This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

When did the church go wrong?

Discussions about mainstream "jew-dei-ized" religions

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby Catherine » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:52 am

Bill,

To get an idea of what Paul thought about the white Christians should I start with your podcasts, and which ones?

Cathy
Jer 17:14 Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.
Catherine
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:20 pm
Location: Texas

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby wmfinck » Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:08 am

Catherine, my recent Paul podcasts would be the place to start. But there are 52 of them so far, and I am about to start on Galatians in a couple of weeks.

Walking through Paul step-by-step, one will see exhibited all of the New Testament proofs of Christian Identity.

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/romans-index

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/1st-corinthians-index

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/pauls-2nd-corinthians-index

For an overview, however (the easy way out) there is a talk I did at the Fellowship of God's Covenant People in 2012 titled "Paul, the First Christian Identity Preacher", but I never did finish writing the notes for that one.

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/william-finck-fellowship-gods-covenant-people-kentucky-june-3rd-2012
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:21 pm

I found this quote from Ignatius of Antioch's Epistles. He lived in the 1st Century A.D., and this passage clearly shows an obvious understanding of Two Seedline Christian Identity:

“Flee, there fore, those evil offshoots (of Satan) which produce death-
bearing fruit,. . . These men are not the planting of the Father, but
are an accused brood. And says the Lord, ‘Let every plant which my
heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up.’ For if they had been
branches of the Father, they would not have been ‘enemies of the cross
of glory.’ But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the
passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against
God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them
merely murderers of the prophets.’ Keep yourselves, then, from those
evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the
destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the father, the
seed of the wicked one."

--Ignatius Of Antioch, (35-110 A.D.) Epistle To The Trallians, quoted in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers," Volume I, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

As far as the Gerson Cohen quote goes, I've seen that before used by Jews who are trying to highjack the British Israel movement. My first reaction to it was, "What's his source?" I find it hard to believe that the Jews and The Church openly debated this identity issue. This is from the Encyclopedia Judaica:

“Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860.″
—Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971 Vol 10:23

This makes sense as it coincides with the rise of Marxism and Zionism.
Last edited by EzraLB on Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby Joe » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:55 pm

Very interesting quote Ezra, thank-you.
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Joe
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:35 pm

It's also interesting to note that in the "Encylical Epistle of the Church at Smyrnam," which describes the martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna (69-115 A.D.), we can see Christians being described as a "godly race":

"...But upon this the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, "Away with the Atheists; let Polycarp be sought out!"

I believe that the original text was written in Greek, so would I be correct to assume that "race" was most likely translated from "ethnos"? Up until the early 20th century, "race" in English was often used to refer to "family lineage" or those closely related by blood. Given that, it's very interesting to see the early Christians here referred to as a people related by common ancestral blood.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:52 am

EzraLB wrote:I found this quote from Ignatius of Antioch's Epistles. He lived in the 1st Century A.D., and this passage clearly shows an obvious understanding of Two Seedline Christian Identity:

“Flee, there fore, those evil offshoots (of Satan) which produce death-
bearing fruit,. . . These men are not the planting of the Father, but
are an accused brood. And says the Lord, ‘Let every plant which my
heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up.’ For if they had been
branches of the Father, they would not have been ‘enemies of the cross
of glory.’ But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the
passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against
God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them
merely murderers of the prophets.’ Keep yourselves, then, from those
evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the
destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the father, the
seed of the wicked one."

--Ignatius Of Antioch, (35-110 A.D.) Epistle To The Trallians, quoted in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers," Volume I, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

As far as the Gerson Cohen quote goes, I've seen that before used by Jews who are trying to highjack the British Israel movement. My first reaction to it was, "What's his source?" I find it hard to believe that the Jews and The Church openly debated this identity issue. This is from the Encyclopedia Judaica:

“Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860.″
—Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971 Vol 10:23

This makes sense as it coincides with the rise of Marxism and Zionism.


Ezra,

GREAT post and thanks for that quote from Ignatius.

In so far as the quote from Cohen, his source might just very well be the understanding that high ranking jews may have that they are Edom. I am not sure how jews would be trying to hijack the BI movement with a quote like that, b/c in BI, essentially the jews want to play the role of Judah - and what Cohen states is that the conflict between Christianity and Talmudism was the Jacob-Esau conflict. It would seem to me that if jews were using that quote to hijack BI, it would prove difficult for them since the jew's place in BI is that of one of the tribes of greater Israel, which includes the Celto-Saxon west. So, I guess I'm confused how they would use that quote. Perhaps you could respond to this and explain it??

When I read it, I thought it was profound because the rabbi here essentially admits that the doctrine of spiritual Israel (meaning, many races into one religion) was NOT the original teaching of the earliest disciples... the only thing they could have taught besides "spiritual Israel" would have been genetic Israel. It is somewhat cryptic, but if you read that part carefully that says the church LATER chose not to emphasize the Israelite name, but they still claimed succession... well, that "claim to succession" minus the Israelite name was the theology of the mainstream churches down through the years, and only since Darby, and really Scofield did the doctrine of a "jewish israel" become accepted among various denominations (i.e. southern baptists, many charismatics, etc).

So, from what I can read, he's telling us that early on, the Christians believed they were something more than just "spiritual israel" - but that they were the Israelite descendants of the OT, because that is the only other thing they could be.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:57 am

MIchaelAllen,
Don't fault yourself for being confused by what Cohen is alleging--after all, all Jews are double-minded and speak out of both sides of their mouths. They want it both ways to keep their game going for as long as they can. They want mainstream Christian churches to continue with the concept of "spiritual Israel", but they also know that there are many Identity Christians who know the truth, and thus they need to also claim that they are the literal seed of Jacob/Judah to the exclusion of all others.

I believe that this supposed schism between early Christians and Jews over who was the real seed of Abraham is totally fabricated, at least in an overt way. Where are the documents to prove it? Does he have access to early Jewish writers who described it? Not likely.

If you read the writings of the early church fathers, you will see remnants of dual seedline theology, as I pointed out with the quote from Ignatius, but what is even more apparent is that they are already putting heavy emphasis on the spiritual connection to Christ, and de-emphasizing the corporal aspect. These early church men all saw the body as corruptible and the vehicle for sin--we still see this simplistic dualist thinking in Churchianity today. Of course, true Scriptural Christians know that it's only through the uncorrupted Adamic body that a spiritual connection to Christ is even possible.

At the same time, the early church fathers seemed to focus on castigating the Jews not for falsely claiming to be the literal seed of Abraham and Judah, but rather for stubbornly insisting on preserving the old Levitical laws, traditions, and rituals, which under the new covenant of Christ were, clearly, to none effect. And it seems the way the Church fought this battle was to erect their own "Christian" doctrines, laws, and rituals to oppose the Jews and protect their flock, and by doing so, perhaps unwittingly, became just like the Jews they opposed.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby Gaius » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:32 am

That quote by Gerson Cohen provided by MichaelAllen made my jaw drop; the levels of intertwined deceit surely make it a "masterpiece" of deviltry ...the smooth chutzpah claiming several positions, which possibly are in contradiction to each other, leaving room (of course) for different interpretations plus various "logical" outcomes from these .... Amazing ....

From what little I know about it, it seems BI believes the Jews are Judah or part thereof. It might be interesting to discover how that came about.

Thanks to MA/Ezra for quotes/discussion on this topic.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
(Romans 8 v 31)
User avatar
Gaius
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:27 am
Location: Ulster

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby EzraLB » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:14 am

Gaius,
The Jews truly are the authors of confusion and chaos. I recall once hearing this Jewish concept of what makes someone highly intelligent:

"The ability to hold two mutually contradicting ideas in your mind at the same time."

If you can stomach it, here's the basis for the Jewish claim to the identity of Judah, to the exclusion of all others:

http://www.britam.org/judah.html

One of the truly absurd tactics that this website uses is to try to scare Whites away from Christian Identity and from claiming to be Judah--because, like the Jews, we will be persecuted by anti-semites for making that claim. And who are the anti-semites who will persecute us? They claim it's the Edomite descendants of Esau who will persecute us. This is a perfect example of how they lie and tell the truth at the same time.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:43 pm

EzraLB wrote:MIchaelAllen,
Don't fault yourself for being confused by what Cohen is alleging--after all, all Jews are double-minded and speak out of both sides of their mouths. They want it both ways to keep their game going for as long as they can. They want mainstream Christian churches to continue with the concept of "spiritual Israel", but they also know that there are many Identity Christians who know the truth, and thus they need to also claim that they are the literal seed of Jacob/Judah to the exclusion of all others.

I believe that this supposed schism between early Christians and Jews over who was the real seed of Abraham is totally fabricated, at least in an overt way. Where are the documents to prove it? Does he have access to early Jewish writers who described it? Not likely.

If you read the writings of the early church fathers, you will see remnants of dual seedline theology, as I pointed out with the quote from Ignatius, but what is even more apparent is that they are already putting heavy emphasis on the spiritual connection to Christ, and de-emphasizing the corporal aspect. These early church men all saw the body as corruptible and the vehicle for sin--we still see this simplistic dualist thinking in Churchianity today. Of course, true Scriptural Christians know that it's only through the uncorrupted Adamic body that a spiritual connection to Christ is even possible.

At the same time, the early church fathers seemed to focus on castigating the Jews not for falsely claiming to be the literal seed of Abraham and Judah, but rather for stubbornly insisting on preserving the old Levitical laws, traditions, and rituals, which under the new covenant of Christ were, clearly, to none effect. And it seems the way the Church fought this battle was to erect their own "Christian" doctrines, laws, and rituals to oppose the Jews and protect their flock, and by doing so, perhaps unwittingly, became just like the Jews they opposed.


Ezra, I'm not faulting myself, because I don't really think I'm confused - I think this rabbLIE just throws the average reader off with his timetable of the second century. This happened way before the second century. I think this jew knows something that Christians (with the exception of CI) don't. You know, there is a period of about 50 years after AD70 where we have virtually no Christian documents (depending on when and how you date Revelation). Most of what we have for that time comes in the aftermath of later writers talking about it. It's like a blackout - and to me, this is telling. Jesse Lyman Hurlbut called it the Age of Shadows.

Cohen says "second century" - but we know that's not when the jews (edomites) were challenged for the name of Israel... he says that "BY THE SECOND CENTURY" --- this is untrue, because... as you stated, it was NOT in the second century that the argument over genetic election took place, because early church fathers had moved onto their own ritualism. It was Christ and the apostles that challenged their genetic election... but the phrase "By the second century" could actually mean by the time the second century had come, they had already been challenged on the basis of their genealogy. So it throws an average reader off.

The documents that prove the early schism to which he refers are the writings of the New Testament... And I believe that Jesus alluded to the fact that there would be a falling away in their own time... so first century, but that's a whole different discussion.

I agree with everything you posted however. It does appear that the early church became ritualistic in their own ways. See, what this jew Cohen says is that for "reasons of prudence" - he makes it sound as though the Christians did this because they thought it would be a good idea. My opinion is, the Christians did it as a result of the persecutions they faced for alleging themselves to be the true Israel and the edomite jew to being the so-called Judah (Rev. 2:9, 3:9), and it is documented in history that the jew was behind all the persecution that Christians suffered at the hands of the Roman government.

The edomite had no genealogical claim to Israel... so he had to manufacture a religious mantra and claim his succession through some religious order... thus, was born the religion of mishnah, talmud, and traditions of the elders - which we know today as judaism. In order to stop the Christian understanding of the true Israel, they had to 'judaize' Christianity... so, they had to create within the thinking of Christian Israelites that they were only accepted by God through some religious rites, etc... because that is the only way the edomite jew could reason out his own acceptance into the covenant... which can never happen under a racial covenant context because the edomite is a cursed lineage.

EzraLB wrote:The Jews truly are the authors of confusion and chaos. I recall once hearing this Jewish concept of what makes someone highly intelligent:

"The ability to hold two mutually contradicting ideas in your mind at the same time."


Ezra... it's like you and I have read the exact same body of material!! I read this exact same thing on a forum several years ago when I was becoming aware of the jewish presence among the elites of world banking, corporatism, revolutionary movements, etc. It was by an alleged jew who felt that one of the strengths of their people was that they can believe two opposite ideas simultaneously. When applied to ethics and behavior, this is the recipe for situational ethics, relativism, nihilism, sociopathy, and humanism - which means: tyranny.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Churchianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron