This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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

Can a Bastard Sin?

This used to be open to the public, until the Jew spammers aggravated us into closing it to members only. Soon the day will come, that all Jews are in the Lake of Fire.

Re: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby MikeTheAdamite » Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:44 am

Is it true Hunter that even ANY Adamite can sin?as I thought only those under the law could really sin,those being Israelites.
That surely can be the only way of defining a sinner-an Israelite who brakes the law of God?
I hope Im not over simplifying your point!
And when Christ said 's good tree can only produce good fruit',isn't the fruit a reference to offspring,and not the works that that tree is able to do?
MikeTheAdamite
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:38 am
Location: Lancashire UK

Re: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:50 am

GermanSaxon wrote: CI Teacher Charles A. Weisman discusses these verses in his "A What About Seedline Doctrine" book on Page 29-30:

"Let’s turn to the supposed satanic nature of Cain. If the serpent was a satanic entity, and if Cain was the offspring of this serpent, then Cain too would be satanic. He would have also inherited the curse of the serpent, being “cursed above all cattle” (Gen. 3:14). This leads us to ask, would God have accepted such a person as heir to Adam? No sound reasoning could say that He would. Yet that was exactly God’s position towards Cain. When Cain had offered an inappropriate sacrifice, God said to him:

"And the LORD said to Cain, Why are you wroth? And why is your countenance fallen?
If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you do not well, sin lies at the door.
Genesis 4:6-7"

God could have rightly made this statement to Abel, Adam, or any Israelite. They would be “accepted” if they do what God desired. But was God willing to accept some cursed, half-breed, satanic mongrel? No! He was, however, prepared to accept Cain because he was Adamic, not satanic. God also places Cain on equal footing with Abel by calling Abel Cain’s “brother” (Gen. 4:9).

The Bible is clear that Cain was the son of Adam. To say that he was the son of the serpent or Satan requires some rather twisted reasoning and bad interpretation."

Used with permission from of Charles A. Weisman book: What About The Seedline Doctrine?, Charles A. Weisman, Copyright January 1997, Weisman Publications, Burnsville, Minn.

German Saxon


Charles Weisman is a clown. There is nowhere in Scripture that "God ... accepted such a person as heir to Adam", or that he would have. Weisman said that, not God. In FACT, Seth had to replace ABEL, and therefore it is evident that ABEL was the legitimate heir. Otherwise, if Cain somehow lost his sonship, Seth would have been a replacement for Cain. Furthermore, the FACT that the Bible then follows the Seth line, and the Seth line is the recipient of all of the promises of God and the inheritance in Christ, which Paul calls the "priesthood of the first-born", also proves that ABEL was the legitimate heir in the first place.

The term "brother" was a fact of the circumstances, just as Christ was the brother of James, Joses, and Jude. He was born to Mary and accepted by Joseph, but Joseph was not his father, and Joseph knew that. Therefore we see that being one's "brother" does not mean that one has the same father. In fact, the Greek word adelphos only literally means that one has the same mother, although it was used in a wider sense. For that reason alone, making insistences which are not true, Weisman's Biblical exegesis is very dishonest. In contrast, Christ insisted that the "murderer from the beginning", which could only have been a reference to Cain, was NOT of His Father. Weisman or Christ? I vote for Christ!

Genesis 4:7 wrote:If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.


The bastard could not do well, and he could not do well because sin lieth at the door.
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:29 am

Sin can be defined as one of two things.

1 - Sin is violation of God's law.
2 - Sin is an error, a failure of purpose, a fault, a missing of the mark.

The first definition applies only to the children of Israel who were under the law. The Law governed Israelite society, so the Law was supposed to be the framework for their (and our) societal construct.

The second definition is relevant only in the contexts in which the word may appear. "Societal construct", I have been using that term a lot lately.

Is it a "sin" to kill a White missionary if you are a Zambian cannibal? Probably not. The societal construct of Zambian cannibals has no care for White missionaries.

Is it a "sin" to kill a Zambian cannibal on the streets of New York? Of course it is, in the eyes of those who govern New York, and they will put you away for twenty years. But that does not mean that it was a sin in the eyes of God.

What is wrong and what is right is relative to those who do not have Yahweh as their God. But those who have God, they have His law written in their hearts, and even if the world has programmed them to ignore it, they do indeed know right from wrong.

This is why the Jews and all of God's enemies are promoters of relativism wherever they go.
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:01 am

GermanSaxon wrote:
...

Reads a little different in the Greek. "Satanic Duell Seedline Doctrine" doctrine can not be taught in the Greek. This is why the Septuagint must be trash canned for the sake of "Satanic Duell Seedline Doctrine." Or called a "Jewish Authorities Version." When the truth is the Masorite text is the jewish version of scripture of the Old Testament. As Rabbi Ginsberg said:

...

The problem is that the "Satanic Duell Seedline Doctrine" can be not be taught from the Greek or Bill, who is a Greek expert & Brian would use the Septuagint. It can only be taught using the Jewish Masorectic text and quotes the the Talmud and Kaballah which Bill & Brain have to have to buttress this doctrine. It's origin is the Talmud, and after all of Clifton's research, I find it hard to believe that doesn't know that, too.

...

German Saxon


You are being patently dishonest. First, I have quoted the Aramaic targums, which are preserved in the Talmud but are not necessarily Talmudic in origin. Even the Torah is preserved in the books generally referred to as the Talmud. The Torah is certainly not Talmudic. But I have also quoted other apocryphal sources, such as Enoch literature, and even Christian apocryphal sources, to show that Genesis 4:1 was disputed two thousand years ago. THE ONLY REASON I quote this literature is to show that the passage of Genesis 4:1 as it reads today in ANY version of Scripture, was indeed disputed 2,000 years ago, and the literature shows that it was not only Talmudic jews who dispute it. I explained all of this in my Pragmatic Genesis program where I quoted them.

It is becoming obvious to me that your bias against what is generally called "two-seedline" prevents you from actually listening to what I have said in this regard.

Your preference for the Septuagint in this area is not proof of your arguments against "two-seedline". I have often addressed this issue, but again, you attribute positions to me which I do not hold. The Septuagint was not created any earlier than the days of Ptolemy Lagus, in the late 4th Century BC. While it is superior to the Masoretic Text in many ways, it can certainly be shown to contain imperfections and Hellenistic era historical biases. Neither do any of the Greek manuscripts which we call the Septuagint have signal authority, since there are many Greek manuscripts which have differences as well.

Listen to my "What is the Bible?" presentation, and you will know my full opinion of these things. Then perhaps you won't unjustly criticize me in this regard.

Yet well before the 3rd century BC, the prophet Jeremiah (8:8) had written, (from the Septuagint translated by Brenton): "How will ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? In vain have the scribes used a false pen." Jeremiah wrote that over 300 years before Ptolemy Lagus, so don't spout off in pretense that the Septuagint is perfect, intoning that I should know better. The manuscripts had corruptions long before the Septuagint was translated, according to Jeremiah!

I told you where I believed that the foundation of Two-Seedline teaching was, so stop misrepresenting what I say. I gave you the link to the relevant program, why don't you address the issues I raised there, instead of misrepresenting me elsewhere? Furthermore, go back and listen to what I said about the targums, and you will find that it is exactly what I said here.

I told you that the words of Christ and the apostles in the NEW TESTAMENT are why I believe Two-Seedline. It is that which helps me conclude that Genesis 4:1 is indeed corrupt, as the targums, the books of the Maccabees, and the Enoch literature all either infer or attest.

In Greek, in Luke 11, Christ tells His enemies that they are responsible for the blood of Abel.

In Greek, in John 8, Christ tells those same people that their father, a devil, was a murderer from the beginning.

In Greek, in John 8, Christ tells those same people once again that they are not of His father, that He is from above, and they are from beneath.

There are many other supporting New Testament statements in Greek. Don't tell me that two-seedline cannot be taught in Greek.

The Greek of Genesis 4:1 is just as corrupt as the Hebrew it was taken from, which was already corrupt.

Evidently, you do not even understand my methods of Exegesis, or why I explained that the Old Testament must be understood through the lens of the New. It is for these very reasons!!! Do not judge me by your failed standards.
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:05 am

German Saxon,

I asked you for a second witness to Genesis 4:1. You have failed to come up with one.

Instead, you use the lame old argument that Cain was the "brother" of Abel, therefore Adam must be the father of Cain.

Here is my answer: "BULLSHIT!!!"

Jude and James and Joses were the brethren of Jesus Christ! Did they have the same genetic father?

Come on, I want an answer.

Neither do you have a second witness to Genesis 4:1.
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:30 am

My methods of Biblical exegesis explained, so I hopefully will not again be attributed as having positions which I do not hold:

http://christogenea.org/content/biblical-exegesis

My opinion of what the "Bible" is, so that hopefully it can be evidenced that I have already thought out all of these issues where I have wrongly been accused of dishonesty:

http://christogenea.org/content/what-bible-presentation-euro-fellowship-conference-skype-07-24-2010
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby Hunter » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:25 am

MikeTheAdamite wrote:Is it true Hunter that even ANY Adamite can sin?as I thought only those under the law could really sin,those being Israelites.
That surely can be the only way of defining a sinner-an Israelite who brakes the law of God?
I hope Im not over simplifying your point!
And when Christ said 's good tree can only produce good fruit',isn't the fruit a reference to offspring,and not the works that that tree is able to do?


I think Bill indirectly answered your first two questions for the most part in his above responses.

As for your last question, I think you answered yourself correctly. Just keep in mind, even though the Good Tree produces only Good Fruit, as Christ had said, the works of that Good Fruit can still be bad, sometimes.
User avatar
Hunter
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Location: Canada (in the prairies)

Re: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:40 am

GermanSaxon wrote:The name "November" is mostly a German, Austrian, Hungarian Christian surname as a example. I sorta laughed when a Jewess was quoted as a expert on the name. Do CI people trust Jews as the norm. Having over 25 years experience as a Genealogist I got sort of a kick out of that. I found many primary documents that attested that the name is not Jewish although a small number of Jews use that last name, too.

Imagine Googling the name "November" and finding such nonsense on this website. You just lost the 98% Christian "Novembers" to the CI cause after reading such offensive material. And Eli wasn't even a "November."

I don't think Jesus said you would know them by their names but by their Fruits.
German Saxon


This example of whining and snivelling off-topic is a good way to be labelled a troll, because it is just how trolls behave.

Here is the total number of posts by German Saxon in relevant threads documenting his position on the name "November" : ZERO.

Because of his snivelling, I am going to post an email exchange that GermanSaxon and I had on December 13th, 2012.

GermanSaxon wrote:Bill,
I started to post this response under the forum topic "Joe November Baker the Faker" but chose to take it to you directly.

As a genealogist for 30 years I investigated the last name "November" on the premier "Ancestry" website after reading the quote below:

"This must be, ostensibly, because nobody in their right minds would donate money to a Christian Identity "pastor" named "Joseph November", who claims to be German - even Bavarian - although the name is not found anywhere in Germany. "

I also read the supposed research on Zogbots listed as "November Name Data" which I found it to be a poor website which completely missed the material I sent you below.

The results of my research listed over 500 births in Germany, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Russia with this last name "November". Most of these births were in Germany. Examples are:
Bernard November 18 May 1873 - Kassel, Germany
Dora November abt 1846 – Germany
Charles Newcombre abt 1848 - Germany
[Charles November]
Joseph November Aug 1875 - Germany

This clearly established the "November" name as mostly German in origin. This name can also be "Novem" as it is spelled in German. Many "Novem" families may have had their name changed to "November." Are their Jews with the last name "November?" -Yes.

Also there is one "November" listed with Daughters of the American Revolution Volume 122.

You might want to investigate for yourself Eli James' DNA test results listed on his website.

Hope you and Melissa are well,

In Christ, Steve


my response wrote:Steve,

The records on Zogbots for the name November are the result of an honest search at Ancestry.com with nothing omitted. They are plain and unmolested screen captures of exactly what was found. If you have hard records for people named November coming from Germany, or anything else in addition to what searches of Ancestry.com returned, please send links and we can get them included on that page.

Possible deviations of the same name were not searched, expecially since Eli himself never indicated that such deviations existed. If Eli's name was changed from some such deviation, please help us by supplying the appropriate data.

When I go to http://www.verwandt.de/karten/ and search for most German names, like my own, I get thousands of results. When I search for "November" I get nothing. If there is an explanation for that perhaps you can provide one.

The last I checked, Eli does not have his DNA results on his website. He only has HIS OWN explanation of those results listed. I do not want to see his explanation, HE promised he would publish the actual results, and he has not done so. If this has changed, please send me a link.

I do not doubt your word concerning the name, but please send me hard links or hard documents. I will be happy to get Zogbots to include them, so that they and others can see the matters for themselves.

I can say for myself, since I went and checked out the 23andme website personally, that all of Eli's claims concerning his genealogy just happen to match everything in the 23andme marketing literature.

I can also say for myself, that if 23andme told Eli that he was related to Saint Luke, that means Eli is very likely an arab, since the 23andme literature claims that Saint Luke is related to modern Syrians, and that is how they arrive at their assertions concerning who is or is not related to him! Of course, modern Syrians are arabs and Luke was actually a White Greek, and not an arab by any means.

That is the problem with DNA "science", it ignores history and assumes that historical populations are the same as modern populations. If Eli is related to Luke, Eli must be an arab because 23andme thinks Luke's DNA is like that of modern Syrians who are arabs. Eli really put his foot in his mouth with that one, and is too dumb to realize what he did.

I am not being purposely dishonest. If you have hard data, please provide it and it will be posted with whatever is out there so far. I strive to be both fair and honest, and wish Eli would do the same.

Eli also claims that November is a "stage name". If so, then he committed a felony fraud when he registered a business in that name in the State of Illinois. I won't snitch him out, but I think he is not being forthright.

Please greet Julie for me. I pray that you are both well,
Bill


This email exchange took place on December 13th, 2012, and I still have the messages in my Gmail account (which is the worst place to email me if you ever hope for an answer, but I answered Steve as soon as I saw his message).

So 13 months ago I asked GermanSaxon for documentation of his claims concerning the name November. That was 7 1/2 months before I decided to post the thread here entitled "Meet the Novembers". If indeed I made an error, GermanSaxon had 7 months to prevent me, and he did not.

He never supplied ONE SHRED of the documentation I asked him for in December of 2012, in a conversation that HE instigated. But he whines and snivels. Perhaps my real sin was in not believing him on the basis of his "30 years experience".

(Note that he also indicated an acceptance of November's new claims, that November is not his name, although November has not actually produced any documentation.)

And now, concerning the jewess I quoted in relation to the name November, GermanSaxon acts as if she is my only evidence. The jewess has no stake in any of this, and should know something about her own name. I distrust jews as much as anyone else here, but even jews do not lie about everything.

Just like his assessment of my statements on Genesis 4:1, where he wrongly pretends that the Targums are the only evidence of my position, here he acts as if this jewess is my only evidence supporting my position on the name November. Then he acts as if jews lie about everything. Oh, GermanSaxon had better never let me see him quote a jew.

I see a pattern, at best, of poor judgement - errant conclusions based on incomplete facts. At worst, I see a disgruntled individual who is beginning to act like a troll.

GermanSaxon, as kids often said in the city streets where I grew up, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP".

You did not put up when I asked you to, and you had lots of time. Rather, when I asked you for documentation, so far as I can remember, you never brought the topic up to me again.
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby wmfinck » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:46 am

GermanSaxon wrote:
.... And Eli wasn't even a "November."

I don't think Jesus said you would know them by their names but by their Fruits.
German Saxon


GermanSaxon, now "Eli James" is once again denying the divinity of Christ. See this posting:
http://forum.christogenea.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5415

So I wonder, for how much longer are you going to run cover for his lying jew ass?
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: Can a Bastard Sin?

Postby MARKIII » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:03 pm

Hunter wrote:
MikeTheAdamite wrote:Is it true Hunter that even ANY Adamite can sin?as I thought only those under the law could really sin,those being Israelites.
That surely can be the only way of defining a sinner-an Israelite who brakes the law of God?
I hope Im not over simplifying your point!
And when Christ said 's good tree can only produce good fruit',isn't the fruit a reference to offspring,and not the works that that tree is able to do?


I think Bill indirectly answered your first two questions for the most part in his above responses.

As for your last question, I think you answered yourself correctly. Just keep in mind, even though the Good Tree produces only Good Fruit, as Christ had said, the works of that Good Fruit can still be bad, sometimes.


The good tree produces only good fruit quote I could never fully understand because Esau came from a good tree but he was bad fruit.
The return to GODS law for the White European Caucasian Race means no more wars killing each other, no more miscegenation, no more usury, no more multi-racialism, no more abortions, no more poison food & water. (MARKIII) Praise Yahweh.
User avatar
MARKIII
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open House

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron