At The Point Of A Gun

He is not upset, just more driven to accomplish the mission....

 

Well since this thread is off on it's own anyway, and the worms are crawling all over the floor, let me open up another can and toss them out.

Tulianr said "It defies my understanding how a group claiming authority from the Old Testament can be anti-Semetic."

Let me shine some light on that. First let me preface by saying that I do not support,promote or condone the hatred of any group or race. I do not hold to, and am not necessarily a believer in, the doctrines and beliefs I am about to illustrate. I am playing devils advocate and trying to shed a little light on a very misunderstood matter.

I am assuming you are referring to the so called Phinehas Priesthood thugs who promote hate against Jews. How can they, or any others who believe scripture be anti-Semitic? To be anti-Semitic is to be anti or against those of the lineage of Shem. Shem, one of the sons of Noah whose lineage all of the children of Israel are descended from. The Shemites, or Semites became the 12 tribes of Israel.

But, and this is according to the doctrine of those we are discussing, the Jews are not Shemites, they are not Israelites, they are not even Judahites. This distinction eludes many people. What is the difference? They are all Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. And not all Jews are Jewish. Confused yet? When in scripture the term Jews is mentioned it is in reference to those who lived in the nation of Judah, not that they practiced the religion of Judaism. Israel split into two separate nations. Israel and Judah. The Israelites were the ones conquered and taken captive by the Assyrians in about 700bc. The Judahites were taken captive some time later by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. 70 years later they returned and reestablished themselves over Jerusalem and the land of Judah before the time of Christ. They brought with them a religion, steeped in Babylonian, eastern mysticism that became Judaism.
Jews and the enemy of those we are discussing are the Zionists. They are "the synagogue of Satan" who Christs says "they claim to be jews but are not".

And again I am playing devils advocate so keep that in mind. The people who returned from the Babylonian exile practiced a bastardized, mythical and some would say satanic version of the true Israelite religion. They became the rulers and the spiritual elite of the nation of Judah at the time of Christ. It is they who opposed him and sought to have him killed.

Their bastardized religion continued throughout history and they were a scourge on the land and an enemy of true Christians around the world.

The Israelites are often referred to as the "lost tribes of Israel" but that is far from the truth. They are easily traced through their original capture by the Assyrians and throughout their later migrations around Asia, into Europe and eventually into the Western lands.

The people who eventually settled in and claimed a homeland in the ancient land of Judah are of the religion of Judaism. They are not of the bloodline of Shem. They bear no connection, either historically or genetically to the Semites.

So to be against them is not anti-Semitic or unscriptural. They are not the fabled "chosen people" of God. They are not the Judahites or the Israelites of old. They are a middle Asian tribe that adopted the mythical religion of Judaism to prevent having to take sides and being slaughtered by either the Christian crusaders or the Muslim invaders. They opted to remain neutral and converted to Judaism.

This is what they believe. That the Anglo-saxon race can trace it's lineage directly back to the Israelites of old. That the trail of their migrations is crystal clear for any who want to find them. They have never been "lost" only forgotten.
They consider the Khazar Zionists as the enemies of Gods people and to oppose them and say that they, when they believe themselves to be of the genealogy of Shem, are anti-semitic is nonsensical in their view.

So now you know the rest of the story.

 

I prefaced my post with the caveat that I was playing devils advocate and stating what they themselves believe. And why they do not consider opposing zionism as anti-Semitic. I said that I didn't necessarily agree with them. On the other hand, I don't necessarily disagree either. I find a lot of the evidence presented by the Anglo Israelite church very interesting if not convincing.
Unfortunately when groups like the PP, skinheads and the like adopt a doctrine and use it to justify their hate it prevents any rational and reasoned study of the doctrine. Many evidences presented by Identity movement are hard to refute and do not require mere faith to accept. They stand up quite well under the microscope of historical and archeological examination.
Before the stigma of the racist groups became attached to it in the 90's, Christian Identity was the fasted growing segment of Christianity in the western world.

