an Edomite.

 

1.4.                          Eliminate the ambiguities

Before making broad-brush statements, make sure there are no ambiguous verses in the scope of the proposed statement.  For example, how many views are there on the meaning of John 1:11?  Similarly, how many views are there on the significance of what took place at the end of Acts 28?  What does the underlying text actually say?  Even an interlinear text can provide considerably more help than nothing at all (for example, it lets one identify the presence or absence of the Definite Article and which Greek word is being translated Jews etc!).

Making broad-brush statements about any topic that includes such verses in their scope, without all the detail and appropriate caveats laid down, runs the risk of being in opposition to Scripture or looking foolish or showing one’s ignorance – or all of the above.

1.5.                          Applying the principles

Now let us apply these principles to the statements of Pastor Eli James:

1.              “The fact is that the Jews are a non-Israelite, non-Judahite people of Edomite/Canaanite origin”

Reply: A religious term has been carelessly used in a racial context.  There is no attempt here to identify the underlying Greek word.  If we assume, for just a moment, that the correct word is Judean and substitute it in James’ statement, his statement shows total ignorance of the subject.

 

There were three distinct races of people called jews:  1) Edomites, even those not living in Judaea, 2) Israelites of the House of Judah, even in other territories, 3) Israelites of the House of Israel, living in Judaea.  The vast majority of the occurrences, it's a reference to Edomites no matter where they were, so Pastor Eli's observation is 100% accurate, even though he's using it as a racial and not a geographic term.  Today of course, evil scumbag Talmudites are called "jews" no matter where they live, all the way from China to Iran, and no matter if they're "religious" or "agnostic".

 

2.              “This substitution of the word 'Jew' for 'Judah' is a Jewish scribal device designed to fool us into thinking that Jews and Judahites are one and the same people”

Reply: Where is the evidence of a Jewish scribal device?  At least James recognises that the first part of the statement applies to a religious context.  There is ample evidence of ignorant Anglican, Protestant and even Gideon religious hamfistedness in the translation of the terms we are discussing, but not much evidence of Jewish scribal interference.  As to the latter part of the statement, here again we see an attempt to force a religious term to be equitable with a racial or geographical term.  On the other hand, if we use the more likely correct term, Judean, the latter half of the statement is correct.  Judeans are fundamentally the same as Judahites (because there were Edomites also living in Judah – David put them there under subjugation to Israel).

 

But most "Judaeans" were Edomites, not Judaeans, as evidenced by the fact that they still controlled the temple.  For all we know, there might have been fewer than a hundred Judahites in Judaea.  And during the exodus, why were the Judahites, who were 12% of the Israelite warrior population, never called "jews", if they WERE called "jews" later on?  I am right now sitting with a student of Nejad Rassad who, besides being a math teacher, is the curator for Esther's Mausoleum in Hamadan, Iran.  From what he and his fellow students know of Assyrian kings, they would NEVER have married a slave.  Israelites were slaves.   Yet Esther, a JEW, married the king of Assyria.  And guess what?  The history of these "jews" in this territory PRECEDES the captivity of the Israelites by 800 years.  Isn't it interesting that it was about this time that the word "jew" first appeared in Scripture?

 

Yes, the Israelites did intermarry with these "jews" during their captivity.  Yes, Mordecai DID have an Israelite, Kish, as a great-grandfather.  But, no, Mordecai and Esther were NOT Israelites, they were mamzer descendants of Kish and these "jews" who preceded the Israelites by 800 years.  Could they be the ones who Shalmanezer brought into Israelite cities to displace the Israelites when they were taken captive?  Could they be the ones who were still there when the Israelites returned from captivity, and prevented them from rebuilding the temple?  Could their Babylonian Talmud have been written BEFORE the Israelites even came there, and then modified and added to to make it appear to be inclusive of the Torah?

 

 

 

3.              “Jews cannot be converted”.

Reply: Given that Judaism is a religion, the ludicrous nature of this statement should be self evident – many of the Jews became Jews by conversion in the first place.  On this occasion, if we insert the most like correct term, we find the statement says that Judeans cannot be converted.  That means Peter must indeed have been drinking strong drink when 3,000 responded to the words of the Apostles.

 

Arnold, why on EARTH would an ISRAELITE not recognize the truth of Pastor Eli's words, and KNOW in his HEART that if 3,000 "jews" ever "converted", that it was ISRAELITES, of the House of ISRAEL, who Paul was referring to?  The ONLY Israelite who I am aware of who EVER "converted" to Judaism was Paul--and lookit what it got him.  And you have only the word of the jew Josephus that these Edomites were ever "forced to convert to Judaism", a statement that is not Scritpural, AND makes utterly no sense, since THEY are the ones who created this "religion" in the first place.

 

As to whether or not Edomites can be “converted”, the mistake is that the statement assumes the teaching of the Bible is itself some kind of religion. However, the Mosaic Law states that after three generations of marrying back into Israel, the fourth generation off-spring of that initial Israelite-Edomite marriage can enter the called-out assembly of Israel – because that fourth generation is capable of believing God.  This illustrates the importance of covering all the bases.  How indeed can Pastor Eli James set himself up as a teacher of the Bible and not know these things?

 

How can an Edomite "marry back into Israel" when it's contrary to God's Law for Edomites, who God HATES, to even APPROACH God's temple in the first place?  What Israelite in his right mind is going to take a wife knowing that his descendants for the next three generations cannot even enter the congregation of the LORD?  You're referring to a ONE TIME agreement where Israelites who had already violated God's Law by marrying Edomites, CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAW, had to put away their first, second, and third generation offspring. This is not a blanket invitation to continue to violate God's Law, you know?

 

 

Finally, let us look briefly at what “ardent believers” actually believe.  To do so, we have to understand the difference between Religion and what is presented in the Bible.  Humans have a weakness for ideologies and we see how they arise.  Namely, by allowing selected elements that comprise a whole entity to be worshipped (or elevated) in isolation from the whole.  The dictionary defines an ideology as the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible; speculation that is imaginary or visionary. 

If an individual or a group takes a set of beliefs that is based on part of the Bible and orders them so as to render the Bible intelligible to themselves, we have a religion.  That is, a religion arises when men focus on anything less than 100% of the Bible’s whole message. 

Relatively easy examples to understand are the Pentecostal and the Evangelical movements.  In a nutshell, these religions focus on the New Testament elements of Scripture and basically ignore the rest of the Bible.  Mainstream Christianity focuses mainly on “gentle Jesus meek and mild”, “born again” and the birth/resurrection (which is further distorted by the churches tacitly condoning the pagan festivals of Christmas and Easter).

Radical religious groups focus on only one or two elements, such as “faith” or “race”.  For example, the US Snake Handlers (and Poison Drinkers) have built a religion based solely on Mark 16:17,18 and groups such as the Klu Klux Klan promote racial supremacy and separation as the only things that matter. 

Failure to work at understanding the integrated message of the whole Bible leaves each individual sidetracked into following a religion rather than the Word of God.

So what these people ardently believe is the teaching of their preferred religion (and there are plenty of Israelites who are happy to keep them company).  Ardently believing the teachings of a man-made religion has, at best, very little to do with believing God.

1.6.                          Conclusion

Making absolute statements about who is who and what is what in any field of human endeavor is a dangerous thing to do, unless all the supporting evidence is presented in conjunction with the statement.

Using a common set of terms (or at least defining the terms on each occasion) goes a long way to taking the emotional components out of such discussion and that reduces the likelihood of making erroneous assertions.  It also makes it possible for others to understand the detail of the discussion and to reply in kind.

It should be obvious from the content of this paper, that to continue using a religious term in racial and geographical contexts is the height of ignorance or stupidity, or both.

It should also be equally obvious that not all Israelites have, do or will automatically believe God – at least not until the Millennium Kingdom is established.  Therefore it is again the height of ignorance or stupidity, or both, to state that all disbelievers are Edomites.

Finally, if the Edomite is an Israelite’s brother, then it means the physical appearance of the Edomite is indistinguishable from an Israelite. 

 

 

The simple fact that it's written TWICE that God LOVES Jacob but HATES Esau should have made you question the presumption that Edomites are "an Israelite’s brother" or "the physical appearance of the Edomite is indistinguishable from an Israelite". Obviously God sees a distinction, and by using the STRONGEST LANGUAGE possible, intends to convey that distinction to us.  The error of course was discovered by Pastor Emahiser who proved that Syrians, who ARE our "brother" [both Rachel and Rebekah were Syrians] is what should have been in that verse, in place of Edomite:  http://fathersmanifesto.net/edomites.htm

 

 

That should sound an instant warning that the stereotype appearance of so many people who follow Judaism are neither Edomite or Israelite because their stereotypical appearance makes them distinguishable.  So once again, everyone should be very careful as to exactly what abuse and epithets they hurl at whom.

The answer to the question about Nicodemus – was he an Israelite or an Edomite – is given in John 3:1 and 19:39.

 

 

God loves Jacob, and HATES Esau, and his heritage.  Why?  He married Canaanites, so his descendants were NOT the same race as the Israelites, to say the least.  Neither of the following verses even hint that Nicodemus was an Israelite, unless, and only if, you insist that:  1) jews were Israelites, and 2) Pharisees were Israelites.  Josephus claimed to be of the Pharisee lineage. 

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

John 19:39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight.

Even though Herod was not a Pharisee, and WAS an Edomite, Jesus put him and Pharisees in the same league.  Why?  Jesus knew of the genetic affinity between Herod the known Edomite, and the Pharisees who Herod appointed as religious leaders [Annas, Caiaphas, and perhaps Nicodemus].  Why would Herod appoint an actual Israelite when he didn't have to?  Why were the priests so contrary to, and even oblivious of, God's Law?

Mark 8:15

And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

 

 

 

Now Eli, I will comment upon another recent email from you that falls into five parts --  1.  A rant from Benjamin H Freedman who wants to prove that all Jews are Khazars and so they have nothing to do with the Bible.   I wonder if he includes himself also as someone who has no connetion with the Bible?

 

Yes he does.

 

 

Part 2.  The start of an article by Jason Collett.  He almost gets most the terminology right, but does not seem to know the difference between Israelites and Christianity -- race versus religion confusion again.

 

Most Israelites are Christians, most Christians are Israelites?

 

Part 3.  Eli James' inserted comments into Collett's paper.  You Eli are clearly determined to bash every Jew unless they agree with you.  Bias is just a tad blatant, and if you stay as one who does not want to know what is the point of any communication?


Part 4.  After a couple of pages of Colletts article, in mid-paragraph, the content cuts to some Jewish nonsense about who did what unto whom in the Holocaust etc.  It is just blather and a waste of time.  There is no indication of who wrote it etc etc -- and who cares anyway.

5.             Two paragraphs from someone called John Standring trying to say who was the first Jew and hence prove today's Jews have nothing to do with the Bible.  His one-eyedness gets in his way.  He is convinced that is Edom and Edmonite that have been translated into Ioudaios and Iudaeus.  There is no end to the dopeyness of such people.  Why dopey?  Because that have no definitions to work to!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Eli, I am being as direct as I believe to be necessary.  You may have the capacity to separate the Greek derivatives from “Iouda”, of which there are eleven, but I see no evidence that you have.  People like John Knight go about parading their ignorance and I doubt if John Knight even knows how to use even an interlinear as an elementary tool and thus is incapable of “rightly dividing the word of God”.  His quoting of different translations and concordances as his authorities shows how primitive, ignorant and uneducated he is.  This also goes for a lot of other CI teachers too.

Where do I now stand?  As already said, “Trying to have a debate about a subject in which one word can mean something different to each party in the debate is a pointless exercise for all concerned’.  I am not prepared to consider any discussions about “The Jews” outside of the working definitions given earlier in this missile. There is no point.

With respect,

Arnold Kennedy.

 

 

 
 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party