The Remnant Way

A place for Yahweh's children wanting to be true to His word
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)   Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:34 pm

THIS BLIND AGE

By

C. Dickey

EVERY period of upheaval and destruction recorded in Biblical history was preceded by an era of blindness in regard to divinely-revealed truth and its inherent obligations. It was so in the days of Noah.

Noah's contemporaries were not in darkness as to the will of God; for it had been made known to them just as it had to Noah. The total blindness and depravity which characterised their era was due to the delusion that they could defy God's specific commands with impunity. This fateful error spread until the day of reckoning - then there was no recourse. The Lord said,

'1 will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth,' (Gen. 6:7).

However, there was one notable exception:

'But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord'(Gen. 6:Cool.

After that, the deluge!

Another blind age of far-reaching consequences began during King Solomon's reign over all Israel. Solomon received from his father David a kingdom already united and prosperous. For a time he not only maintained the standard of his father, but by the genius of his own personality, his wisdom and dedication, he led the kingdom to still greater heights of wealth and renown.

'So King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and for wisdom. And all the earth sought to (consulted) Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart,' (I Kings 10:23-24).

Although the division of the kingdom and the scattering of its people did not occur until after Solomon's death, it was he who undermined the foundation of Israel's Divine law and faith for generations to come. First, Solomon defies God's basic law of segregation in Israel. Read the sordid story in I Kings 11, and note that it begins only five sentences after the remarkable tribute to the king quoted above from the tenth chapter of I Kings. The proximity of two such contrasting pictures of a man seems to emphasise the short span which may lie between an hour of triumph and the day of ignominious defeat. Solomon's violation of God's law of racial segregation is recorded in the first two verses, and reads as follows in Dr James Moffatt's translation:

'Now king Solomon was a lover of women; he had seven hundred royal wives, and three hundred mistresses. He married many foreign women - Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Phoenicians, and Hittites belonging to nations against whom the Eternal had warned the men of lsrael, "You must not mix with them, nor let them mix with you, for they will be sure to seduce you to follow their gods. " Solomon clung to these women in love.' (I Kings 11:1-3).





The Judgment of Solomon

God gave Solomon great wisdom to judge his people wisely, yet he disobeyed the law of segregation.

Next, Solomon is charged with departing from faith in the true God to whom he had prayed with such fervour and devotion at the dedication of the temple. The record of Solomon's defection continues with facts so shocking as to seem almost incredible. The Moffatt version reads:

'When he grew old, he had no undivided mind for the Eternal his God, as his father David had; his wives seduced him to follow foreign gods. Solomon did what was evil in the eyes of the Eternal; he did not follow the Eternal faithfully, as his father David had done. For he put up shrines for Astarte, the goddess of the Phoenicians, and for Milkom, the detestable idol of the Ammonites, and for Kemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on a hill to the east of Jerusalem. He did the same for all his foreign wives, burning incense and offering sacrifice to their gods,' (I Kings 11:4-Cool.

It is written, furthermore, that the Lord was angry with Solomon for his defiance of the God of Israel, 'who had twice appeared to him and given him this order, that he was not to follow foreign gods.' Nevertheless, Solomon continued his rebellious course and unwittingly sealed the fate of his beloved kingdom; for God said of his evil decision:

'Since this is your mind, since you have not obeyed my compact and the rules 1 laid down for you, 1 will tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant.' (I Kings 11: 11, Moffatt Trans.)

What madness possessed the soul of Solornon! What blindness engulfed his mind and heart as he dared to defy God's racial law and build altars for the worship of false gods! Solomon's one-rnan 'united nations' and 'fellowship of faiths' led to his undoing and, eventually, to the break-up of the once glorious Kingdom of Israel.

When Jesus came to visit and redeem His people, He found them scattered and steeped in spiritual blindness. At that time a small segment from the former Judah kingdom occupied Palestine. This fact is generally known. But it is equally important to know that the main body of the covenant race, from both Judah and the northern kingdom of Israel, had been in the process of migration from their captive lands, and were then living in various centres all the way from Babylon to Asia Minor, and on westward across the mainland of Europe to the British Isles.

In the thirteenth chapter of his Gospel, Matthew tells how Jesus sat by the seaside and spoke to great multitudes in parables. Then the disciples came and asked why He spoke to the people in parables.

'This is why 1 speak to them in parables,' Jesus replied, 'because for all their seeing they do not see and for all their hearing they neither hear nor understand. In their case the prophecy of Israel is being fulfilled: You will hear and hear but never understand, you will see and see but never perceive. For the heart of this people is obtuse, their ears are heavy of hearing, their eyes they have closed, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they understand with their heart and turn again for me to cure them.' (Matt. 13:13-15, Moffatt Trans.)

Commenting on the Scriptures some years ago, David Dickson wrote:

'Obstinate maintainers of false doctrine and of corrupt traditions, enemies to Christ and His disciples, are given over of God, and are worthy also to be given over, and let alone by men; that is, fellowship is not to be kept with them. Where the teacher and people follow mere traditions in religion, and not the rule of God's Word, the leaders and they that are led are both blind. The following of false teachers and blind guides will not be an excuse before God for people to plead immunity; but seeing none should follow any man, but as that man follows the Lord, the blind guide and the blind follower shall both perish, if they hold on in their wrong way.'

