Are the original fallen angels dead?

[wmfinck]

@ Mark

Thanks for the answer by Ken Lent.

While most of what he says is entirely agreeable, I would agree with elements of what he said for reasons he may not expect.

Yet Genesis chapter 3 represents an account of fornication with all certainty.

While the other races are not called "angels" in the Bible, they are often described by words relating to beasts, exactly as Jude and Peter characterize fallen angels!

However the primary antagonizers of Israel are mentioned in the Bible often: Kenites and Rephaim, and these are indeed depicted as having clear connections to fallen angels.

For those same reasons it is manifest in prophecy that the other races are always destructive and adversarial to our race. If the other races are not from God, they must be the result of a corruption of God's creation. Angels chained in darkness because of their crimes of miscegenation.

Wow, posts on this thread have had it on my unread list for too long, and there are a few others yet, LOL

[Kentucky]

I read something yesterday, a cliché, that said, 'He who controls the language, controls the debate.' Even though "fallen angels" have been debated for decades within Christian Identity, there's a great deal of language that has been juxtaposed to conform to certain ideas, and those ideas are partially established on assumptions. An assumption is something that can't be proven. I wish there were something more elucidated than John's vision of Revelation 12 to establish the premise; that seems to be the linchpin... a prophetic vision, which almost always is predictive of the future, rather than reverse prophecy establishing something from the past. The only debate , in my mind, is the application of words, not just any words, but the Word of God, to form a dogma.

"Origin" debates are probably one of the most difficult to nail down, because of a lack of knowledge to fit the pieces of the mystery into a cogent, cohesive teaching. However, we can certainly establish with clarity and documentation that the other races (even the language of taxonomy may not suffice our understanding of what constitutes a race; because of your insights Bill, I have rethought the status of the so called other races as not being a race at all, such as we are - we are the only species of man; what they are exactly (biologically) or where they came from is unclear to me) are always adversarial to the White race; so much so, that our people must completely separate themselves from any and all influence they may exert over our society and that is incumbent upon our people removing them from our society. IMHO it is speculation as to where those creatures not created by God doth emanate from. But, because they were not created by God, their time upon the earth is limited.

I might revise the cliché to say 'He who controls the investigation, controls the destiny.' The debate doesn't begin with where does an adversary come from, but rather what to do with them. That's my focus anyway. In the meantime, all paths that lead to universalism should be resisted and that we lean not into our own understanding, but trust in the Lord for all truth. I've sent your two posts to Ken and hopefully he wil find the time to elaborate.

Mark

[bahr]

I agree with you, Mark. We can have disputes, even harsh sometimes, on the subject of the origin(s) of the other humanoids, but the backbone of the Word, as you said, is "Israel is holy and must be, and live, separate from all other peoples".

[wmfinck]

... Even though "fallen angels" have been debated for decades within Christian Identity, there's a great deal of language that has been juxtaposed to conform to certain ideas, and those ideas are partially established on assumptions. An assumption is something that can't be proven.....
"Origin" debates are probably one of the most difficult to nail down, because of a lack of knowledge to fit the pieces of the mystery into a cogent, cohesive teaching....
Mark

But this is why when I did Pragmatic Genesis I did my best to make distinctions between the Scripture and the possibilities where there is little or no scripture. We should not doubt the Scripture, and we should not force one another to accept our own views where the possibilities are concerned.

In other words, we should be confident with what we should know (from Scripture), and we should find agreement there. But we should be equally comfortable with what details we cannot know (at least yet, and perhaps always), and we should not lord over one another with our own presumptions.

[Kentucky]

But this is why when I did Pragmatic Genesis I did my best to make distinctions between the Scripture and the possibilities where there is little or no scripture. We should not doubt the Scripture, and we should not force one another to accept our own views where the possibilities are concerned.

In other words, we should be confident with what we should know (from Scripture), and we should find agreement there. But we should be equally comfortable with what details we cannot know (at least yet, and perhaps always), and we should not lord over one another with our own presumptions.

Your Pragmatic Genesis series has probably made greater strides in helping us understand a difficult yet crucial part of the Bible compared to previous Dual Seedline expositers who dealt only with dogma and thought assumptions impossible. That's the differenece between intellectual honesty and dishonesty. I thank you for your scholarship and candor Bill. I'll post Ken's thoughts when he gets around to it.

Mark

[brucebohn]

But this is why when I did Pragmatic Genesis I did my best to make distinctions between the Scripture and the possibilities where there is little or no scripture. We should not doubt the Scripture, and we should not force one another to accept our own views where the possibilities are concerned.

