This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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.

"Who was the Serpent..."

For members who wish to post useful reviews of books or other references which they have read.

Re: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby Joe » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:29 am

Ok MichaelAllen, I hope you settle in your new home.
...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

My Apologies

Postby PhillipWMorrow » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:02 am

I want to apologize for my outburst the other day and beg everyone's forgiveness. I obviously need to pray about my temper.
User avatar
PhillipWMorrow
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: My Apologies

Postby brucebohn » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:10 am

PHILnBOAZ wrote:I want to apologize for my outburst the other day and beg everyone's forgiveness. I obviously need to pray about my temper.



Great bunch of folks here Phil. We are all here for the same reason,
to search out truth so that we may serve both our Father, and our
brethren. The scholarship @ Christogenea is second to none, and
your participation is truly welcome..... Yah bless
"Do you not know that with those running in a race,while all run,
but one takes the prize? In that manner you run, in order that you shall obtain."
1Cor. 9:24
User avatar
brucebohn
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm
Location: GEORGIA

Re: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby Joe » Sun Nov 29, 2015 3:56 am

BruceBohn is right Phil, and I did not think you had an outburst at all ...and honestly, I would rather speak to a genuine and angry white man then a callous and indifferent one.

I didn't say anything originally because I am a repeat offender for angry outburst. I have learned a lot here.
...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: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby PhillipWMorrow » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:53 pm

After reading the portion of "The Serpent..." that deals w/ a local vs. worldwide flood I am convinced that it indeed a worldwide phenomena. Not because of the "scientific" says so but because Yahweh says so and He says it over and over again! Now IF I am wrong I have been told my salvation is at risk. I don't think so! Is my belief one way or another change my Christian way of life? Does it make me less than a Christian? Apparently amongst CI we are always going to have a split between doctrinal differences. If I don't accept the doctrine that says ALL Israel will be saved does that mean I am doomed to spend eternity in Hell? I know a lot of you don't believe in a literal Hell either. Does that mean those of us who believe in that Hell are doomed to spend eternity there? See how this goes. But in the end do we lose our salvation, does it jeopardize Our relationship w/ Yahweh/YeHoShua? I f we are split along doctrinal lines and no man can be right all of the time what does that say for us on judgement Day ? Believe me I would love to be certain ALL Israel will be saved. I'm just not convinced of it...yet! I continue to read and study and adjust where I have to. Does that make me lukewarm ? I don't think so. Remember there were things YeHoShua shared w some disciples and not all. These are the mysteries of the Kingdom. That's where we strive to make our place of Honor closer to Our Father. We hope and to be that Remnant of the Elect. I pray for you all and hope you do the same foe me. Yah Bless!
User avatar
PhillipWMorrow
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby wmfinck » Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:10 pm

Nowhere in the Word of God is there any insistence that the flood of Noah covered the entire planet.

Those who insist upon it have a lot of questions to answer, that they cannot answer.

Cain was driven from the face of the earth. So he went to the land of Nod.

The flood covered the whole earth. The same earth that Cain was driven from.

The same Hebrew word translated as earth in Genesis chapters 1 through 9 was also translated as land a thousand other times in the King James Version.

The Kenites and the Rephaim (giants) show up on the other side of the flood, in Genesis chapter 15. Along with a few other groups that have no genealogy in Genesis chapter 10.

There are many other problems with a "global" flood theory.

So Robert will certainly not convince me that his assertions are true.
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: My Apologies

Postby PhillipWMorrow » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:05 am

brucebohn wrote:
PHILnBOAZ wrote:I want to apologize for my outburst the other day and beg everyone's forgiveness. I obviously need to pray about my temper.



Great bunch of folks here Phil. We are all here for the same reason,
to search out truth so that we may serve both our Father, and our
brethren. The scholarship @ Christogenea is second to none, and
your participation is truly welcome..... Yah bless



I can plainly see that is the case. christogenea.org is 2nd to none.
User avatar
PhillipWMorrow
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby Joe » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:08 am

Phil said
If I don't accept the doctrine that says ALL Israel will be saved does that mean I am doomed to spend eternity in Hell?


If someone disagreed it does not mean they are doomed, I would simply expect them to provide some Scripture that -seems- to contradict "All Israel is saved" and then explain "All Israel is saved" in this new context.

We in CI define things differently than they may appear at face-value, for example;
Joh 3:16 For Yahweh so loved the Society, that He gave the most-beloved Son, in order that each who believes in Him would not be lost but would have eternal life.

And I think CI can support their view based on other things Christ says.

I do not advocate anyone rejecting a verse of Scripture, that is what jewdeos do. If you say something they don't like they will pick another verse and set it against your verse ...like some sort of game. This makes a mockery of the Bible.

So I wouldn't condemn anyone, I would just want to know what you think "All Israel is saved means" and then provide the context (2 witnesses) from other Scriptures.


Bill does touch on many Scriptures we think about here, and I am very much in agreement with what is said.
http://christogenea.org/podcasts/unity-and-divisions-william-finck-fellowship-gods-covenant-people-kentucky-june-21st-2015
...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: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby MichaelAllen » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:37 pm

wmfinck wrote:Nowhere in the Word of God is there any insistence that the flood of Noah covered the entire planet.

Those who insist upon it have a lot of questions to answer, that they cannot answer.

Cain was driven from the face of the earth. So he went to the land of Nod.

The flood covered the whole earth. The same earth that Cain was driven from.

The same Hebrew word translated as earth in Genesis chapters 1 through 9 was also translated as land a thousand other times in the King James Version.

The Kenites and the Rephaim (giants) show up on the other side of the flood, in Genesis chapter 15. Along with a few other groups that have no genealogy in Genesis chapter 10.

There are many other problems with a "global" flood theory.

So Robert will certainly not convince me that his assertions are true.



I've agreed to review Mr. Balacius's arguments, however, I am going to need some real strong evidence to countermand what Bill just posted. Hominids other than Noah and his family would have needed to be on that boat in order to make the flood global... unless the protojews had some sort of "gills" feature that allowed them to turn into fish. But, hey, I'll at least read what he wrote --- I'm just not going to pay to do it.

The other thing that I always try to keep in mind is that as we get further away from our judeochristian backgrounds, we begin to realize that different parts of the Bible were written at different stages of Adamic man's history, and therefore, the mode of thinking was different. The bronze age civilization was about each city having its "god" and this relationship represents the "heavens and the earth" - but today, because of all of our background of the history of our theology steeped in universalism, we came to understand "heavens and earth" as "sky and planet" and that is not at all what that phrase meant in the ancient times. That phrase means an established order between a god and the people of a city.

In the New Testament, when the Levitical ordinances expired from the covenant, this could be considered a change in the heavens and the earth. The writer of Hebrews describes this entire process in Hebrews 1-10, stating that the ratification of the New Covenant is on a different set of terms. Then in chapter 11, he describes that the building of the kingdom (called both a city and a country in that chapter) must be actuated into being by Christian Israel on faith, and that even in previous eras of Israel, it was those who sought Yahweh's will by faith that were the seekers, purveyors, and founders of a "country of their own" and were looking for a "city" - again, this hearkens back to that concept of the city of people (earth) and their deity (heaven) from ancient times.

Then in chapter 12, the writer (ostensibly Paul) says that these Christians had come to Mt. Zion, and to the city of God, and that this transition from old to new would cause the earth and the heaven to be "shaken" which would cause a removal of those things which can be shaken. He concludes by saying that they were receiving a kingdom which could not be shaken. I believe that this was the kingdom which Yahweh had told Daniel would be set up right in the midst of the world empires of antiquity (Daniel 2:44) "In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven be setting up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."

So, you know what? I'm not altogether too concerned about the fact that these sand niggers are being brought in among us. I don't know when it will happen, but it will happen. It has happened before, and it will happen again. I'm almost tempted to feel sorry for these wretches :lol: They have no idea what is going to happen to them. It takes our people a very, very, very long time to become angry. We desire peace at the expense of righteousness too often. But there is always that point and after that point, there will be no more peace, only just restitution and retribution.

But my point in all of this was to make the argument that the idiom, "heavens and the earth" in ancient times had to do with a city and its deity. The book of Hebrews is a book about transition, and it makes the argument that we don't need a physical "city" any longer to worship our God who is literally bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh in Jesus Christ, who became one of the anointed children of Abraham. Keep in mind what the Christian Israelites of the first century were about to witness... the complete demolition of the former "holy city" but in the New Covenant (which I believe I can substantiate in scripture is itself a new heaven and new earth), it is not a physical location, but we ARE the holy city, and our God is in us, through us, among us, and maintains full communion with us on a permanent basis through the fulfillment of the Levitical law in Christ as our perfect sacrifice AND high priest.

So, when properly understood, "heavens and the earth" in the ancient world did not mean everything in existence in a literal sense. It was a term that referred to a relationship with a people and a deity. In fact, I've read books that discuss the thought that in ancient times when there was no temple in the city states, they believed there was no 'creation' - no one then or now would deny that the physical planet was there, and the sky was above them. But that then beckons the question, What did the ancients have in mind when they thought about the word "creation"? Obviously, it was a word that had a MUCH deeper but narrower meaning than what comes to our mind today when we hear or say the word "creation" in our modern languages.

It's those kinds of things that confuse us about Genesis 1-11. We have this worldwide view of the world, and they simply never had that view.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: "Who was the Serpent..."

Postby wmfinck » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:36 am

Everything that MichaelAllen said here concerning the terms "heaven" and "earth" as they were used in ancient Mesopotamian literature is true. The words were used in Sumerian and Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions with those meanings, and that is the culture from which Abraham and the patriarchs had come.

The early Egyptians also used a word for "creation" to describe a temple, which was imagined to be the source of the creation, along with the community which surrounded the temple, and the laws and customs and the economy under which the community functioned. All together these things were a "creation", or even THE creation, since the gods and temples of other peoples were not even acknowledged. So a "creation" is also used in Scripture to describe a foundation or establishment of a body of people all functioning under the same God and laws.

In the ancient world, laws came from "heaven", which was also the seat of the gods. These gods established a "creation" and ruled over it. These gods sought to establish their own world orders, sought to be worshipped by the common people, who were the "earth" of their respective cities, and therefore they "fell" from the real heaven: which was the original establishment of the One true God.

So the Hebrew Scriptures stand against these man-made concepts, representing that One true God, and at the same time they frequently use the allegorical language of this same culture.

Wow, can we make mistakes not realizing the way these terms were used in allegory! I discussed this at length in the part of Pragmatic Genesis entitled "More Myths Dispelled", discussing Isaiah chapter 14.

I tried to bridge the gap in Pragmatic Genesis. Maybe I did not go far enough. But to prove the points I wanted to make about the role of race in Creation, I said that it did not really matter where the heaven was that you want to think the angels had fallen from, whether from space, or from another dimension, or from a seat of godly government here on earth, a former heaven which had been destroyed.

The new heavens and new earth promised in Scripture are not a new planet and a new atmosphere, but the foundation of a new society to replace the corrupt old pagan societies. And while we have a promise of that, we are still not there yet.

But MichaelAllen is correct, that the city of God come down from heaven are the people who will establish that society.

The old school CI is very Judeo-Churchianity-minded. There are many problems with all of those lines of thought, and they cannot be rectified from within their own paradigm.

We must look to establish an academic and non-Judaized CI that cannot be legitimately challenged, because it is based upon Scripture and upon the understanding of Scripture in the context of the culture of the ancient world in which Scripture was written.

That was one of my main contentions in Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three.

Believing that the entire planet was flooded means that Noah and his sons had to have communion with the niggers and all the other races that Yahweh later told Israel to stay away from. That opens the door to universalism, and I will never accept it, especially when the alternate is so much more plausible historically, biblically and scientifically.

Believing in British-Israel "Dominion Theology" (which fell apart with the British Empire) makes Yahweh God out to be a hypocrite who cannot get His story straight either, because the law was only given to Israel, and He has not dealt in that manner with any other nation. When White men keep the law, they can only expect the beasts to be in fear of them, and that is the covenant made with Noah in Genesis chapter 9.

According to Isaiah chapter 43, Yahweh gave Egypt and Ethiopia up to niggers for the sake of the children of Israel, so Egypt and Ethiopia were destroyed.

Today our White nations descended from Noah are being given up to niggers for our own disobedience, but there are STILL so-called "CI" teachers who would imagine that Noah and his sons communed with niggers on the ark?

With their visions of a planet-wide flood they would claim there was no blood of Cain after the flood, they endeavor to make noble beasts out of wicked bastards, and they destroy the entire racial context of Scripture.

They are trying to keep us locked into the Judeo-universalist mindset. They are not doing us a damned but of good. I am getting pissed and will start cussing momentarily, so I will hit the "Submit" button on this post now...
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

PreviousNext

Return to Book Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron