forum.christogenea.org

In the context of redemption being racial (God will not "redeem" what was not His to start with), I am trying to understand "fear and trembling". Is this a fear born of awe, or, is it fear that we will commit a blunder and suffer a rather unhappy redemption? Is this the kind of 'fear' that Jesus felt, asking the cup to be taken from Him? A fear that didn't diminish Him at all. In 2 Cor 7:15 we see a "fear and trembling" that reflects on how we (or earlier Israelites) received Jesus. But the "fear and trembling" also relates to 'working out your salvation'. If it is racial, what is there to work out?

learningaboutCI wrote:In the context of redemption being racial (God will not "redeem" what was not His to start with), I am trying to understand "fear and trembling". Is this a fear born of awe, or, is it fear that we will commit a blunder and suffer a rather unhappy redemption? Is this the kind of 'fear' that Jesus felt, asking the cup to be taken from Him? A fear that didn't diminish Him at all. In 2 Cor 7:15 we see a "fear and trembling" that reflects on how we (or earlier Israelites) received Jesus. But the "fear and trembling" also relates to 'working out your salvation'. If it is racial, what is there to work out?

The Christogenea New Testament version of Philippians 2:12: "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not while in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling you achieve your own deliverance."

The "fear and trembling" of Chapter 2 is related directly to this message in Philippians chapter 1: "27 Only conduct yourselves worthily of the good message of the Anointed, in order that whether coming and seeing you, or being away, I hear of the things concerning you, that you stand in one spirit, in one soul together striving in the faith of the good message. 28 And in nothing being frightened by the opposition, which to them is an indication of destruction, but of your preservation, and this from Yahweh."

Since we should not be frightened by the opposition, we should only be in fear, or awe, of Yahweh, trembling at what trials we may have to face on account of the Gospel is a natural instinct to those who are humble and understand that as Christians they shall indeed have to undergo such trials - if indeed they desire to practice their faith.

Deliverance readily refers to preservation in this life, upon facing the enemy, that in faith we shall overcome and not suffer in the flesh at their hands.

That is my opinion, anyway.

Thank you for that. It's amazing how many things have to be turned around from Churchianity, and yet then make even more sense. In Churchianity, the 'fear and trembling' is intertwined with avoiding sin lest we not repent sufficiently, and end up going to hell on account of unconfessed sin. But in CI, the fear and trembling is a natural response to our situation.

On a related note, why is belief so important to Yahshua's message? Example: "Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you shall see the splendor of Yahweh?" (John 11:40, re Martha and Lazaros.) If the essense is racial, what importance is believing it? For example, I have attempted to explain to various people who are likely of Jew-free lineage, including family members, and they don't see it. But they are almost certainly Israelites, e.g. my background has no reported Jews in it. We are all lily-white. There are various passages where Jesus speaks of belief. Now, on a human level, I can grasp the importance. Surely a Lord would prefer that His subjects believe in Him, so they are aware and more competent. Is that all there is to it?

The enemies of Yahweh God want to destroy us.
Belief leads to obedience which leads to preservation from our enemies, though we still may suffer trials. Go back to Philippians 1:28!
Disbelief leads to apathy which leads to embracing our enemies and suffering all the more because of it.

Ah, I see. So the issue is not that the particular Israelite would go to Churchianity's Hell for doing evil. Rather, doing evil, making common cause with the enemy, destroys the future for the Israelites, as well as increases present trials. Hence, don't do that. The same would aid in understanding, I think, I Cor 5:11 ("not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols,") and Ephesians 5:5 ("that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.") although the latter quote seems more final: it could be thought that the Israelite who fornicates (race-mixes) himself has no future in heaven, although, it may simply mean that his offspring have no place there, i.e., no "inheritance" there. I think also of the Israelites who dabble in the "Age of Aquarius" stuff, the very sort of people who, at Acts 19:19 burned their books. They ruin the future, but as Israelites, they are still saved. Churchianity has it that they themselves warrant Hell, i.e. permanent suffering, for such things.

