Garbage in my theological understanding

[TJ]

Apparently I've been harboring a glaring error.

I had it in my mind that the Pharisees were actively stoning a prostitute, she was badly wounded from being stoned, and that Jesus intervened before the stoning was complete. I had this tied in with, "let he who is without sin cast out the first stone."

I went looking for the verse to quote it, and there's nothing even close to what I had in mind. I queried Penny, who went to a Catholic Parochial school, and without hesitation she responded, "Yeah. That was Mary Magdalene." I don't find anything to support Mary Magdalene being the woman taken in adultery.

Where did we get this garbage, and how did we both have the same misunderstanding?

[Kentucky]

Apparently I've been harboring a glaring error.

I had it in my mind that the Pharisees were actively stoning a prostitute, she was badly wounded from being stoned, and that Jesus intervened before the stoning was complete. I had this tied in with, "let he who is without sin cast out the first stone."

I went looking for the verse to quote it, and there's nothing even close to what I had in mind. I queried Penny, who went to a Catholic Parochial school, and without hesitation she responded, "Yeah. That was Mary Magdalene." I don't find anything to support Mary Magdalene being the woman taken in adultery.

Where did we get this garbage, and how did we both have the same misunderstanding?

John 7:53 - 8:11 is considered an interpolation and spurious. It is absent from most of the older manuscripts. The Church of Rome took it upon themselves to be the first corrupters of the New Testament. The adultery is actually speaking of mongrelization. Jesus would never have contradicted the Law, which called for stoning the perpetrators. Jerome is the most likely suspect in this insertion for the advancement of universalism. Bill leaves it out of the CNT entirely.

Mark

[TJ]

After going through "Broken Cisterns" a few times I had put together the explanation that the 'prostitute' was an Adamic Woman being held as a sex slave and pimped by the Pharisees. The Pharisees then attempt to stone her for the acts they forced her into. Jesus knows that her purported transgressions of The Law are not her rebellion to Yahweh, but her long suffering at the hands of her false accusers.

The kikes know what they are, know that Jesus is God with us, and know that Jesus sees them as they are. They also know that Jesus isn't here to mop them up, so they feel they can be cavalier. The kikes are taunting Jesus.
"Hey Jesus, watch us stone this filthy whore to death. This is us living in The Law and serving God. Praise Yahweh."

Jesus protects the Woman, because she has suffered at the hands of devils long enough. There is no contradiction of The Law; just kike false witness acted out in public for the purpose of eroding the faith of Adamic Men.


It's a tidy little story. I went to start gathering the citations to support it and the first one turns out to be vapor ware. I want to help my brethren see the world as it is, but apparently have this large beam in my own eye.

[wmfinck]

The earliest extant Greek manuscript which John 7:53 through 8:11 appears in is the Codex Bezae, a 5th century manuscript which is replete with interpolations. Mark is right that the pericope seems to have first appeared in Latin manuscripts. I am generally very distrustful of either Latin or Syriac manuscripts, even the oldest ones, never follow them and only occasionally mention them in my notes. I am also very distrustful of the Codex Bezae, which contains many innovations of Scripture, and therefore I would never follow it by itself.

So many people - and many supposed scholars - are caught up in "tradition" and willfully include spurious readings from latter manuscripts simply for reason of that tradition. Even Identity Christians have protested my exclusion of the episode in question here, because they love and have often repeated the adage "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", or however it goes. I would say that if God gave men the capacity to err, and if God gave other men the capacity to judge those errors, then we have an obligation to seek out and search the original readings of Scripture, because God also gave us that ability. "Seek, and ye shall find..."

The idea that any, or all, of the scribes who copied the ancient manuscripts are somehow Divinely Inspired, simply because they copied ancient manuscripts, is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!!!

TJ, we all have errors in the baggage of our past. Do not be distressed, it takes a long time for many people to get around to cleaning out their attics and their basements! Some of us are of the good fortune to possess neither.

[TJ]

I only have a vague understanding of this business of codices. I've heard you refer to them by name in some of the lessons, and can infer context as well as the next guy, but I lack a complete picture.


Wiki link for Bezae says:

The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis ... is a codex of the New Testament dating from the 5th century written in an uncial hand on vellum.

The place of origin of the codex is still disputed. The manuscript is believed to have been repaired at Lyon in the ninth century as revealed by a distinctive ink used for supplementary pages.

The Greek text is unique, with many interpolations found nowhere else, with a few remarkable omissions, and a capricious tendency to rephrase sentences.

Pericope de adultera [is] present and not marked as spurious or doubtful

Well that's pretty amazing. The document is known to take license with Scripture, and presents a new entry hundreds of years after the fact, but the insertion is not doubtful. Let's have a look at the passage itself.


Wiki link for The Pericope Adultera says:

The Pericope Adulterae is a traditional name for a famous passage (pericope) about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery from verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John.

The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century.

Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

Bishop J.B. Lightfoot wrote that absence of the passage from the earliest manuscripts, combined with the occurrence of stylistic characteristics atypical of John, together implied that the passage was an interpolation. Nevertheless, he considered the story to be authentic history.

Augustine slanders all previous document tenders as intentionally cutting out the passage, because they're insecure in their marriages and have whore wives who would fornicate on them if they thought they could get away with it.

Lightfoot admits that the passage is an interpolation not written by John, but somehow arrives at the conclusion that it's accurate??!!

What of these suspicious diacritical marks in the older manuscripts?


Wiki link for diacritical marks says:

Greek diacritical marks, which showed that letters of the alphabet were being used as numerals.

This is a number --> XX.
Obviously this eludes to a tale of adulterous intrigue.


Wiki link for Greek Diacritics says:

Greek orthography has used a variety of diacritics starting in the Hellenistic period. The complex polytonic orthography notates Ancient Greek phonology.

Pronunciation notations. Just as you might imagine. Nothing that I might interpret to corroborate the concatenation of bogus testimony to John's epistle.


Wiki link for Augustine says:

Augustine of Hippo ... was an early Christian theologian whose writings are considered very influential in the development of Western Christianity and Western philosophy. ... [H]e is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers. Among his most important works are City of God and ....

In his early years, he was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterward by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus. After his conversion to Christianity and his baptism in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives.

Always a good sign when pagans develop their own approach to Christianity five hundred years after the fact, and then become influential.


Wiki link for Manichaeism says:

Manichaeism was a major gnostic religion, originating in Sassanid-era Babylonia.

Religion from Babylonia ...


Wiki link for Gnosticism says:

Many heads of gnostic schools were identified as Jewish Christians by Church Fathers ...
Modern research (Cohen 1988) identifies Judaism, rather than Persia, as a major origin of Gnosticism. ... Recent research into the origins of Gnosticism shows a strong Jewish influence, particularly from Hekhalot literature.

Seems like the perfect background for a guy you would want to be your church father.


Wiki link for City of God says:

The City of God is a book of Christian philosophy written in Latin by Augustine of Hippo.
Despite Christianity's designation as the official religion of the Empire, Augustine declared its message to be spiritual rather than political. Christianity, he argued, should be concerned with the mystical, heavenly city, the New Jerusalem — rather than with earthly politics.

Though The City of God follows Christian theology, the main idea of a conflict between good and evil follows from Augustine’s former beliefs in Manichaeanism. ... Later, when Augustine converted to Christianity he at one point accepted Neo-Platonism. He ends up adding an idea of Neo-Platonism with a Christian idea in The City of God when he says: “As for those who own, indeed, that it was made by God, and yet ascribe to it not a temporal but only a creational beginning …”

Adamic Men shouldn't take dominion over the earth and live their lives abode in The Law. They should withdraw from yucky politics and leave the kikes unfettered in their deeds.