In other words, we should be confident with what we should know (from Scripture), and we should find agreement there. But we should be equally comfortable with what details we cannot know (at least yet, and perhaps always), and we should not lord over one another with our own presumptions.

Your Pragmatic Genesis series has probably made greater strides in helping us understand a difficult yet crucial part of the Bible compared to previous Dual Seedline expositers who dealt only with dogma and thought assumptions impossible. That's the differenece between intellectual honesty and dishonesty. I thank you for your scholarship and candor Bill. I'll post Ken's thoughts when he gets around to it.

Mark

Yes indeed Mark, the Pragmatic Genesis series has been timely
and crucial in forcing our focus back where it belongs, which
is to identify, and seperate ourselves from the Tares & the
Bastards.. One little side effect is that it has brought
attention to the many hypocrite imposter CI "pastors" who
preach racial hygiene , and as Bill put it , "dance with wolves".
They are being exposed, they cannot dispute the scriptural
facts produced by scholarly work no matter how much
"intellectual masturbation" and deceit they engage in.
We must come together and reason, not allow division over
details that we just are not privy to as yet..

[Joe]

I think everyone here agrees that regardless of origin, the seed of the serpent is among us today and won't be forever.

And that you're either a son or a bastard ...no-one thinks a jew, chink or nigger are anything other than bastards.

Except for the goof-troops, who think a nigger was made in the image of God . But Bill showed that if you have the Truth on your side, you can shame an innumerable number of pompous clowns. And it was funny too, hearing them get their comeuppance.

[Kentucky]

Yes indeed Mark, the Pragmatic Genesis series has been timely
and crucial in forcing our focus back where it belongs, which
is to identify, and seperate ourselves from the Tares & the
Bastards.. One little side effect is that it has brought
attention to the many hypocrite imposter CI "pastors" who
preach racial hygiene , and as Bill put it , "dance with wolves".
They are being exposed, they cannot dispute the scriptural
facts produced by scholarly work no matter how much
"intellectual masturbation" and deceit they engage in.
We must come together and reason, not allow division over
details that we just are not privy to as yet..

Speaking of divisions or more succinctly, the treachery of an enemy within, can be identified with not receiving a love of the truth, but overtly compensated for with their driving wedge between differing views; it matters not to them whether they employ slander and false accusations as long as it puffs up their position. It was recently brought to my attention, that the guy whose picture Bill posted

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5795&p=17421#p17421

has been telling people that "Downey is obviously a jew." Based on what? That I don't prostrate myself before his pet doctrines? Wow, that really puts the chutzpah in the word 'jew' used as a pejorative against the Irish. lol.

'Divide and conquer' is an unchristian strategy/tactic (within our race) to manipulate others so that you wind up on top. "Come, let us reason together" on the other hand, is being fellow laborers in the same vineyard, of whom God is no respecter. Those who show themselves to be more like tares than wheat, don't seem to have the fruits of the Holy Spirit, but plenty of sour grapes to supply their animus and vitriol for the true children of light. "The light shinetheth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." In other words, some people think doctrine is more important than behavior. Which begs the question: how many of the apostles were jackasses?

Just this morning, I noticed these adversaries or 'false brethren' have no doubt been following this thread (with a sizable view count) and instead of posting something of substance on their own forum, they dredge up something from the past in the hopes that it would drive a wedge between the growing alliances of White Identity Christians who are fed up with the backbiting and want unity, true unity in Christ. Believe it or not, these same interlopers mock unity and scoff at biblical admonitions. It's like they're not satisfied, unless they can cause mischief and discord. What they dredged up was water under the bridge; positions may not change, but the 'take no prisoners' attitude is only for bastards and dupes who have been bastardized.

Christian Identity is not about going dark with calumny and recrimination, it's about the light of reconciliation with God and ourselves. I hope that if any of these malicious malcontents are in fact White, that they repent and reform. But, after so many years, their pattern of creating divisions is self evident and on its way to self destruct. Therefore, brethren, be careful of associations and disassociations... inspired by this:

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5028

Mark

[Nayto]

Your Pragmatic Genesis series has probably made greater strides in helping us understand a difficult yet crucial part of the Bible compared to previous Dual Seedline expositers who dealt only with dogma and thought assumptions impossible. That's the differenece between intellectual honesty and dishonesty.

I couldn't agree more; this has been a very important study and caused me to rethink a few of my views.

One thing is certain and should be certain to all CI: Non-Adamic peoples are not of God, do not belong here and need to be erradicated.

[Staropramen]

One thing is certain and should be certain to all CI: Non-Adamic peoples are not of God, do not belong here and need to be erradicated.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-men!