Monday, May 18, 2015

On Bloodlines w/ Pastor Eli James

Yesterday morning, I was once again a guest on Bloodlines with Pastor Eli James, a radio program broadcast on Euro Folk Radio. Pastor James and I concluded our discussion of Christian Identity, and addressed some of the comments left by Mike and Chuck Muncie regarding our first program. You can download the entire program here.


  1. John.. Go watch this..

  2. I am glad you are covering this. It is important work to get this information out there. Also thanks Anon that is a great video for everyone to watch and then understand.

  3. John...

    Thank you for taking the time to do a show in the hopes of clarifying CI.

    Permit me to address a few things your guest said:

    Point 1 - “Jesus said, I come not but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and by that Jesus meant the White/Anglo race/people

    The “lost sheep of the house of Israel” is a reference to the Jewish people.

    Matthew 15:24
    But he [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

    Jesus was sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” meaning the Jews, but they rejected him.

    John 1:11
    He [Jesus] came unto his own [Israel], and his own [Israel] received him not.

    Jesus came to the Jews, presenting Himself as their Messiah, and they rejected Him and then killed Him. If Christ came to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and by that phrase is meant the White/Anglo race, then they rejected their Messiah, their salvation. John 1:11 plainly states Christ came to His people, Israelites, and they rejected Him. Thus, “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” are the Jews, Christ-rejecting, Christ-denying Israel.

    After being rejected as Messiah by the Jews, Jesus announced to the Jews that the kingdom would be taken away from them, meaning, they would cease to be God’s people.

    Matthew 21:43
    Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation [people] bringing forth the fruits thereof.

    Then, Jesus pronounced judgment upon the Jews and prophesied regarding all the destruction that would come upon the nation of Israel [Luke 21:22-24]. Jesus said the wrath of God on the Jews would be like nothing the world had ever seen up to that point nor would ever see again [Matthew 24:21]. And, all of what Jesus said came to pass. 1.1 million Jews were killed in Jerusalem, the temple was destroyed, mothers ate their own children, and many Jews were taken captive by the Roman Army and were killed by the thousands in multiple cities in Israel.

    After His death and resurrection, Jesus gave the following command to His apostles:

    Mark 16:15
    And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

    Did you catch that?

    “every creature.” EVERY CREATURE. Not some, every, meaning all, all men. Jesus did not say “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” He said “every creature.” Jesus' original mission was to the nation of Israel, "the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” the Jews. Upon rejecting Him as Messiah they lost their privilege as the people of God and that privilege became available to all men who would believe in Jesus Christ, salvation became available to all men.

    Let’s examine a few more scriptures along this line

    Revelation 5:9
    And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

    "EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” - Does that sound like Jesus Christ redeemed ONLY the White/Anglo race? EVERY people. All men.

    Revelation 7:9
    After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

    Again, I ask you: Does that verse plainly say “ALL NATIONS, and kindreds, and PEOPLE, and tongues”? Jesus didn’t just redeem the white/Anglo race.. ALL nations, ALL people...

    Your guest doesn’t like the KJV? No problem. Find me a legitimate translation where these verses don’t say “all” or “every,” meaning, all nations or all people.

    1 Timothy 4:10
    For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe.

  4. Jesus Christ died to save ALL MEN. Does the verse say Israel? Does it say “lost sheep of the house of Israel?” Or, does it say “ALL MEN.” Not happy with the KJV? No problem. Find another legitimate translation that contradicts the thrust of this verse. Jesus Christ died to save ALL MEN. Since when did “ALL MEN” get changed to mean anything other than “ALL MEN”?

    1 Timothy 2:4
    Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

    Again, ALL MEN, not “the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

    Point 2 - “He’s coming from the universalist point of view”

    Your guest doesn’t appear to understand what Universalism is. Universalists believe that all men will ultimately be saved regardless of whether they believe in Jesus Christ or not. Universalists think that no one, ultimately, will be condemned by God.

    The scriptures I originally cited and the points I made have nothing to do with universalism. The point is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of ALL MEN [Mark 10:45, 1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:14] and that ANYONE who BELIEVES will be forgiven, absent faith in Christ the individual remains condemned. That’s not universalism, that’s what the Bible teaches [Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13].

    Universalism - a theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved.


    Also, Catholics are not universalists.

    Point 3 - “So, these generalizations that Chuck is making are based on the horrible translations that are contained in the King James, where they simply translate words in a very sloppy manner, not being specific to their true meanings"

    1 Timothy 4:10
    For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe.

    1 Timothy 2:4
    Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

    So, “ALL MEN” doesn’t actually mean “ALL MEN”? If the translation is faulty show me the Greek manuscript you’re basing your translation off of and we'll see if it supports your thesis. Your guest pleaded “generalizations,” which is untrue, and then committed that very error himself by trying to explain away the various scriptures cited on the basis of being poorly translated in the KJV, yet didn’t give any specifics related to those specific verses.

    1 John 2:2
    And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins OF THE WHOLE WORD.

    The Greek word for “WHOLE” is holos, and, it means all, whole, or completely. Jesus Christ died for the sin of the whole world, all men.

    John 1:29
    The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away THE SIN OF THE WORLD.

    Are we to imagine that “sins OF THE WHOLE WORLD” or “THE SIN OF THE WORLD” means anything other than what is stated?

    Point 4 - In the book of Galatians, Paul is “talking to the Judeans first, those Israelites living in Judea"

    Based on what? There’s nothing in the book of Galatians that remotely suggests that.

    In fact, Paul addressed his letter to the “churches of Galatia,” not Judeans living in Judea. See Galatians 1:2

  5. Point 5 - “So-called Gentiles are, in fact, the dispersed tribes of Israel, they’re not non-Israelites"


    Acts 4:27
    For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

    “the Gentiles AND the people of Israel” - Gentiles are here clearly distinguished from Israelites. Thus, Gentiles are NOT Israelites. Gentiles are not “the people of Israel."

    Acts 9:15
    But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

    “to bear my name before the Gentiles….AND….the children of Israel”… Here again the Gentiles are distinguished from the Israelites. Gentiles are NOT Israelites.

    Matthew 10:5-6
    5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

    6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

    Once more, the Gentiles are clearly not Israelites. The apostles were told to not preach to the Gentiles nor the Samaritans but, instead, to Israel. Gentiles are NOT Israelites.

    Ezekiel 4:13
    Then the LORD said, “So shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, where I will drive them.”

    Gentiles are NOT Israelites.

    Point 6 - Genesis 12:3 is talking about all the nations being blessed through the Anglo/White race

    Not true.

    Genesis 12:3
    And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

    This verse is cited by Paul the apostle in Galatians 3:8

    Galatians 3:8
    And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

    "In thee shall all nations be blessed" simply means that whoever follows Abraham’s example of faith, by believing in Jesus Christ, will be accepted by God just like Abraham was when he believed God [Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:16].

    Point 7 - “Messiah of Israel had come, it doesn’t call Him the Messiah of the world”

    John 1:29
    The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away THE SIN OF THE WORLD.

    John 4:42
    And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.

    1 John 4:14
    And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.

    Jesus is the Messiah of the world.

    1. @Chuck
      Again, you are relying too heavily on the English translations of the Bible. You need to look at the original Septuagint version in koine Greek with a Strong's Concordance to see how these words and terms--"gentiles" and "nations" and "the world"--create confusion and drive you toward misinterpreting the original meaning.

      First, there is no word in koine Greek that can be translated as "gentiles", a word that did not exist at the time when the Bible was written. The term first appeared in the Bible when it was coined by St. Jermone, centuries later. The original Greek that it is translated from is "ethnos", which clearly does not mean "non-Jews" as it does today, as you and many others falsely believe.

      "Ethnos" means a people of common blood or ancestry. In Latin, it is properly translated into "natus" which is where we get the word "nation" from. Thus, a "nation" at the time that the Bible was written must be understood only as a large group of people with common ancestry. And that is the correct meaning of "ethnos" or "gentiles".

      The "gentiles" are a large group of people with a common ancestry--and their common ancestry is that they are all lost sheep of the House of Israel.

      And there is a reason that sometimes the Bible makes a distinction between "the gentiles" and "the Israelites". The Israelites were already found and knew they were Israelites, whereas "the gentiles" of the same common ancestry were still lost and did not know they were Israelites.

      And in John, the greek word "kosmos" is mistranslated into English as "the world", or as you mis-translate "the whole world". "Kosmos" means "society", that is, a group of people living together of a common heritage.

      I hope this helps answer so of your concerns. But if you won't make the effort to read the original koine Greek with a Strong's Concordance, chances are you won't allow yourself to be convinced that what I'm saying here is true.

    2. @Anon

      "Again, you are relying too heavily on the English translations of the Bible."

      Where do you think the King James Version came from? Its a translation of the Koine Greek NT manuscript.

      "original Septuagint version" -> The "original Septuagint version"? The Septuagint is the OT translated into Greek, friend. There is no such thing as a "Septuagint version" of the NT.

      "And in John, the greek word 'kosmos' is mistranslated into English as 'the world', or as you mis-translate 'the whole world'. 'Kosmos' means 'society', that is, a group of people living together of a common heritage."

      You originally appealed to the Strong's Concordance. Let's see how the Strong's Concordance defines the Greek word kosmos.

      kosmos - the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

      So, according to the Strong's Concordance, translating the Greek word kosmos as “world” is perfectly legitimate. Notice anything conspicuously absent in the Strong Concordance's definition of kosmos, like, for example, the definition you proposed?

      The rest of your post amounts to you trying to make the Bible fit into a CI framework. If the NT clearly makes a distinction between Israelites and Gentiles (no matter how you attempt to redefine that word) then clearly those 2 groups are distinct. Roy observed the same in one of his posts (below).

    3. @Chuck
      You are now engaging in Talmudist hair-splitting, to quote Martin Luther. Both the OT and NT were written in koine Greek. That the NT is not technically the Septuagint is irrelevant--and has no bearing on my points of contention.

      You are again grossly over-simplifying the facts to suggest that the KJV was translated from the koine Greek. That translation was based on many different sources besides the original koine Greek, including Latin and Hebrew versions, both of which were based on the original koine Greek.

      At the time of the KJV translation, they did not know for sure who the lost tribes of the house of Israel were, so they had no choice but to create and favor a universalized translation. It was only later, with the discoveries of the 19th Century archeologists in the Levant that it became apparent that the great civilizations of the past were created by the White race, and that the White race was, in fact, the direct descendants of those peoples.

      If you look at the original sense of the word "world," you will see that it did not have the literal sense that you are using it today. It comes from the old German/Saxon word "werald", "wer" meaning "man" and "ald" meaning "age". Thus "age of man".

      Its oldest sense meant "the known world" which is very similar to the koine Greek "oikoumené" which if often translated as "world" but is better understood as "the known world" or the known world inhabited by a certain race, depending on the context.

      Since the ancient Greeks had no sense of the entire world the way we do today, their term for "the world" could not possibly mean the same thing, and it didn't no matter how much you try to impose your view on it.

  6. Point 8 - Today’s “Jews" are not the Israelites of the Bible

    Absolutely correct. Most are Khazars.

    Concluding Thoughts

    Christianity being available to all men doesn’t make it a “destructive force.” People need to pick up their history books and read about Martin Luther, John Chrysostom, and many other Christians who opposed tyranny of all sorts, be it Jewish or otherwise. The same guy who penned “The Jews and their Lies” and openly preached against them is the same guy who got the revelation that salvation is available by faith to all who believed. Many Christians are clueless because they swallow the media and/or Hollywood’s lies and because their pastors are ignorant. Loving your neighbor includes exposing lies, hypocrisy, and poor treatment of your fellow man and that is what you’re attempting to do here.

    1. @Chuck
      Christian universalism has been and continues to be a destructive force because it has been a mechanism for race-mixing. Consider the misguided Spanish Inquisition. The Catholic Church forced many Jews to convert to Christianity. Many of those converted Jews subsequently inter-married with pure-blooded Spaniards destroying the race, along with all their mixed race descendants.

      And virtually all universalist churches today believe the same absurdity--that all you need to do to convert a negro, a mestizo, a pygmy into a Christian is to sprinkle some "holy water" on their foreheads and mumble some words about salvation--and magically they are transformed into "spiritual Israel". How is that not destructive?

  7. Chuck Muncie --

    Question.............."Where do the non-white Races come from?"

    Do you believe all the Races of the world come from Adam and Eve? Did you swallow this BS?

    1. The question is not what do I believe, the question is: What does the Bible say?

      1 Corinthians 15:45, 47
      45 And so it is written, THE FIRST MAN Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

      47 The FIRST MAN is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

    2. But are assuming the non-white races are considered "man".

      Eli makes the point that "Adam" means to show blood in the face. Only the white race is capable of showing blood in the face.

      I will ask my question again, because you did not answer --

      Do you believe the non-white races originate with Adam? Yes or No.

      It is a simple question which requires a simple answer.

      I will say that I 'used' to believe this. But today I don't. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the black man to have been in the same family tree as the white man. Impossible! Sorry...........but this is logic.

    3. Jeremiah 13:23
      Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

      Acts 8:27
      And he arose and went: and, behold, A MAN OF ETHIOPIA, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

      The Greek word for “Ethiopia" is Aithiops and it means “black,” “to scorch the face,” or “scorched face.” So, “A MAN OF ETHIOPIA” is just as easily understood as “A BLACK MAN.” And, that black man was saved by the way [Acts 8:37-38].

      Remarkable, you asked me what I personally believed just moments after asserting what I believed. Why ask about that which you presume to know? I believe the Bible and it teaches that Adam was the FIRST MAN, that the human race began with Adam. I believe all races originated in Adam.

      "It is IMPOSSIBLE for the black man to have been in the same family tree as the white man. Impossible! Sorry...........but this is logic."

      Well, since you’ve probably never made an error in logic in your life, we’ll just have to accept your reasoning as infallible. Or, we could call your “logic” what the Bible calls it, unbelief. The litmus test for Bible truth isn’t what you can rationally conceive or agree with.

    4. " I believe all races originated in Adam."

      Ok.......humor me...................explain it. I'm curious if your answer is what I was brainwashed to believe. The church LIED to me when they told me God changed the races at the tower of babel.

      What do you believe happened?

    5. @Chuck
      You are making a common mistake with The Bible when you mistake geography for race. Ancient Ethiopia was originally a White nation, but over time it was over-run with Black nubians. Many Whites left Ethiopia while others were absorbed into the local population much like in Egypt and India. Clearly today's Ethiopians are race mixed with sub-Saharan Black, Arab, and White genes.

      At the time of the writing of The Bible, there clearly was a White remnant living in Ethiopia. Yes, by the time of the Greek Empire, Ethiopia had become Black, but that wasn't true in the ancient past. And keep in mind that the original name of Ethiopia was Abyssinia, which has no connotation of "blackness".

    6. Still waiting for Chuck to enlighten us all how races like the Black and the Pygmy somehow miraculously "evolved" from the White Man.

      How did that happen?

  8. I have a question for Anonymous June 10 3:57..........but anyone can surely answer.....

    Anonymous says that the "Gentiles" are the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

    How does that explain Matthew 10 -- "Go not into the way of the Gentiles...But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

    If "Gentiles" means Lost Israelites; then the sentence is redundant.

    It would read, "do not go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel; but go unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel."

    How do you square that one?

    1. Roy Hobs. Love that name, great movie, one of the best.

      You said---> "If 'Gentiles' means Lost Israelites; then the sentence is redundant."

      That's exactly correct. There is no way to "square" it because the notion that Gentiles are Israelites is unsupportable. Look at Acts 4:27 and Acts 9:15, Gentiles and Israelites are shown to be distinct there as well.

    2. You are grossly over-simplifying what I stated about the definition of the term "gentiles". In many cases, it can be defined as "nations" but not always, depending on the context. As far as Matthew 10 is concerned, taken in correct context, "gentiles" would be better defined as "heathens".

      Depending on the context, "heathen" can mean someone who is not a racial Israelite or a non-believing racial Israelite. This is one of the reasons the Bible, in certain places, makes a distinction between "gentiles" and Israelites.

      And the same is true for the distinction of "the nations" and the Israelites. The "nations" or "gentiles" were racial Israelites who were "lost" and unaware of who they were. Whereas many Israelites were "found" and had discovered their true identity. That distinction is made throughout the New Testament if you care to make the effort to see it.

    3. that I don't 'over simplify', please give us the correct rendering of said passage.

      If it not be 'lost Israelites', then who are the gentiles here in this passage?

    4. In Matthew 10:5, Jesus commands his disciples to go out and gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but warns them from going the way of the "gentiles", which, in this context is best understood as "heathens."

      In this context, it makes no sense that "gentile" could mean "non-Jew".

      After all why, at the same time, does He also command them not to enter into a city of the Samaritans? Quite simply, the Samaritans were not racial Israelites--they were Edomite Jews. In fact, to this very day some modern Jews claim descent from the Samaritans--even the Talmud makes this claim.

      So Jesus is essentially telling his disciples not to go into Samaritan cities because they will not find his lost sheep there. And if you read your NT carefully, at no time does Jesus ever try to convert Jews into believers. They do not hear Him because they are not of Him.

    5. If you don't mind then, please translate the word 'heathen' in this context.

      You say 'heathen' can either mean a non racial Israelite; or a non-believing Israelite.

      Have you ever considered that "gentile" could very well mean Adamites who not of the DNA line of Abraham?

      I'm positive there were thousands upon thousands of Adamites existing on the planet when God made His covenant with Abraham.

      Are Adamites, not of the seedline of Abraham not in God's favor?

      This is my belief/contention.

      The promises were made to Abraham's Seedline. No problem. The Israelites were given a specific purpose. And that purpose was to be the light on the hill to the non-Israelite WHITE Adamites.

      It perfectly fits the word "gentile".

    6. @Roy
      I'm not sure why you continue to insist on the validity of the problematic and misleading term "gentile". Today's definition of it as "non-Jew" makes absolutely no sense in context of the NT. You must at least admit that to be the case. It makes much more sense as "nations". Could it also connote racially Adamic, non-Israelite peoples? Perhaps.

      To answer your question, clearly the non-Israelite Adamic race will be justified or "saved". To think otherwise is absurd. After all, Adam himself was a non-Israelite, as were Noah and Job.

      If there are any pure Adamic non-Israelite people still existing today, they would be considered in that same category as Adam, Noah and Job. However, recall that Noah was chosen to survive the flood because he was "perfect in his generation," which means that he was a racially pure Adamic man. That he was the only pure Adamic man left at the time is not clear.

      You'll often see the term "sons" or "sons of man" used throughout the Bible. This would be best understood as pure "sons of Adam," depending on the context, and it is used to distinguish "sons" from bastards, or those of mixed-race, the wheat as opposed to the tares--tares may even look just like wheat but are not.

    7. You and I at the end of the day are not at odds with one another. Of course I absolutely reject the false teaching of non-jew/jew etc. It is this one word "jew" that is a stumbling block for so many.

      That being said, my position is that we need to be very careful how we 'teach' others. In my original comment, I pointed out that translating the Mark passage as 'lost Israelite' made no sense and was a contradiction to the passage:

      "Go not in the way of the lost Israelites, but rather go unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

      And so skeptics will pick up on this and exploit it to their advantage - i.e.., chuck Muncie.

      You want the Mark verse to read -- 'Go not in the way of the heathens, but rather go unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

      But now we have to translate 'heathen' properly.

      I will continue to study; but it would be my belief, my teaching, that "Gentile" means the White Nations who were not of the Seedline of Abraham.

      I will continue to refine or correct my findings. Thanks for your responding. Most people just 'speak' and never dialogue, so I appreciate that.

      Since I have you: what would your response be to the contention made here --

    8. @Roy
      I checked out that blog briefly. Clearly, this writer is not CI, so his take on Corinthians 6 is going to be rather narrow--or too broad.

      For example, in Genesis a man and wife are to be "of one flesh," which literally means of the same Adamic race. Yahweh does not recognize inter-racial unions, nor their offspring.

      Also, the term "harlot" can also refer to someone who engages in race-mixing, as is also true of "fornicators". Also, Israelites who worship false gods can be termed "harlots", so there is more going on in this passage than merely defining what is and is not a literal marriage.

      I think one of the best explications of this passage on marriage in Corinthians can be found here:

    9. I don't see how CI has anything to do with the subject matter.

      Your interpretation of 'one flesh' is erroneous and takes huge liberty.

      Virginity is essential. The Word of God speaks to Virginity and the importance thereof.

      Fear the Hireling -- John 10

    10. @Roy
      The context of this entire comment section deals with CI--so if you don't want to hear how this chapter of Corinthians may have something to do with CI, then why did you bring it up? Also, it doesn't sound like you are genuinely interested in my take on it--rather you seem to merely want me to confirm what you already believe. Sorry to disappoint you.

      How is my--and many others'--interpretation of "one flesh" erroneous? Saying so doesn't make it so. Show me in Scripture where it means something else completely. And what does being of "one flesh" have to do with what you want to hear about virginity?

      Clearly, virginity in a bride is preferable, but it's not essential. If you are suggesting that a marriage is not recognized by Yahweh simply because either or both partners are not virgins, then I'd like to see that supported by Scripture. There are plenty of examples of non-virgin unions that aren't illicit or sinful--if you care to research it for yourself.

      I'm not sure why you quote John 10 here or what it has to do with virginity. That passage in John is another CI message--a hireling will not protect the sheep because they are not his sheep--just as Christ will protect only his sheep--the lost tribes of the House of Israel. And any pastor that does not promote that racial message is much like a hireling--he opens the door to destruction of the flock.

    11. "Clearly, virginity in a bride is preferable, but it's not essential. If you are suggesting that a marriage is not recognized by Yahweh simply because either or both partners are not virgins, then I'd like to see that supported by Scripture*. There are plenty of examples of non-virgin unions**"

      *Every passage in the Bible dealing with sex and marriage is supported by my statement. The Law was set forth in Deuteronomy 22:13

      **Please cite ONE. Let me guess, you will cite Hosea. There is not ONE example of a non-virgin WOMAN having a righteous union in the entire word of God.

      When a woman has sex she is joined to the man. She is known by the man. What God hath joined together, let no man separate.....but by death. Your pastor even teaches, "marriage happens in the bed".

      The union of man and woman happens as a result of sexual intercourse. Vows, intent and promises mean nothing. Sex is the joining. I hesitate to say 'one flesh' as you have twisted it's simplest meaning.

      You say God will recognize a marriage to a non-virgin woman. How does He do that when the 'union' happens as a result of sex. Not INTENT. Sex with a non-virgin woman is a 'sin against the flesh'.

      I asked your opinion as a gauge of sorts. I'm always fascinated in the 'dance'. Thanks for your time.

    12. @Roy
      One example of a non-virgin marriage would be Adam and Eve. Eve was seduced by "the serpent," who was actually a non-Adamic being. Their off-spring was Cain, who was not Adam's son. Afterwards, Adam and Eve produced Abel, who was their first son together. The Bible is clear that Adam "knew" Eve only after she was seduced by the serpent.

      If you don't believe that the "serpent" was a real "human" being, then read John 8:44, when Christ tells the Edomite Pharisees that their true father was a "murderer from the beginning," which is a clear reference to Cain and his seedline. In Matthew 23, He calls the Edomite Jews "serpents" for a reason.

      Are you suggesting that Eve was married to the serpent because she lost her virginity to him--and that she was not married to Adam because she was not a virgin when she first "knew" him? Can they possibly be of "one flesh" by your standards? By your standards, when Adam "knew" Eve for the first time, it was a "sin against the flesh."

      Since you admire what this guy at the "areyoumarried" blog has to say, you should ask him the following and see what his reaction is: "Is it preferable in God's eyes for a White man to marry a virgin Black or Asian woman or a truly repentant White non-virgin? Which one is a true marriage?"

      You should ask yourself the same thing.

    13. Wow..........this is your example?

      Seems to me a deflection from the subject matter. Not to mention that you will ignore a plethora of Scripture proving my point; just because you believe the Mother of all White Living Man screwed a nigger(race mixed).

      You should read Weisman's book "What About The Seedline Doctrine?" for a balanced perspective - say that Eve was not a Virgin before she lay with Adam is speculation at best. Again....deflecting from 99% of the rest of God's Word on the matter of sex and marriage.

      Question -- in your example below, is the "repentant White non-virgin" joined to her first lover?" Is she joined to a man, Yes or No.

      You can't wriggle out of this. Of course the non-virgin woman is joined to her lover. Your Pastor teaches that marriage happens in the bed.

      A non-virgin woman is joined to man. Repentant or not.

      Paul says that only DEATH breaks this bond.

      Would your pastor allow a man to marry a married woman? Of course not. Only the idiot ignores Romans 7:2-3.

      But yet the non-virgin woman who is not "legally" married by the State, or recognized by vows and witnesses is somehow exempt from Romans 7:2-3.

      There is NO difference between a married woman and a non-virgin woman. No difference. They are both 'joined' to a man.

      It is quite astonishing really that the CI community doesn't embrace this concept. The CI community cherishes the issue of DNA. DNA is everything!

      I man goes into a woman and inseminates his DNA into the woman. Studies now find that autopsies reveal the man's DNA woven into the fabric of the woman's DNA. She is one with the man. The man's seed remains in the woman. Sorry to be frank, but she is full of the cum of another man. A man remains within the woman.

      And you guys want to promote and accept the marriage to a woman with the DNA of another man. GROSS!

      Jesus commended and honored the Eunuch:

      "all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given; for there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb.....and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

      This is a warning to all White Men............."Sin" can and will exempt you from the Creator's Eternal Plan. The Sexually Immoral will not enter this Rest. Despite what prominent men may say.

      Is sex worth an eternity separated from the Creator of the Universe?

    14. @Roy
      Funny how you accuse me of "deflecting" your question when I used the very first couple in the Bible to prove you wrong. And no, you didn't prove me wrong. Eve was seduced by the serpent. What does that mean to you? Why was she cursed so severely by Yahweh? For a mere flirtation? Come on...

      And no, I never stated that Eve "screwed a nigger," as you so Jewishly put it. In logic that dishonest tactic is called "reductio ad absurdum".

      And what were the ramifications of that seduction? Genesis 3:15, Yahweh curses the serpent and his seedline:

      And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

      I am very familiar with Weisman and other anti dual seedline deniers. This makes so sense. There's no such thing as a "spiritual" seedline just as there is no such thing as a "spiritual" House of Israel. Both are quite literal. Clearly, in Genesis their were other "humans" or bipeds who were human-like, the "beasts of the field" who could walk and talk, and the serpent was one of those. And for Weisman or his ilk to claim that the serpent was actually Satan incarnate is ludicrous.

      If you're don't believe the two seedline theology, read the following with an open mind:

      I understand what you are saying about marriage--that it happens upon sexual union, not in a church or at city hall. And yes, in a very narrow, technical interpretation, if a man has sex with a virgin, he is married to her, technically for life. But it doesn't necessarily follow that no man is married to any woman who is not a virgin. Whether you like it or not, Eve is a perfect example.

    15. @ Roy
      Just so you don't think I'm continuing to "deflect" the issue. Besides the obvious example I gave you of Adam and Eve, I will direct you to Hosea 1:2

      “The LORD said to Hosea, ‘Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom.’”

      And even after she left Hosea to commit more whoredom with other men, Yahweh ordered Hosea to go find her and take her back.

      Either Yahweh is wrong or you are. I know where I'd put my money.

    16. Unbelievable really.

      I predicted you would cite Hosea. Hosea reads, "go take yourself a wife of harlotry."

      And this proves Gomer was a whore before she became the wife to Hosea? Hardly.

      This passage is a "foretelling". A prophetic passage.

      Chapter 2 verse 7 reads, 'she will chase her lovers, but not overtake them...then she will say, I will go and return to my first husband, for then it was better for me than now."

      Her first husband/lover was Hosea. Gomer then adulterated herself just as Israel adulterated herself and chased other lovers.

      We are not even sure Hosea was a real person. The entire Chapter is poetic verse. The book is symbolic of Israel. Israel was married to Yahweh and then adulterated herself. Just as Gomer did.

      Yahweh chose Abraham because he was righteous. Israel then played the harlot.

      When a woman has sex with a man, she is joined to that man. I dare say "one flesh" as you have twisted it's simplest meaning.

      "Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a VIRGIN; no man had known her....then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife." Gen 24

      "...Anna was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity." Luke 2:36

      "...there is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things...."

      Who is the virgin? The unmarried is the virgin. It is right there in black and white. The virgin is the unmarried. Paul says it right there.

      When a women has sex with a man she is joined to that man.

      Paul says that to go in to a woman who is already joined to another man..........such a case is adultery. Romans 7:2-3

      If any man take a married woman -- which is simply a woman joined to a man -- he is practicing ADULTERY.

      Question -- what is the difference between a wife who is joined to a man; and a woman who is joined to a man?

      Answer-- NOTHING. Both are joined to a man.

      If any man takes a woman who is not a virgin; such a man is a practicing adulterer. Adulterers will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

      I have a simple question for you Anon -- do you believe Paul? Or is Paul a liar.

      Is the man who takes a married woman for a wife an adulterer? Yes or No?

      "So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress."

      Is Paul a liar? Are you above Paul?

    17. @Roy
      Yes, Hosea was a real person, and to question that only serves to defend your agenda. And yes, clearly what happened to Hosea was also an example to Israel of what would happen to them when they committed whoredom, i.e. worshipped false idols and committed fornication, i.e. race-mixing--often they mean the same thing.

      When Paul is speaking of marriage, you have to look at it on many different levels, but the most important level is this:

      Yahweh and Israel were married. Israel is Yahweh's wife. See Exodus 19:5-11, and Exodus 24: 3-8. And Isaiah 54:5

      Israel played the whore. See Leviticus 20:10, which alludes to another man's wife. Clearly, the whoredom that Israel indulged in was race-mixing. And see Jeremiah 31:31.

      Israel deserved death for breaking the vows to Yahweh, but in order for Yahweh to not break his own law, he had to die to free Israel from the law. And how did Yahweh accomplish this? Through the crucifixion of Christ, Yahweh fulfilled the law. See Romans 7:1-

      Christ is referred to as the "bridegroom" by John the Baptist. Israel is the bride:

      2 Corinthians 11:2 2 "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

      The only way that Israel could be presented to Christ in marriage as a "chaste virgin" would be if Israel were genuinely repentant because at that point Israel was clearly not a literal virgin.

      That's the Big Picture of marriage and divorce in the Bible.

    18. Yes............thank you for highlighting the most important aspect in the understanding of sex and marriage.

      That is -- only Death breaks the union between man and woman. I dare say, 'one flesh'.

      When a man and a woman have sex they are joined. Only death will break this union.

      If Hosea was a real person and IF Gomer was not a virgin; do you find it ironic that Hosea was commanded to take Gomer for a wife?

      You was against the law to take a non-virgin as a wife.

      Deuteronomy 22:13 -- "If any man takes a wife and says, 'I took this woman and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin."

      But of course you will insist that such a command was only optional.

      Anon -- Was your wife a non-virgin when you wed? What made her your wife?

      Your Pastor teaches - marriage happens in the bed.

      I wonder if he has now revised this instruction. Perhaps the new teaching is that marriage happens in the bed but ONLY if you mean it.

      How our ears are so easily "tickled". 2 Timothy 4:3

      You never answered my question ----

      Do you agree with Paul that the woman married who takes another husband: such is adultery? Yes or No.

    19. @Roy
      I understand that--when a woman has sexual relations with any man, it is a marriage. I've never disputed that.

      However, consider John 4:17

      15 The woman says to Him “Master, give this water to me, that I shall not thirst nor pass by here to draw!” 16 He says to her “Go, call your husband, and come here!” 17 The woman replied and said to Him: “I do not have a husband.” Yahshua says to her “You have spoken well that ‘I do not have a husband’, 18 for you have had five husbands and now he whom you have is not your husband! By this you spoke the truth!”

      Christ is telling this woman that she has had five husbands, which means he is saying that she's been married five times. He doesn't say that she has had only one husband--her first one to whom she lost her virginity.

      Christ is agreeing with her that she has no husband despite the fact that she has been with six men. This would be impossible if a marriage can happen only with a virgin.

      And why is Christ saying she is not married to the sixth man? Because she is no longer a virgin? Come on....

    20. You have yet to address a critical point to understanding a righteous union.

      Is Paul a liar?

      Or do you agree with Paul that the woman married who takes another husband: such is adultery? Yes or No.

    21. @Roy
      Of course Paul is not a liar--I don't believe there are lies or contradictions in the word of God.

      Of course Paul points out that if a woman's husband hasn't died and she is found with another man, then she commits adultery. That's clear in Romans 7:2.

      But, again, why does Paul bring this up in the first place? To simply insist on virginity at marriage? Does he say that marriage is impossible to a non-virgin? No. He brings up this issue of marriage and adultery, as I've pointed out before, to illustrate a point--a larger issue. Read in Romans 7:4 right after that:

      "Consequently, my brethren, you also are put to death in the law through the body of Christ; for you to be found with another, who from the dead was raised in order that we should bear fruit for Yahweh....."

      Clearly, he is not talking here just about a marriage between a man and a woman here but rather about the marriage between Yahweh and Israel, using one to illustrate the other. The Big Picture, as I've stated before.

      And here's the important part Romans 7:6-

      "But now we are discharged from the law, being put to death in that which we were held, so that we are bound in newness of Spirit, and not oldness of the letter."

      There is the "letter of the law" as you want to emphasize, but there is also the new cleansing spirit, which is why I previously used John 4:17 illustrating the woman with five husbands. Why didn't Christ condemn her on the spot to eternal damnation for committing adultery 5 times?

      Perhaps we need to look at the difference between Yahweh's permissive will and His sovereign will. In that case, as you've pointed out, virgins being married is ideal; however, for the hardness of our hearts divorce was permitted in the Law of Moses.

      You also have to have some historical perspective on the laws of divorce 2,000 years ago and more. If a man put his wife away, divorced her for whatever reason, she was consigned to a life on the streets literally. She had no property rights and no way of supporting herself. If her family or friends didn't take her in, she could very likely have to turn to prostitution. This was a major reason why a divorce for a woman was so important--it could very well lead her into a life of sin.

      But through Christ, we have an advocate who allows us to repent in our hearts and actions, our fruits--not just lips. I am not advocating a Talmudic, no-fault concept of divorce here in any way. That's clearly an abomination.

      But from the perspective of Christian Identity, the main purpose of marriage and its laws is to preserve the purity of the Seedline of Adam down through Jacob Israel. That is why adultery and fornication (race mixing) are sins that can never be undone. If Yahweh were unconcerned about mixing the blood of Adam with the blood of the serpent (the Canaanites and Edomites), then there would be no reason for such strict laws about marriage and divorce.

    22. The fellowship of men in Corinth asked Paul to help them understand marriage in light of what happened on the Cross. These men are no different than us who ask the same questions.

      Paul wrote them a letter and gave them instructions regarding marriage.

      Chapter 7 verse 10, Paul begins by addressing the married. At verse 25 the focus shifts to Virgins.

      Paul writes, "There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord...."

      The Virgin is the Unmarried. Virgin = Unmarried.

      Paul then tells the fellowship that -- "A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes..." verse 39.

      You freely admit that Sex is the vehicle in which two flesh are joined as one flesh.

      When a woman has sex, she is joined to the man. This union is only breakable upon death.

      You claim to worship the Savior, but yet the Savior Himself said --

      "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

      It is right there in black and white. Jesus Himself says that the man who takes the woman joined is an adulterer. One either has to completely "twist" the passage; or deny it altogether.

      The joined woman is a married woman. If any man takes a non-virgin (excluding widows) for a wife; is in reality, taking another man's wife and is thus committing adultery.

      I did not say this. Our Lord and Savior said this.

      He also said -- Blessed are those who do His commandments....But outside are the dogs, the sexually immoral, the murderers and idolaters, and whoever practices a lie."

      You claim to worship Him, but yet spit in His face and call Him a liar by saying it is Ok to take or keep a non-virgin woman. Audacious!

      You believe want you want to believe. My mission is complete.

    23. Updated to include this discussion:

    24. @Roy
      I have tried to put this issue of marriage and divorce in the perspective of Christian Identity because that's what this whole thread is supposed to be about. You obviously have another agenda and are more concerned about your narrow interpretation of the Scripture and the Law as you want to interpret it. That's what traditional Judeo-minded Christians do.

      As I've stated before, yes, Paul set forth what marriage should ideally be. The Corinthinians asked Paul for his moral guidance of how the members of their congregation should conduct themselves. They asked him if an adulterer should be cast out of their congregation. And he said yes, but only if they are unrepentant. That's the part you don't want to acknowledge. Repentance.

      Is Christ lying when He tells the Israelites that they have Grace under the New Covenant? Will Christ bestow His Grace on the adulterer? According to your point of view, it would seem not. Is Paul a liar when he states clearly in Romans 11:26

      "All of Israel shall be saved."

      And Roy, that means even those evil non-virgins who have remarried, regardless of what you may want to believe.

      Paul himself openly admits that he formerly lived a life of sin as a Pharisee. How much further away from Yahweh's Law can you get from that? How many of Yahweh's Laws did Paul violate being a Pharisee? And yet Christ chose him as one of his apostles. Why? It's simple. The Grace of Christ, who knew that Paul was truly repentant.

      If you will not allow redemption from sin and errors, what's the point of being a Christian? Yahweh loves all of His Seed, even when they sin against Him and break his Laws. If Yahweh won't allow for repentance, then He would have destroyed Eve after she was seduced by the serpent and gave birth to His enemy, the Seedline of Lucifer through Cain. Paul and John both affirmed this, but you deny it.

      One of the many sins committed by the Pharisees is that they sat in judgment of Israelites and exacted earthly vengeance with no mercy based on the letter of the law, including stoning to death for transgressions. We see the same hard-heartedness in the character of the Jew, Shylock, in "The Merchant Of Venice." It sounds to me like these Jewish-minded serpents are your moral role models.

      Before you condemn the millions of non-virgin "marriages" among White Israelites, you should look at your own life and see how often you have violated many of Yahweh's laws--and you had better belief in his Grace, and hope He hears you when you ask for repentance. After all, it was you who "cast the first stone...."

    25. @Roy
      And I would like to add one relevant side note of importance to you as a Christian. The handle that you use, "Roy Hobs," I assume is based on the character "Roy Hobbs" from the book, "The Natural" written by the Talmudic Jew, Bernard Malamud, correct?

      The problems in Roy's life are brought about because he committed adultery--he went to bed with a woman, i.e., "married" her, and then dumped her. In retribution, she shot him. Whether or not she was a virgin at the time is not made clear.

      Of course, Roy Hobbs shows no repentance for his sin, and ultimately in the book at least, he is a failure--he strikes out at the end and all is lost. In the movie version, this is changed, and Hobbs saves the day, hits a home run and wins the championship.

      But he also commits another adultery with a childhood sweetheart who ultimately bears a child with him.

      We can expect a Jew like Bernard Malamud to create such a degenerate character, such as Roy Hobbs, to undermine White America's great pastime. What's surprising, though, is how White America embraces such a character--the leaven of the Pharisees.

      After you've gone on and on about marriage and adultery, don't you find it ironic in the least that this is the name you've chosen to identify yourself as? This multiple adulterer is someone you admire so much that you've taken on his identity?

      If I were you, I'd serious reconsider the choice of your handle, at least if you want to want to be consistent, and not double-minded. If we are not constantly vigilant as Christians, the leaven of the Pharisees will find its way into our lives. And this name, Roy Hobbs, is a perfect example.

  9. John - You and Eli have done a good job covering the basics and have to give Eli credit. There is one thing though which caused the great divide between he and Bill, and of course Eli conveniently did not bring up during these recent shows. He very well covered the imposters, however the topic never really drifted to the origins of Black, Mongolian races. You now understand Yahweh God created Adamic Man, that's it. None other. So what about the former? You understand the Watchers (fallen angels) seduced Eve (Cain), seduced Adamic women (Giants), but in the Book of Enoch the evidence shows the other so called races are the result of hybridizing. Enoch uses the term "generating" and not creating. The other races come from angel-animal unions. For an angel could take the form of a man and surely could take the form of an animal.
    Now back to Eli.....Eli claims upon the 2nd Advent, blacks will go back to Africa, Mexicans back to Mexico etc etc and Adamic Man will be in their lands. Just absurd. The is as Bill says nothing more than a twisted form of Universalism. Suggest you challenge Eli on this topic. A hybrid being is a Tare and is bound for destruction. This entire earth will be the dwelling of Adamic Man, none other. Praise Yahweh!


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.