 

Also, as to the people who practice Judaism in the ancient land of Israel not being Semite, that comes from their own writings. They know their history and they do not deny that they are Khazar and not genetically linked to the Israelites of old. DNA proves this. Only about 3% of the population are Sephardic. They claim to be adopted into the lineage of Shem by their faith, a spiritual Semite much like many Christians claim to be the spiritual Israel by way of grafting in to the lineage of Israel by faith.
And before anyone starts burning up Google let me tell you the difference, especially from the viewpoint of CI. The Sephardic Jews come from Spain via the Middle East. The ancient name for Spain is Iberia which some contend, though it is disputed by others, that the name Hyberia means "Land of the Hebrews". The Khazarian Jews come from Eastern Europe. None of this is refuted and is stated in Jewish literature. However what is harder to find is where pre Eastern Europe the Khazars came from. A little research shows that they are from the Khazar kingdom of middle Asia and they converted to Judaism to avoid being drawn into the conflict between the crusaders and muslim armies. This to is not denied by Judaic scholars. Some however insist that these Khazars were descendents of Middel Eastern jews after the diaspora. This is where it takes belief and faith to accept as there is no evidence historically or even genetically that this is the case.
So there is a lot of evidence to prove that the majority of modern Jewry is not of the lineage of Shem. And on the other hand there is mountainous evidence to, at least suggest, that the Saxons (Isaac's sons) are descended in a direct line from the biblical Israelites.

If nothing else it serves as a fascinating study and a remarkable journey through history.

 

We aren't sparring at all just sharing ideas. Tuli and I both are history buffs and love to share what we have learned. And if there were any definitive proof of anyone's claims on their origins then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is all speculative at the moment and there is circumstantial evidence on both sides. That is what I find interesting about the CI literature is that it is a circumstantial case but the circumstantial evidences presented are very compelling. And of course you have to take any "history" presented by either Anglo Israelites or Jewish historians with a grain of salt as both will seek to justify their perspective opinions and show their group in the best light.
Just like the Eastern European Jews being driven out of nearly every country in Europe. Germany was only the last on a long list of countries that had for centuries driven them from their borders. There had to have been a reason. It may not have been as sinister as the rumored Purim sacrifices, it may have been merchants unable to compete with their business practices, or acumen. But a reason, and a recurring reason nonetheless. But in their literature it is always presented as the sinister conspiracy of small minded, racist and hateful Christians.

 

I have to say that I find the debate informative and interesting..... history is viewed through many lenses and interpreted many ways. Are any of them right, only those that lived it really know what is real and what is opinion. Good job guys and thanks for the discussion.

 

I have thoroughly enjoyed this last week or so here. We have had a few very in-depth and great conversations. A lot of ideas floated and different views presented, all in a respectful and reasoned manner. That is what sets the monkey so far apart from any other site on the net. Even Chelly joined in without offending anyone! Great discussions guys, glad to see so much movement in these threads. A lot of times I throw out things just to get the conversation going, knowing that all here will join in with well reasoned, informative and congenial responses. Well done to all who contribute.

 

Before we let this amazing thread die out I want to make one final post clarifying my stance on this issue. I hope you all find it interesting if not informative.

When the I first became aware of the Anglo Israelite doctrine I was asked by several people who routinely come to me to seek out advice and pose questions on spiritual matters to render a judgement on it. I undertook a quick study of the subject and my first response to them was that this was a very dangerous doctrine. When asked to clarify I told them that the premise was one that we as the descendents of these Anglo-saxon, Caucasian peoples are naturally very tempted to want to accept. It is very seductive and appealing and should be approached with the utmost caution and examined with the most critical of examinations. So I approached this in the mindset of disproving it. I launched into an in-depth study and have read more, maybe twice as much, anti literature on the subject as pro.

As I said, during the 90's in particular, this was a very rapidly spreading doctrine and was garnering adherents from mainstream denominations at an alarming rate. The Baptists and in particular Southern Baptists were losing a great number of their membership to it. They launched a widespread attack on it and published several studies to refute it.

What I found after many years of study on this is that the evidence presented in support of it are mostly circumstantial but mountainous. Far more than would be required to achieve a conviction in a court of law. The majority of attempts to refute it, and this is a generalization, but I found that most were more refuting the contradiction in that particular denominational doctrines. The evidences on both sides require quite a bit of speculation but that said the evidences presented by the pro side are based on more collaborated historical and archeological evidence. It is more what inferences can be drawn from those evidences. And that is true of both sides.

So my final verdict on the issue was somewhat in line with my verdict on the rapture theory. I came up with what I call an imminent rapture theory. While there is some evidence to support both post and pre it appears to me that the evidences presented for the pre trib rapture theory require much more flexible and creative interpretation of the "evidence" found in scripture. While the post trib theory seems to me to require the least and to be much more convincing. Therefor all we can say for sure is that it will happen, but not when. So it is imminent. We should prepare to be caught in the tribulation period and to be subjected to all the trials and troubles that will be suffered by the church in those days. Then if it happens pre we are relieved. Much like prepping in general. Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.

So as to the Israelite message I take a similar stand. While there is much to support the theory, we cannot know for sure. But either way if we are the true descendents of the Israelite people or if we are grafted in spiritually it doesn't change how we should live our lives as Christians.

But the truth will be revealed in time. This is what I told those who asked me to render a judgement on it. The book of Ezekiel in chapters 38 and 39 prophesies what will happen to the Israelite people in the end times. It is a judgement from God for their turning from him. He, as he does throughout scripture, sends a foreign army to punish his people. This is the battle of Gog and Magog. This is identified, quite unrefuted, as modern day Russia. Russia with a conglomeration of other nations, including Iran will launch a sneak attack against Israel. God says he "will draw them forth" and they will attack from the north. So if we see an attack by these nations against those in the land of Palestine then we know that they are indeed the Israel of scripture. But if that attack comes against the US, from the north which many strategists have long said would be the probable direction of an attack by Russia on the US mainland, then we know that the land of the US, and it's primarily Anglo population are indeed the Israelites of old.

So time will give us the answer. And it is my opinion that we should constantly watch not just treaties made with Israel but also any treaties the the US makes with these countries. We are negotiating a treaty with Iran now. If you simply read those chapters with the US in mind they take on a whole new light and make a lot of sense in today's world. I have always believed that Russia will always be an enemy of the US and is only biding their time until we are in a weakened condition then they will strike.

And add the fact that while the population of Israel is made up of both Khazar and Sephardic Jews, there are far more of both right here in the US than in all of Israel.
So my statement of not necessarily agreeing with this doctrine still stands. I am not an adherent, but yet I do not discount it either. Nothing I have studied has convinced me that I can disregard it. I leave it in the, Hmm, could be, category.

So once again I will state that I am not promoting this as true but would like to throw out a few of the things that I learned that made me go , hmm. Some of the irrefutable facts that give me pause, though I leave the interpretation of them up to you.

The appearance of the Anglo peoples into Europe is still unexplained by historians. They suddenly appear on the stage and no one knows where they came from. It is known that they migrated down through the caucus mountains thus giving the name "Caucasian" but prior to that there is little hard evidence of who they were and where they originated from.

One theory is they were the remnants of the Parthian empire that were driven out of Persia by the desert tribes that finally overran them. They were known to have advances in armor and warfare that made them the once powerful empire that they were. Advances that would be readily recognizable in medieval Europe, for instance armored horses and knights. They rivaled the Roman empire and fought and defeated them many times. Yet history is very silent about them. Of course our western history comes from the Romans and Greeks so it isn't any wonder they weren't too inclined to talk about a people who routinely routed them and thwarted their attempts to spread their influence into that part of the world.

It is an established fact that the Parthians were a branch of the Davidic blood line of Israel. It is they who sent the "Magi" to visit, and inspect, the Christ child. see the thread "The Greatest Story Never Told" The Greatest Story Never Told | Page 2 | Survival Monkey Forums

Another interesting factoid is the letter from Pontius Pilate. It is the only known instance where the physical attributes of Christ are described. The Roman officials were a very detailed people and made many reports to the "home office" of what was transpiring in their respective jurisdictions. In a regular report of the happenings in his province Pilot mentions the encounter with Christ. He describes him as a man of fair complexion and light eyes. Hardly the accepted thought of the Jews of that time as a dark skinned Arab type of people.

Then we have the fact that many of the European people believed themselves to be the descendents of David. A remarkable evidence of this is found in the Arbroath Declaration. This is basically the Scottish declaration of independence issued by Robert the Bruce and the nobles of Scotland to the Pope in response of his excommunicating them and taking the side of England. It reads in part;

"we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia(Parthia) by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Hyberia (the land of the Hebrews,Spain) among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people,however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people (the Israelites) crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today."

"it took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the histories of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all servitude ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock(the Davidic bloodline), the line unbroken by a single foreigner"

"the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor did He wish them to be confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles - by calling, though second or third in rank - the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter’s brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron for ever."

So yes, there is some speculation required here but, wow, this is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence in their arsenal. Then add the fact that the modern Israel does not fulfill the prophecies concerning what that people would be doing in the end times. For one, spreading the gospel to the corners of the earth. Jewry certainly hasn't been a proponent of spreading the gospel. The Western nations, especially the US fulfill those prophecies in uncanny accuracy. So it is difficult to just summarily dismiss these claims.

So as I said, time will tell. When we see a covenant made, and broken and when we see who it is that the armies of Gog and Magog are arrayed against then we will know the truth.

Whether you believe it or don't any student of history should find it a fascinating study. I love any kind of alternative history. So much of what we think we know of ancient history is severely lacking. History is written by the victors and many times it is sorely influenced, or suppressed, according to their whims. It is speculated that only about 3% of ancient literature survives to this day. The Romans used ancient manuscripts from the famed Library of Alexandria to heat their baths! And it is a shame that a study so interesting and compelling would be highjacked by racist thugs to attempt to justify in their warped minds a policy of hate and prejudice.

 

"We now know with a fair degree of certainty that modern humans first appeared around 200,000 years ago in east Africa."

Actually recent scientific research is throwing doubt on that long held assumption. Discoveries in Asia and elsewhere are steadily pushing back the time frame for when modern humans first appeared. That is the problem with science, it is the best guess derived from what we know at the present time. It is fluid and constantly evolving as new evidence is uncovered.

As for the young earth crowd. There are two meanings to that phrase. One is the very flawed, and mostly rejected by, yet constantly assigned to, Christians that the earth is only 6000 yrs old. This is based on some very flawed calculations made by a medieval monk adding up the ages of those mentioned in the bible. Few bible scholars take it seriously.

The other young earth crowd is academic in nature. There is evidence and it is subscribed to by many in secular academia that the earth may be much younger than previously thought. The fantastic ages of millions upon millions of years comes more from the fact that for many theories to work, it must be that. Not any real hard evidence but mere speculation to get the data to fit the model. For instance the young earth scientists contend that the traditionally accepted belief that it took millions of years for mountain ranges to slowly form may not be the case at all. They contend that the models they have developed, and by the evidence they have established, that it is quite possible for the collision of tectonic plates to have raised mountain ranges in only a very few thousand years not the millions previously believed.

As to the biblical beliefs. There is a theory that I think merits close study and that is the so called gap theory. Essentially that there is a gap between the creation of the world and the beginning of what we consider history. I won't go into a long winded analysis now but essentially it says that all scripture says is that God created the heavens and the earth and then said "let there be" or that he got the ball rolling and let nature take it's course. And that there is a wide gap between the first chapters of Genesis and the others.

I don't have a problem with science that suggests the earth is many thousands of years old. it fits perfectly well with biblical teaching. One thing I do have trouble with is Darwinsim and these fantastical claims of millions and billions of years. There is no hard scientific evidence to support the claim of hundreds of millions of years. The only reason these fantastic numbers have come about is to make the theory work. In other words starting with a premise and making the evidence fit it. That is not the way to investigate anything. Yet science is rife with examples of this. Any evidence that is contrary to the accepted theorem is tossed out and ignored.