Also a plus that Augustine "adds in" pagan ideas while he's church fathering.


The whole drama is a huge bag of filth. So much for KJV being the Divinely inspired and unadulterated Word of God.

[Kentucky]

The whole drama is a huge bag of filth. So much for KJV being the Divinely inspired and unadulterated Word of God.

Ya know TJ it's not so much our garbage in understanding Scripture as much as it is the litterbugs of history forcing us to sidestep their land mines with unintentional blinders. Even the KJV didn't or couldn't distort the plain axiom of II Thes. 2:10-11 whereby our love for the truth will prevent the strong delusion of falling for lies. We are blessed with scholars in Christian Identity who pursue the truth with dogged determination much like a detective finding the culprit in a murder mystery. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter" Prov. 25:2.

Mark

[TJ]

Mark,

I agree. A frustrated posture is incorrect. I have come to understand The Word more clearly than a day ago, and removed an obstruction that was corrupting my world view.

Our prayers frequently request understanding of The Word, understanding of what Yahweh requires of us, that He draw us nearer to each other and closer to Him, etc. How foolish of me to be frustrated as my prayers are being answered. Praise Yahweh. I shall rejoice in my better understanding, and that our seeking finds guidance.

[MichaelAllen]

Always a good sign when pagans develop their own approach to Christianity five hundred years after the fact, and then become influential.

TJ, I think this is absolutely the truth. I believe Augustine was an Edomite or of similar racial stock. Most people don't know this, but the religious epicenter of the Roman Empire was not really Rome. It was Alexandria, Egypt. There was a very sizable number of jews who lived there. Some of these people were indeed probably pure, genuine Judahites and retained the name Ioudaios in a genetic sense. However, there was an ethnic change in the Mediterranean area of the Roman Empire that began in the 1st Century B.C. and continued into the Christian era. I can document a source on that if you like but I will need to qualify it for you because the man was confused about who Shem was and who Japheth was. The point is, there was a demographic change.

We know that by the end of the second century, the Christianity that Jesus and the apostles were proclaiming was being superceded by the jewish-kabalistic-gnostic heresies. James Frazer talks about this. Jewish sources even brag about this (obviously, because they did it). Almost all theology books that talk about early church history admit that there was a radical shift in Christian theology that was evident by the third century AD. Most of these heresies came right out of Alexandria. Evidence shows however that the Britonic, Teutonic, and Celtic churches remained much more pure than their counterparts in the Mediterranean world. The Celtic Church of Scotland to this day even knows that they are Israel and to the best of my knowledge, as I have tried to inquire about this, they have no affiliation with BIWF!! In other words, they got their identity knowledge from somewhere further back in their history.

Now, I want to ask you a question in a moment, but to consider this thought before I ask it.

There was no centralized Papal Roman church at the time of Augustine. There were loose affiliations of congregations that fell under a single bishop. I believe that this more or less originated due to the lack of circulating scriptures, so I am still not ready to call the conspiracy card simply due to organizational changes. There were a lot more Christians than there were scriptures.

If you ask the modern day protestant why Augustine went to Britain, they will tell you that he went there to evangelize the people. As an aside, I point out that there are eery similar doctrines between the protestant reformer John Calvin (who I believe was a crypto-jew) and that of Augustine.

There could not have been an agenda for Augustine to seek British Christianity's allegiance to a papal system in Rome during his lifetime because it didn't exist!! Augustine was born in AD 354. The Roman church declared itself the seat of the Christian faith in the early 7th century.

So I ask you... why was Augustine interested in Britain? The people there had been Christian since King Lucius declared it so in the second century! By the way, take a look at wikipedia's article on King Lucius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Lucius

Did you notice that they call him a 'mythical' king? How convenient?

The Mediterranean church was slowly falling into the complete hands of our racial enemies, and that is why I believe they wanted to "evangelize" to the Britons, Celts, and Teutons in the nordic regions. It is my contention, based on many documents that have been retained, that the primitive faith survived in the nordic lands much later than in the Mediterranean world. Christianity found a culture in the north that was already in partial observance of much of the case law of the OT, and there just weren't many Edomites and Canaanites up there to subvert it. So, along comes the 'missionaries.'

I am assisting the editing process of some CI literature at this time. One of the books includes the stories of the ancestral kings of Europe. The involvement of the Mediterranean missionaries/monks can be demonstrated to have no other purpose in the nordic lands than to cover up the ancestral line of the kings of Europe from the House of Judah. It was a massive conspiracy, and it can be shown to be the beginnings of where the church at large lost its knowledge of the true Israel.

See, conventional history wants to talk about the east church and the west church... but there was a different battle that took place covertly. The sole purpose for Mediterranean involvement in the northern church was to destroy the knowledge of our people's lineage and replace it with the "White people are Japheth" conspiracy. How far back do you think that conspiracy goes? It's over 1500 years old.

[TJ]

Evidence shows however that the Britonic, Teutonic, and Celtic churches remained much more pure than their counterparts in the Mediterranean world. The Celtic Church of Scotland to this day even knows that they are Israel and to the best of my knowledge, as I have tried to inquire about this, they have no affiliation with BIWF!! In other words, they got their identity knowledge from somewhere further back in their history.
...
The Roman church declared itself the seat of the Christian faith in the early 7th century.
...
The Mediterranean church was slowly falling into the complete hands of our racial enemies, and that is why I believe they wanted to "evangelize" to the Britons, Celts, and Teutons in the nordic regions. It is my contention, based on many documents that have been retained, that the primitive faith survived in the nordic lands much later than in the Mediterranean world. Christianity found a culture in the north that was already in partial observance of much of the case law of the OT, and there just weren't many Edomites and Canaanites up there to subvert it. So, along comes the 'missionaries.'

Before we found Christogenea we were dong some reading in this direction. I haven't finished it, but we bought Leslie Hardinge's "The Celtic Church in Britain." We bought it, because it shows a recitation of Eve committing adultery with the serpent that (if I remember correctly) dates back to the fourth century. This was important to us, because it established a basis for Dual Seed Line theology that couldn't be attacked as newly manufactured for convenience of racism.

TCCOB1.jpg (186.34 KiB) Viewed 2660 times

Hardinge goes on to explain that popular history accounts Catholic interaction with the Celtic church as being easy, having few if any doctrinal differences, and readily brought into the fold. This is not true. They resisted quite strongly.

The next passage supports the devout resistance of the Celtic Church to accepting other doctrines, and may also support Bill Finck's assertion that Christians had a reputation for being antisocial.

TCCOB2.jpg (217.84 KiB) Viewed 2660 times

Lastly, on the subject of the Brits knowing who they are, we recently watched a documentary to the effect of, "Why the Brits have always been so supremely confident." The presenter said that the Brits stole the Kike's identity, but in making his case he showed writings and symbols embedded in their architecture where the Brits are clearly identifying themselves as Israelite. I can't cite that one readily, but I'll look for it if there's an interest in the content.

[MichaelAllen]

I haven't read the thread on Christians being antisocial... but I can already envision what might be posted there. Christians have biblical instruction to be mistrusting of outsiders. St. Paul exhorts the church to "test the spirits" and lay hands on no one swiftly (affirm no one without checking them out).

In no way does this mean we are to break God's laws and fail to help our brother who is stuck in a ditch, but we keep a distance because we know that our enemies are out seeking whom they may devour.

I am going to create a strawman here, but it is my perception that a jew considers a Christian antisocial if the Christian refuses to:

1.) Engage in miscegenation
2.) Borrow & lend money at usury
3.) Participate in pop-culture
4.) Allow the jew or another alien to participate in the nation's civics
5.) Make agreements (covenants) with aliens.

I'm antisocial.