And the same analysis would apply then to Matthew 5:30. In Churchianity, this is used as a warning against permanent suffering in Hell. 'Better to cut your [offending body part] away, than [by that body part] to end up going to permanent Hell!'. The view from Christian Identity is, rather, that the entrapments of our enemies are such that, at least metaphorically, it would be better to lose a body part and be spared the attraction, than to stay intact and suffer entanglements. In Matthew 18:8, the mainstream translation is a bit more dire, speaking of "everlasting fire". But especially with old words and limited vocabulary, there is room to make that error.

In Mark 9:40+, there are references to the worm that dieth not. Again, that is reminiscent of a permanent condition, but I suppose what is meant there is that the enemy is going to gnaw at us continually, once we are entangled with them.

So basically, every warning from Yashua and the Apostles about the consequences of not staying separate from the enemy, is converted by Churchianity into a reference to everlasting hell (damnation) in the world to come, a damnation which they are uniquely qualified to prevent, if you "believe" in what they can do for you, participate in their sacraments, attend their liturgies, etc. But the answer is not to just say "I'm saved, it's racial, I can do what I like". The warnings are real, and are important. Every laxity on our part opens us up further to the workings of the enemy, who desire the destruction of the Race of the Israelites.

Do I get it now, pretty much?

learningaboutCI wrote:In the context of redemption being racial (God will not "redeem" what was not His to start with), I am trying to understand "fear and trembling". Is this a fear born of awe, or, is it fear that we will commit a blunder and suffer a rather unhappy redemption? Is this the kind of 'fear' that Jesus felt, asking the cup to be taken from Him? A fear that didn't diminish Him at all. In 2 Cor 7:15 we see a "fear and trembling" that reflects on how we (or earlier Israelites) received Jesus. But the "fear and trembling" also relates to 'working out your salvation'. If it is racial, what is there to work out?

We clearly have a Kinsman Redeemer, not a universal redeemer. To understand the "fear and trembling" of Phil. 2:12 is to understand the difference between what it is to be God fearing men of Israel and the multitude of verses that admonish us to "be not afraid" or "fear not." My recent study on perfection ("Be ye perfect" http://kinsmanredeemer.com/perfect-sermon-part-1) in contradistinction to "all have fallen short of the glory of God" is what is being weighed in the balance come Judgment Day. Because the New Covenant has put the Law in our heart and mind, it stands to reason that when we sin, we feel guilt, we instinctively know wrongdoing from within. If we are a holy nation (the inference is racial purity), then it behooves us to maintain the race from generation to generation. If we don't, as is the case today, our posterity will curse us and probably for the wrong reasons i.e. we were racists (how terribly ironic and something we should fear and tremble over; an enemy who hath sown tares and strangle the good seed). If we don't work out our racial salvation, the enemy will work to take it away.

In Churchianity, the 'fear and trembling' is intertwined with avoiding sin lest we not repent sufficiently, and end up going to hell on account of unconfessed sin. But in CI, the fear and trembling is a natural response to our situation.

However, Christian Identity has an infection of Pharisees similar to the 1st century, thinking the Messiah would come to destroy the Roman occupation, joining their self-righteous arm of the flesh, when in fact the cause and effect was elucidated by Christ urging repentance. Being a Christian warrior is good, but it's neutralized if the soldier is void of a moral compass and not having the mind of Christ. Our people always come under judgment and under enemy occupation because of sin. The fear of the enemy is not overcome by military means, but by spiritual reconciliation with God, by fearing Him who defines the cause and effects of blessings and curses. It's really a matter of perspective and it only pertains to the White race. Fear has been compromised with a mythological torture chamber i.e. hell, ordered by a sadistic God promulgated by an apostate church. This very issue prompted the Protestant Reformation with the selling of indulgences. In CI, the natural response is to know our place with God and to know that when alien strangers don't know their place with us, there will be the fear and trembling of a race war. And it's our fault when the heathen rage and churchianty can only imagine vain things.

On a related note, why is belief so important to Yahshua's message? Example: "Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you shall see the splendor of Yahweh?" (John 11:40, re Martha and Lazaros.) If the essense is racial, what importance is believing it? For example, I have attempted to explain to various people who are likely of Jew-free lineage, including family members, and they don't see it. But they are almost certainly Israelites, e.g. my background has no reported Jews in it. We are all lily-white. There are various passages where Jesus speaks of belief. Now, on a human level, I can grasp the importance. Surely a Lord would prefer that His subjects believe in Him, so they are aware and more competent. Is that all there is to it?

Faith is not merely believing in something regardless of the evidence; faith is daring to do something, regardless of the consequences. Why else do you think the Disciples and Apostles laid down their lives for the faith? Believing or having faith is just the first step in being an overcomer of the world. "We are more than conquerors." Christianity would not have survived the ages, had it not been for the martyrs who went beyond awareness or even racial consciousness. "Faith without works is dead." My own parents went to the grave never accepting their identity; I tried my best, but all I could do was plant the seed and set the example. The moral of the story? "You reap what you sow." God alone knows why some people get it and others don't. But, I suspect that it has to do with His glory, as the Bible adequately shows that He always used a remnant to magnify what is only possible through God.

So the issue is not that the particular Israelite would go to Churchianity's Hell for doing evil. Rather, doing evil, making common cause with the enemy, destroys the future for the Israelites, as well as increases present trials. Hence, don't do that. The same would aid in understanding, I think, I Cor 5:11 ("not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols,") and Ephesians 5:5 ("that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.") although the latter quote seems more final: it could be thought that the Israelite who fornicates (race-mixes) himself has no future in heaven, although, it may simply mean that his offspring have no place there, i.e., no "inheritance" there. I think also of the Israelites who dabble in the "Age of Aquarius" stuff, the very sort of people who, at Acts 19:19 burned their books. They ruin the future, but as Israelites, they are still saved. Churchianity has it that they themselves warrant Hell, i.e. permanent suffering, for such things.

I believe the Kingdom of God is on earth and will be the restoration of Paradise. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth by those who lived deliciously in Mystery Babylon, and they may be saved by race to eternal life. But, if they forsook the grace of God in this life (for the remission of sins), their reward will not be the same as those saints who did that which was right in the eyes of God. Divine judgment will also determine who will (and will not) be reigning and ruling with Christ. If that is not food for thought regrading fear and trembling, then I don't know what will. "Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither labored in vain" Phil. 2:16.

Mark

Thank you both very much for the edifying posts.

I guess this relates also to the 'many are called, but few are chosen' idea (cf. Mt 20:16, Mt 22:14). Churchianity says, "Many are called to Heaven, but most go to Hell." But the CI idea would seem to be rather: "Many [i.e. the Israelites] are called to the Redeemer, but few are chosen to a truly contented state in the next world." Now actually that's every bit as scary as Hell. In fact I'm not sure which is more scary. Do I want to be bound and tossed into the outer darkness? In Churchianity, there is the advantage that one is given a set of things to do, and, they give one a reasonably good pace of purging oneself of sinful tendencies over time, if one takes them seriously. In the more serious churches, the people are mostly White [Churchianity, of course, has not learned to exclude non-Whites], and they tend to have more children. And they don't have to worry about whether or not they're going to heaven or hell, because if they have a serious problem in their character they are able to bring it under control, and are gently encouraged. (Or in some cases they are made priests, and given large legal budgets to control the perception of their problem.)

From Matthew 22, it seems that the difference between being called and being chosen is to be tossed into the outer darkness. But it can't be that this refers to the non-Israelites, because in what sense were they ever called?

In any case I see that Churchianity converts the warnings that would save us from racial dissolution into a dogma about permanent damnation in Hell; however, Israelites that are unpleasing to God may not especially like their salvation. Thankfully, the yoke is sweet, so it's not all fire and brimstone.

Ah! This is much better:

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/matthew-chapter-22

It was a mere man calling out for people to enter the wedding feast, and in that sense 'many' are called, but few [Israelites are a minority] are chosen! That's much better.

Still, while I don't have the ego to suppose myself worthy of a high place in heaven, I would like to escape the worst places, if it be possible, God's will be done. I almost feel like I shouldn't say this at all, really. I just mean, I'd like to do the best I can, in this very acceptable time, to run the race well.

This exchange has improved my understanding considerably. Many thanks again.

i believe it means that the many that are called are all israel, but that few are personally chosen by him to fulfill certain missions.

for example, in days of old all israel was called to obey father, but gideon was one judge that was specifically chosen.