The most scathing language in all the Scriptures was used by Jesus in His denunciation of the blind leaders who opposed His every word and step. Let those who think He spoke only soft, sweet words read all of Matthew's twenty-third chapter and note the authority and finality in His statements. Here are a few of them, lest we forget:

'But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; ... ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation. ... Woe unto you, ye blind guides, who say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! [Ye] fools and blind; for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? ... [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (the fury of hell,' says Ferrar Fenton, trans. ) ... Verily 1 say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. ... Behold, your house is left unto you desolate,' (Matt. 23:13-38).

Thus the fate of the generation that sought to put out the Light of the world by crucifying the Lord of life and glory was sealed. Fortunately for us, the atrocious deeds of evil people are powerless to stop the onward march of God's plan for His people. The death of Jesus ended, not in defeat, but in the wonder of His Resurrection and the inauguration of a new, world-changing Christian Age. This marvellous era is to culminate in the personal return of Christ as King, according to the angel Gabriel's statement to Mary:

,... and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.' (Luke 1:32-33).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Re: This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)   Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:35 pm

What, now, shall we say of the present state of affairs in the modern house (or nations) of Jacob, to whom Christ gave the custody of the Kingdom of God when He took it from official Jewry? (Matt. 21:43). Despite the Gospel's shining light for almost twenty centuries, the condition is blindness, deplorable blindness. In fact, Christians of the Western world are so blind today that they do not even suspect that they are God's chosen Israel. They are wholly ignorant of plain staternents in Jeremiah, Hebrews, and elsewhere, which declare that the New Covenant, like the Old, was made with the house of Israel. (See Jer. 31:31-34, Eze. 37:26; Heb. 8:8-12, 10:15-17.)

Jesus, the Saviour and Redeemer, came to a remnant of Israel in Judea, as the prophets had written centuries before. To the faithful few who received Him, Jesus gave the great commission to go forth as His witnesses and take the Gospel to all the world. But note particularly that He had already laid upon His disciples the necessity of taking the Gospel first to the wandering Israelites in other lands, the beloved sheep of His pasture. For love of them, Jesus said to His disciples:

'But go, rather, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ... 1 am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel ' (Matt. 10:6; 15:24).

The apostles understood what Jesus meant by 'the lost sheep.' He was not referring to Jewry, but to the dispersed multitudes of all the Israelitish tribes. That they so interpreted His meaning is evidenced by the fact that soon after His Resurrection and Ascension, when the great missionary enterprise began, they went immediately to various centres in Asia Minor and Europe, where the 'twelve tribes' were 'scattered abroad.' (See James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2) These people never returned to Palestine after the Captivities. They were never called Jews. They were so blinded by their pagan surroundings that they had forgotten they were Israel (Hosea chapters 1 & 2), and sometimes referred to themselves as Gentiles, exactly as their Christian descendants are doing now.

It was customary in the time of the apostles to call any uncircurncised person 'a gentile.' In that sense the twelve tribes scattered abroad were 'gentiles,' for they were then, and remain to this day, an uncircumelsed people. Paul's Epistle to the Romans cannot be elucidated until one learns that it was written to Israelites who, in the main, had lost their identity and become paganised. Doubtless Paul and Barnabas had this meaning in mind when they said to the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia:

'It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (a Judah segment of Israel); but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.' (Acts 13:46)

The woeful plight of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples at the present time is the direct result of ignorance concerning their Israel lineage and heritage. For some years now the two great Christian nations, the United States and Britain, have been surrendering their leadership in world affairs to Zionist Jews, in the foolish belief that these anti-Christian schemers are God's chosen people. What a break for international gangsters who are taking full advantage of the situation! Masquerading as the holy people of the Bible - and recognised as such by the leaders and laity of Christian Churches - they are getting away with every conceivable type of lying propaganda and usurpation all over the globe. Unless Christians wake up and wrest control of government and finance from the hands of these destroyers, they will soon be writhing in the coils of a world-wide satanic dictatorship.



They sought to put out the Light of the world

by crucifying the Lord of life but they failed.

Isaiah gives a vivid picture of conditions in Christian Israel lands at the present moment:

'Who {is} blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger {that} 1 sent? ... But this {is} a people robbed and spoiled; {they are} all of them snared in holes, and they are hidden in prison houses; they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. Who among you will give ear to this? Who will hearken and hear for the time to come? {Who} gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? For they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.' (lsa. 42:19-24)

Make no mistake about it, the circle of the serpent is about ready to close on us. Have we waited too late to join hands in resistance to this deadly peril? Only the intervention of God can save us now, though He will not hold us guiltless if we make no effort to save ourselves.

The oppressed people of all nations have looked hopefully to the Israel nations for wisdom and guidance, but our leaders have failed them as totally as Solornon failed the kings of the earth in his time. Moreover, they have missed the mark on the same issues that led to Solomon's downfall, namely, departure from the true faith in God, which led, inevitably, to the repudiation of His unchanging fundamental laws.

Jesus did not revoke any of the basic laws which God ordained for His Kingdom in Israel. One of these laws is racial separation. It has not been altered 'one jot or one tittle' by Christ and His Gospel.

'Think not that 1 am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; 1 am not come to destroy, but to fulfil,' Jesus declared.

Only the old ordinances of worship through animal sacrifice were abolished by the New Covenant. God's laws for the nations of Christian Israel stand impregnable, awaiting our recognition, obedience and fulfilment. Accepting Christ as Saviour does not license one to violate any of God's established laws or commands; on the contrary, a Christian is all the more obligated to obey them, as Jesus explained in Matthew 5:17-22.

JESUS DID NOT REVOKE ANY OF THE BASIC LAWS WHICH

GOD HAD ORDAINED FOR HIS KINGDOM IN ISRAEL


It is well to remember that spiritual decline, due to loss of faith in the verity of God and the Bible, always precedes national decline; hence, the former condition is a cause and the latter is an effect. The seeds of subversion were sown in the theological seminaries of Europe and Arnerica in the nineteenth century, and blossomed into the 'social gospel' of the twentieth, before the theories of Karl Marx became a serious threat to the stability of Western nations. This fact is corroborated by Herbert A. Philbrick, former FBI agent, when he says, 'There are more names of ministers than any other profession on the list of Communist supporters in this country.' As a result, the church took the road to ruin first, and the nation followed.

Sometimes people wonder why the educated and well-to-do are always in the forefront of socialistic projects. It is to be expected, if one judges by the past history of our race. In every period of decline in Israel, the officials, the prominent, the educated, have led the majority of Israelites into a sense of false security and blindness. Isaiah, writing of an evil time, disclosed the root of their troubles:

'For the leaders of this people cause {them} to err; and {they who are} led of them {are} destroyed' (Isa. 9: 16).

Malachi also reveals treachery on the part of leaders in his time:

'For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he {is} the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have 1 also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.' (Mal. 2:7-9)

The utter confusion which prevails among all our people - rich, poor, educated, unlearned, politician, preacher - cannot be more aptly described than in the following statements:

'Stay yourselves, and wonder; Cry out, and cry; they are drunk, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all has become unto you like the words of a book that is sealed, which {men} deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, 1 cannot; for it {is} sealed. And the book is delivered to him who is not learned, saying, Read this, 1 pray thee; and he saith, 1 am not learned.' (Isa. 29:9-12.)

The plight of the wilful blind - those who reject light and truth by choice finds adequate expression in the lines below:

'The deaf may hear the Saviour's voice,

The fettered tongue its silence break;

But the deaf heart, the dumb by choice,

The laggard soul that will not wake,

The guilt that scorns to be forgiven,

These baffle e'en the spells of heaven.'

Paradoxically, this present age, which has received the greatest light, is also the age of greatest blindness. Consequently, the warning words of Jesus the Christ should be of special significance to our generation.

'If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great {is} that darkness! ... Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?' (Matt. 6:23, Luke 6:39).

Used with acknowledgments to Look Up
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Does the New Testament Abolish All distinction of Race?   Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:25 am

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ABOLISH ALL DISTINCTION OF RACE?

By

H. Houghton





This article discusses the position of races - not of colour, but rather of nationality and, in the wider context, Israel as the nation, in relationship to the Church: what is the position of the Church today?


SOME people have thought, and even said, that in the New Testament all distinction of Race is done away. That with the closing of the Old Testament all people were made and regarded by God as absolutely on one common level. That no privilege, no advantage from that moment was accorded to any nation above another.

That is a very sweeping assertion and if true would seriously affect us today.

But what did our Lord say? Does He give any guidance? He said, ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ - (Matthew 15:24).

How will such people explain that? And Weymouth’s translation is even more pronounced. ‘I have no commission except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’

‘No commission?’How very strange! And how will such people explain His words to the Syrophoenician woman?

‘It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs’ - (Matthew15:26).

‘Children’! - ‘Dogs’! Here is a terrible distinction!

Both these vital statements were uttered voluntarily by our Lord. There was no necessity to utter them except to declare a truth.

Moreover, what about those other words, equally distinctive and equally forcible, with which our Lord commanded His disciples at the very outset of their mission work? Words which are neglected and overlooked today: ‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ - (Matthew 10:5-6).

And again Weymouth is more pronounced ’Go not, he said, among the heathen, and enter no Samaritan town: but, instead of that go to the lost sheep of Israel’s race.’

These words are absolutely amazing, coming as they do, from the lips of our Lord: but it ought not to be so if we have carefully read Ezekiel 34. For the figure of Israel as ‘The lost sheep’ is taken from that wonderful chapter. Here are a few extracts from it.


Verse 2. ‘Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?’


Verse 6. ‘My sheep wandered through all the mountains, ... and none did search or seek after them.’

Verse 10. ‘Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; ...‘

Verses 11 and 12. ‘Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. ... so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them....’

Who are these sheep? Anybody, everybody? That cannot be: for then would they need no seeking out. For verse 13 says: ‘And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country.’

Verse 16. ‘I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away. ‘ And verse 30 gives
their name. ‘Thus shall they know that I the Lord their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord God.’

There we have proved conclusively that God’s sheep are ’The House of Israel’. We may not like this, we may even rebel against it, but it is there, proved beyond dispute: and we should be wise to believe what God says.

Now we may know what Christ our Lord meant when He said, ‘Go rather to the lost sheep of the House
of Israel’.

In Ezekiel 34 God owns His sheep and says that He will go after them and seek them out. And in Jesus Christ He is shown doing it. For in Matthew 15:24 our Lord Himself declares implicitly that that was why He was sent. ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ It further explains why, in Matthew 10:5-6, Christ gave a similar command to His disciples.

‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’

There we have God fulfilling to Israel the promise and prediction of Ezekiel 34. These sayings of our Lord could not refer to the
Jews, for in this same connection Christ our Lord distinctly said that the Jews were not His sheep,

‘But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you’ - (John 10:26).

Who then were His sheep in Palestine in His days, if the Jews were not?

Please remember that the Tribe of Benjamin, who belonged to Israel, was there, and domiciled in Galilee. This is how it came to pass that Galileans received Him, but He could not walk in Jewry, for they sought to kill Him.

Here also is the reason why all the twelve disciples except Judas were of Galilee. ‘Are not all these which speak Galileans?’ (Acts 2:7). There also is the reason why, when our Lord ascended to heaven after His resurrection, the group of assembled disciples were addressed by the angels as ‘Ye men of Galilee’.


Why were they not called ‘Jews’? Because that would not have been true! They were Galileans, Benjamites, of the house of Israel. Though lent for a time to Judah they formed no part of ‘The House of Judah’, see 2 Samuel 2:9-10; 1 Kings 12:21, 23.

Let us look now at something else. Matthew 28:28, says: ‘And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, [His disciples] That ye which have followed me; in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’

This is from the heart of the New Testament, and shows the Twelve Tribes of Israel existing, and working, at the very time and same moment as our Lord sits in the throne of His glory!

Then, if that is so, those same Twelve Tribes must be somewhere existing and working now: for He has not yet come to rule and reign, though that indeed may be very near.

Further, why is the epistle ‘To the Hebrews’ so called if all distinction of race is done away?

And why does James address his epistle to the Twelve Tribes ‘which are scattered abroad’? And why is Peter’s first epistle addressed to the ‘strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia’?

Sufficient attention has not been paid to those words of our Lord in Matthew 5:17, which declare absolutely and without cavil that the law and the prophets remain unaltered; and if so, Israel’s position and predictions are also unaltered.

‘Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: [that is exactly what our teachers .suggest He has done] I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.’
Ought we not then to pause before putting ourselves into opposition to our Lord?

After our Lord’s resurrection, and before He ascended, His words to the disciples as they went to Emmaus particularly confirm this. ‘0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken’ - (Luke 24:25).

Those last six words include every prophetic word concerning Israel in the Old Testament.

All that the prophets have spoken. AND Christ Himself calls all those who fail to believe all those things by that terrible name, fools!

It would ill-become us to apply this to people now; but if true then, how is it possible to be anything else now? That is our Lord’s estimate!

Just before our Lord was received up into Heaven the disciples on their very last interview with Him asked Him a strange question: ‘Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?’ - (Acts 1:6)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Re: This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)   Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:26 am

Now why did not our Lord come down upon them in severe reprimand (seeing that they expected the Kingdom being restored to Israel) if all distinction of race was done away?

Why did He not show to them their utter folly, if they were wrong?


He did not do so! He simply said, ‘It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.’ The time was the only thing hidden from them!

The fact they knew, and acknowledged before our Lord; and He, knowing all things, left it there! Surely in this very last interview with them on earth, if they had been wrong, He would have corrected them! But no! Only the time was the thing that was to be hidden from them! The fact remained!



DISTINCTION OF RACE DONE AWAY?

Hear what Peter said to the crowd who rushed into Solomon’s porch when a certain lame man was healed.

Acts 3:25. ‘Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant [children of the covenant] which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.’


Peter there spoke of the Abrahamic Covenant being current then in all its force and vitality, and he applied it to the men and women who stood before him. Moreover, this was after Pentecost, so that the descent of the Holy Spirit did not alter the fact.

Nearly thirty years later the Apostle Paul says much the same thing, though in other words. ‘I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which He foreknew.’ And again, ‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance’ - (Romans 11:1,2,29).
There we have it, ‘without alteration’: ‘cannot be cancelled’. For that is the meaning.

God does not go back on his promises. ‘For God does not repent of his free gifts nor of his call’ (Romans 11:29, Weymouth).

God will not let Israel down! If He does, how can we be certain of the fulfilment of any other promise?

What about that expression of our Lord to Zacchaeus, as a reason why salvation had that day come to his house?

‘Forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham’ - (Luke 19:9). Why is that brought in?

And what about that woman who had an infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself? (Luke 13:11). And to whom Christ said, ‘Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity’?

When charged with the sin of healing on the Sabbath day, He turned on His accusers with the words,

‘ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?’
(verse 16). Why that strange phrase, ‘being a daughter of Abraham,’ if all distinction of Race is done away?
And remember that these are the words not of an apostle or prophet merely, but of one greater still, our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, the Son of God!

Let us consider again that very singular incident of the Syrophoenician woman and her sick daughter
related in Matthew 15. ‘A woman of Canaan’, mark that, please: not a Judean, nor yet a Galilean (both these were Hebrews), but a Canaanitish woman came begging our Lord to heal her sick daughter. To the consternation and the bewilderment of the church today, Christ answered never a word. Not long ago a Dissenting Minister said in the pulpit, that this was one of the incidents of Christ’s work very difficult to understand. Yes, indeed it is, to those who blind themselves with the theory that all distinction of Race is done away. But not at all to those who see a Gentile woman coming to Christ as the Son of David and asking for an Israel blessing. To her Christ said those great words, which are utterly overlooked and disregarded by the church today: ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (verse 24). Now we need not spend much time in discussing who those lost sheep were. Certainly and without dispute they were not the Gentiles! This was the reason why Christ desired to put this woman right before He helped her: and in doing so, puts us right if we will but take notice.

Moreover, He follows it up with a much more forcible declaration, one so pronounced as almost to stagger us by its outspokenness, ‘It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs’ (verse 26).

How hard, how bitter, this seemed; but it was the truth, and only by acknowledging the truth could the woman get her petition answered. And to the woman’s reply let all our theologians give heed; for here, on this very point, is where they have gone wrong. ‘And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.’ How enlightening if we are only willing to be enlightened. ‘Children’ - ‘Dogs’. What a contrast! Those are our Lord’s words and are too plain to be mistaken. We, like the woman, had better say, ‘Truth, Lord’!

How does all this fit the theory of today that in the New Testament all distinction of Race is done away? Manifestly it does not fit. Then whose words shall we believe, those of our teachers or those of our Lord? Surely none will be so obstinate as deliberately to choose those of our teachers and discard those of our Lord? If we do, we deliberately cast away the good and
choose the evil! Again, that same strange and intimate word ‘Children’ was used by John to define and indicate those of the Israel race who were then scattered abroad, as announced in John 11:49-52.

This is a most enlightening declaration ‘Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’ Then there follows the comment and testimony of John himself.

‘And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.’ Now here is the announcement that at that very time some people who were scattered abroad were ’the children of God!’ A most astounding declaration, and one utterly overlooked in the teaching of scripture! Moreover, John says that the high priest said this ’not of himself’. Therefore he was under the influence of the spirit of prophecy, the Holy Spirit; and also, ‘He should die for that nation!’ Why, why, if all distinction of race is done away? This would put the high priest, and the Holy Spirit that moved him, in the wrong! So we are brought to choose for our guide either our teachers or the Holy Spirit! Which shall it be? For if they oppose one another, one of them must be wrong! Further, the high priest did not speak of Gentile Christians. There were none as yet. And if there had been any he would not have acknowledged them!

Another point. Speaking of the end of this age in Revelation 7:4 we read, ‘And there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.’ Then follow the names of the Tribes. Now if all distinction of race is done away, how does it come that Israel appears so unexpectedly at the very end of the age? And why is the punishment of the
whole wicked earth held up till they are safely sealed? Moreover, in Revelation 21, when we read of the holy Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, verse 12 tells us that it ‘had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.’ Then it tells us there were, ‘On the east three gates, on the north three gates; on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.’ A very, very strange thing indeed, to tell us that these gates are all named after the names of the twelve Tribes of the Children of Israel, if all distinction of race is done away!


Courtesy: National Message
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Whom Did Moses Marry?   Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:54 am

WHOM DID MOSES MARRY?

By

Revd Bertrand L Comparet, A.B., J. D.

YOU are all familiar with the famous saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” This is true: A LITTLE knowledge is never enough; it never gets beyond half-truths which mislead one into false beliefs.

This is more consistently true in the field of religion than in all other fields. I am frequently challenged on some point by someone who has just this little half-truth knowledge and thinks that he has found a fallacy in the Bible’s great truth that God’s people Israel are known today as the Aryan, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic peoples, and they are, and always have been, under God’s command to keep their race pure.

One instance of this, is the challenge frequently made, “Why shouldn’t Whites marry Negroes? Moses married an Ethiopian woman.” They base this upon the way Numbers 12:1 reads in their King James’ Version Bible,

“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”

Christianity has never laboured under a greater curse than the many mistranslations in the King James Version - and some of them are even followed in some other translations because these errors have become traditional. Bible scholars know that there are many thousand mistranslations in the King James’ Version of the Bible; the eminent scholar Robert Young, author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible and of Young’s Literal translation of the Bible says in the preface to his Literal Translation, that in the King James’ version,

“there are scarcely two consecutive verses where there is not some departure from the original and these variations may be counted by tens of thousands, as admitted on all hands.”

Therefore, when you think that you have found some discrepancy in God’s word, some contradiction which can be used as the foundation for conflicting doctrines, you can never safely rely upon what you find in the English translation, until you have checked it in a good lexicon-preferably the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries included in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which is more thorough than most others. You will often find that defective scholarship in early translations has become accepted as doctrine, and is continued - although the original word will not support the meaning given it in the translation.

Now let’s get back to Moses and his wife. In the Hebrew of Numbers 12:1, it does NOT say “Ethiopian” - it says “Cushi” - a Cushite, a descendant of Cush, or a resident of the land of Cush. You remember that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Genesis 10:6 tells us that the sons of Ham were “CUSH, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.” Noah and his wife were both white; their children were naturally of the same race. One of Ham’s sons was Mizraim, meaning “Egyptian” - and we know from all Egyptian art, including their marvelously fine portrait sculpture, that during all the many centuries of Egypt’s greatness, they were a pure white people: in fact, during that time any Negro found in Egypt (other than a slave working in chains in the fields) was summarily killed on sight. Ham’s other son, “Cush” was no doubt also White. Now, what about the land of Cush?

There were two different countries named “Cush” in Bible times. One was Ethiopia, lying south of the Sudan in Africa. But there was another “Cush” in ancient times: it was in eastern Mesopotamia, or what at other times was part of the Babylonian Empire. These people were certainly not a black race, at any time. This “Cush” flourished about 1,500 B.C.- in other words, in Moses’ time, for the Exodus from Egypt occurred in 1,486 B.C. Now, who can we expect to find living in this Cush, on the east of the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates? From what people there did Moses take his wife?

In the first place, note that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible anywhere which says or even hints that Moses ever was in Ethiopia or any place where he could have found a Negro woman to marry. The Bible does tell us where Moses got his wife, and who she was. You remember that Moses had killed an Egyptian who was beating an Israelite. In Exodus 2:15-21, we read,

“Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharàoh and dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down by a well. Now the Priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, ‘How is it that ye are come so soon today?’ And they said, ‘An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us and watered the flock.’ And he said unto his daughters, ‘Why is it that ye have left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread.’ And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.”

So we know positively from this that Moses married the daughter of the Priest of Midian. His name, “Reuel” means “Friend of God.” It is given in the variant form of “Raguel” in one or two places; and sometimes he is called “Jethro”. “Jethro” is the Hebrew word “Yithro” and means “His Excellency” - a title of respect, not a name. So who were the Midiariites, from whom Moses got a wife?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Re: This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)   Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:54 am

In Genesis 25:1-2, the Bible tells us that, after the death of his wife Sarah,

“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and MIDIAN, and Ishbak, and Shuah.”

So Midian was a son of Abraham. But Abraham had been told by God that the great promises to him would be fulfilled through his descendants by his son Isaac, not through any of his other sons. He therefore gave his inheritance only to Isaac, but he loved his other sons too, and dealt fairly with them. In Genesis 25:6 it says,

“But unto the Sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the east country.”

Logically, he would want them to move more than just a few miles, as the whole idea was to send them far enough away that they would not be neighbours of Isaac, quarrelling with him over the inheritance. The next place of any importance to which they could go was this kingdom of Cush, in the valleys of the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates, the same country which at other times was part of the important Babylonian Empire. So Midian and his descendants became “Cushites”, people living in the Kingdom of Cush; but remember that by race, they were descendants of Abraham, closely related to Isaac and his descendants the Israelites, although they remained a separate nation and never became part of Israel.

Since this is the only wife that the Bible tells us that Moses had, it is clear that she was a Midianite, whose family lived in Cush in the Tigris-Euphrates valleys. That is where Moses would logically have found her. Moses fled for his life because the Pharaoh of Egypt wanted to kill him: he could not have gone just to some tiny neighbouring kingdom to stay - they would not have dared to give him shelter, but would have turned him over to Pharaoh as soon as the Egyptians learned he was there and made a demand for him. Moses fled a safe distance, to a land where the people did not live in fear of the powerful Egyptian Empire: in other words, to this Cush, among whose people were the Midianites.

We may be certain that Moses never married a Negress. Remember that he was brought up In the Pharaoh’s palace as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He was educated as an Egyptian of the royal family. The Egyptians considered the Negroes as mere wild animals, to be killed on sight. The son of royalty would not take a wife from the Negro Cush in Africa.

It was while Moses was guarding the flocks of his father-in-law, the Priest of Midian, that God appeared to him in the burning bush, and commissioned him to go to Egypt and set God’s people Israel free. When he returned to his own people, and taught them their proud heritage as God’s people, and that they must keep their race pure, his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam taunted him with his marriage outside the strictly limited group of Israel. It is true that he had married a woman who was not Israelite. But she was not only a white woman, but a descendant of Abraham a close relative of the Israelites. So this matter of Moses’ wife can’t be used as a justification for race mixing. Moses did not marry outside his race - just outside his nation. Mongrelization is equally a sin against both races: the Black race should be protected against it as much as the White. God had His own purposes in mind when He made the different races, and each was made suited to the purpose God had planned for it. To lose that suitability by mixing it with another race is to defy it, and the results of that are always bad.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Is Discrimination Biblical?   Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:40 pm

IS DISCRIMINATION BIBLICAL?

By

Pastor W.B. Record (U.SA)

THE NO DISCRIMINATION phrase has taken hold with the American public to such an extent that even the preachers (preachers who should know better if they know their Bibles) are now heard repeating, parrot like, this no discrimination phrase, thus participating in the selling out of our God-given freedoms and privileges and playing right into the hands of alien Zionist schemers. .

The phrase "no discrimination because of race, creed or colour" is not only communistic in all its implications and objectives, but it is also the key idea, the touchstone, of the United Nations program for setting up a world government. And since communists also have world government as their objective, the one subtle scheme behind them both is apparent.

There is a world government coming, the Kingdom of God on earth. But it isn't patterned after the communistic United Nations lines. In the Kingdom of God on earth, as revealed in the Bible, the phrase, "no discrimination because of race, creed or colour," will not be the modus operandi. No Indeed! The citizens of the Kingdom of God on earth will not consist of people of indiscriminate religious beliefs and creeds.

Kingdom citizenship will demand certain spiritual qualifications found only in those of the Christian faith, all other religious beliefs (creeds) being excluded. But the scheme for world government planned by the talmudic-communists and the United Nations does not discriminate as to spiritual values and religious beliefs. Instead it insists that Christianity is on the same level, and of no more importance or value than the pagan, idolatrous worship of the heathen nations.

A "creed" is a formal summary of fundamental points of religious belief and an authoritative statement of doctrine on points held to be vital. That being the definition of a creed, how can any Christian minister, who knows and believes the plan and purpose of God for His Kingdom on this earth, lend his voice and influence to emphasizing, popularizing, and sanctioning the communist and U.N. catch phrase of "no discrimination because of a person's creed"?

No wonder Paul wrote to Timothy that the time would come when people would be turned unto fables (2 Timothy 4:4).A fable is fiction related as though it were true. And any preacher who prates about ''no discrimination as to race, creed, or colour, "as the solution for the world's problems and the ushering in of peace, is a preacher of fables. Any person who has confidence in such preaching is putting his faith in a lie that will ultimately destroy him if its objective is attained.

THE BIBLE DOES DISCRIMINATE!

The Bible is the most discriminatory Book, especially as to what one believes, and as to who shall be entitled to citizenship in the Kingdom of God on earth. He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God ( 1 John 5:1).And it was Jesus Christ Himself who declared with positive and discriminatory emphasis that "Except a man be born again..., except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" - (John 3:3-5).That, my friends, is discrimination of the most exacting kind, and having to do with the most vital matter that could possibly confront mankind. Yet communists and the proponents of the United Nations program would have Christian people believe that discrimination as to what a man believes is unchristian, and not according to the Bible and the teachings of the Christ whom we worship.

Any man who lends himself to the support and spreading of this deceptive propaganda, is aiding and abetting an antichrist counterfeit of the Kingdom of God on earth. Do not be "taken in" and become a peddler of this propaganda for the subverting and destroying of this most God blessed nation on earth, your own United States of America.

Whoever parrots the phrase "no discrimination" is singing the communist tune, either wittingly or unwittingly.

God discriminated when He called Abraham and made a covenant with him, and again when He confirmed that covenant with Abraham's son Isaac, and grandson Jacob (Genesis 12:1-3, 26:3 & 28: 3-4).

God discriminated when He selected the offspring of Jacob-Israel to become a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. (Exodus 19:6)

God exercised discrimination when Hedeclared that a bride for Isaac was to be taken from among Abraham's own people, and from none other.

God was discriminating when He ordained that the Israel people should become the "sons of the living God" or Christians (Hosea 1:10, Romans 8: 29).

God used discrimination when He said that His people should make no covenants with the Canaanites, and that they should not intermarry with them (Deuteronomy 7: 2).

Our Lord Jesus discriminated when He said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

Jesus also discriminated when He selected the twelve apostles, and when He said to those who believe in Him, Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16).

In fact, God's Word, the Bible, is a very discriminatory Book from Genesis to Revelation. And that God is discriminatory is clearly seen in the fact that in certain nations and peoples He has planted and nourished the Christian faith.

GOD DISCRIMINATES!

God has shown discrimination in race, creed and colour! He selected the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be His human instrumentality, His witnesses, His chosen people, a chosen race (Deuteronomy 7:6; 1 Peter 1:1-2, and 2:9). America is the result of that selection. And this is the people whom evil forces are attempting to convert to the unscriptural idea of "no discrimination because of race, creed or color."

The Creator of this world and all that is therein, made the white, the black, the red, and the yellow races. Had it been the intention of the Creator that there be but one race, it would have been! No one can gainsay the fact that the white race has led the world in progress and achievement. And who would be illogical enough to declare that this was not the intention of the Creator? Since the advent of the United Nations Organization, there has been great emphasis on "no discrimination" and "no segregation," simultaneously declaring that "all races and peoples are equal."

"No discrimination as to race, creed or colour"! How often you hear those words in these days. You hear politicians use them, men who are seeking office. Politicians have been led to believe that unless they "sing that tune" they cannot hope to be elected to office.

ORGANIZATIONS ADVISED TO DISCRIMINATE

In industry, employers have been told that they must not discriminate because of race, creed or colour in the hiring of employees. Labour unions seem to have been sold on the idea one hundred percent. And because organized labour wields such a powerful influence, it is a mighty force for putting over the "no discrimination" idea. A basic tenet of the United Nations is "non-discrimination." In practically all U.N. literature, non-discrimination is the main line of thought.

In our public schools non-discrimination is being fed into the thinking of the oncoming generation, indoctrinating them with the idea that our whole structure, industrially, politically, morally, sociaJIy, spiritually and every other wise will be strengthened, broadened and benefited by the practice of "non discrimination."

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOT THE NON-DISCRIMINATION THESIS?

What about this anyway? Who are the originators of this no discrimination slogan to which American people are asked to rally? How come that the nation that has done more for all races, creeds and colours than any other nation on earth, now has to be told that we must not discriminate? What is back of all this?

The answer is just this - It is the brain child of Talmudic Communism.

Carry this to its logical end, and what will result? It will result in the breaking down of the racial barriers and the mongrelizing of the white race. The proponents of "non-discrimination" would have you believe that even that would work for the betterment of humanity. In fact, these "proponents" know that if they succeed in pushing this "no discrimination" idea to its logical limits, they will have broken down the barriers which were erected of God Almighty between the various races, and their scheme for world conquest will be virtually assured.

No preacher who understands, believes and preaches the plan and purpose of God, will ever give voice to "no discrimination," unless he is reprobate. There are such, sad to say. (See Jeremiah 50:6)

First Published in The Kingdom Message.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brotherdarren



Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01

PostSubject: Integration or Segragation-What Saith Scripture?   Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:27 pm

INTEGRATION OR SEGREGATION: WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?

By

Christopher Luke U.K.

FURTHER to the rise and spread of Islamic Fundamentalism across the UK, Ruth Kelly MP (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) has launched a new Commission on Integration and Cohesion.

The Commission will consider innovative approaches looking at how communities across the country can be empowered to improve cohesion and tackle extremism.

Darragh Singh was appointed chair of the Commission in June and, at the official launch of the Commission on 24th August, thirteen other Commissioners were announced. They are Professor Michael Keith, Nargis Khan, Hamza Vayani, Leonie McCarthy, Frank Hont, Harriet Crabtree, Ed Cox, Sam Tedcastle, Chief Superintendent Steve Jordan, Decima Francis, Steve Douglas, Dr Ebrahim Adia and Ramesh Kallidai.

The Commission held its first,meeting in September and is currently undertaking a programme of consultation and public meetings across the country. Recommendations are expected in June 2007 and the Commission will report directly to Ruth Kelly.The terms of reference are (i). examining the issues that raise
tensions between different groups in different areas, and that lead to segregation and conflict; (ii).suggesting how local community and political leadership can push
further against perceived barriers to cohesion and integration; (iii). looking at how local communities themselves can be empowered to tackle extremist ideologies; and (iv). developing approaches that build local areas' own capacity to prevent problems, and ensure they have the structures in place to recover from periods of tension.

There are a number of points to make here. Firstly, one cannot help feeling how ironic it is that Ruth Kelly should have launched the Commission when she is not
only the grand-daughter of Phil Murphy - who was Quartermaster of the West Fermanagh IRA Battalion during the 1919-21 Irish War of Independence -but is
herself a Member of Opus Dei (a conservative Roman Catholic sect), particularly when the IRA are still actively maiming and murdering our compatriots in Northern
Ireland and the Church of Rome itself has done little, if anything, to excommunicate IRA members from its ranks or surrender control of its schools to the state to
facilitate non-denominational integrated education in place of separate church schools.

Secondly, on the subject of schools, one cannot help feeling that Roman Catholic maintained schools are as much a breeding ground for hostility towards the
Protestant succession to the British throne and our constitutional monarchy as enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights and 1701 Act of Settlement as grant-aided
Muslim schools are for nurturing Islamic fundamentalists intent on proclaiming jihad (holy war) on to the indigenous UK population.

Thirdly, there is increasing evidence that indigenous Christians are being prosecuted - or should one say persecuted by civil authorities (e.g., the police and the
courts) for purportedly "inciting religious hatred", be it by open-air preaching of the Gospel or the distribution of Bible tracts and other literature explaining Christian
opposition to issues such as abortion and homosexuality, when those self-same authorities are simultaneously turning a blind eye to the activities of Islamic fundamentalists, which threatens to destroy the freedom of speech and publication of indigenous Christians and extinguish the very light of the Reformed Faith which liberated our country from the Dark Ages during the Reformation.

Fourthly, amidst the drive to foster racial integration and thus facilitate our descent into a multi-racial Hell on earth, the question must be asked for how long will
ethnic minorities in England and Wales be afforded grants under Section 11 of the 1966 Local Government Act to finance initiatives and projects to enable members of ethnic rninorities to overcome so-called "disadvantage" brought about by differences of language or culture which, in turn, has spawned apartheid in the provision of amenities, facilities and services (as opposed to integration and cohesion) in areas contaminated by large-scale immigration; and

Fifthly, whilst one wishes to see harmony between different races and cultures, one does not condone the move to unity at any price. Ecumenism and syncretism
are anathema to all true believers and patriots who believe John 17:17 (i.e., "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth") to teach the sanctification (i.e., setting apart) of God's people to prevent their minds, bodies and souls, being polluted by inter-racial breeding and multi-faith bonding, etc, just as surely as
Deuteronomy 17:15 (i.e., "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother") to be an exhortation not to afford Non-Christian-Israelites authority over our land and people.

On a not-unrelated note, one may be interested to know that Ruth Kelly MP has recently announced the appointment of Trevor Phillips as the Chair of the new Commission for Equality & Human Rights (CEHR). The CEHR, which all become operational in Autumn 2007, all form a new organisation and all inherit the responsibilities of the existing equality commissions: the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, whilst 2007 itself marks the "European Year of Equal Opportunities For All" when initiatives and policies will be launched across European Union member-states to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and political and religious beliefs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)   

Back to top Go down
 
This Blind Age (Racial Seperation)
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» What's worse, to be deaf or blind? ...
» BAC Involvement for POs under an MOOE Account that cannot be completely delivered within the CY
» Word from a blind man REPOST
» Kurdistan denies deal with upcoming meeting between Talabani and Barzani topic separation from Iraq Haider Ali Jawad -24/04/2012 m-1: 43 pm
» QUIZ!!! More Little Cherubs, Imps and Assorted Devils to Identify!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Remnant Way :: The Law of Yahweh The Creator :: The Dietary Laws-
Jump to: