Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Protesters say no to the Facist song

Expand Messages
  • Fred blahous
    Replies follow; ... the ... were, and ... Moabite (maybe ... law and ... etc.. Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite (African) and
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Replies follow;


      > > G'day Larry,
      > >
      > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in
      the
      > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
      > > inillegible for citizenship,
      >
      > By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain groups
      were, and
      > those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a
      Moabite (maybe
      > others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow Yahweh's
      law and
      > becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the Land
      > (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote, serve,
      etc..

      Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite
      (African) and Moabite (Asian). Curious, that these should be the
      only ones specifically mentioned? Most likely, when the regulations
      came in, God was doing it to keep the Israelis permanently seperated
      from Japeth and Ham. The implication is that all nations should be
      mono-ethnically formed after the pattern given to the three sons of
      Noah. If we accept the 1644 premise that all European, Turkic, and
      Hebrew people share a common blood, (lost Ten Tribes of Israel),
      then full citizenship as well as marriage rights would be limited on
      those lines. As for those who were allowed were to join the
      Gentiles Court. There is no mention of suffrage for them. They would
      obviously have had their own judges. So back then, there would have
      been restricted citizenship, even for other tribes of similar
      appearance to the Hebrews.
      >
      > > No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
      > > excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
      > > immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking.
      >
      > I would be cautious asserting that the nation could impose
      restrictions
      > other than the one God gave them to follow. As a matter of fact;
      I would
      > say that they could not do so.

      Clearly, the Regulative Principle is only for worship, and not for
      the whole of life. As long as they passed no laws explicitly
      forbidden in the pentateuch, the kings and judges would have a free
      hand to regulate. If they cannot legislate anything, it makes little
      sense to retain a magistratical office.

      > > both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling
      all
      > > persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
      > > state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
      > > Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace,
      Crete
      > > and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you
      mention
      > > could easily be invoked.
      >
      > See, the difference is that the "strangers/aliens" could *be*
      anything, but
      > theyt couldn't *do* just anything. Public teaching, public
      idolatry, even
      > private proselityzing, treason against Yahweh or the king, etc
      would still
      > be crimes. Anyone calling for Shari'ah law should be executed
      immediately,
      > for instance. Sharpshooters should drop the muzzeins from the
      minarets at
      > the call to prayer.
      >
      > And, given the current situation, Christian countries should band
      together
      > to wipe Islam from the face of the earth. It has blatlantly
      declared war on
      > Christianity.

      I agree that no-one can suffer prosecution or penalty for being
      something, but civil and political rights are different from human
      rights. The latter prevents harrassment, the former confers a
      conditional privilage. Strictly speaking, a lawful government could
      exist, even if no-one but the king could make policy, and he were to
      do that via decree. It wouldn't be the best system, but it would not
      be unlawful. So mere civil rights, being merely a privilage, may be
      revoked for cause, or permanently inapplicable. For instance, it
      would be bad law to allow women to do paid work. Penalties for
      hiring women to do paid work would certainly be appropriate, and yet
      a privilage is restricted without it being oppressive. The same
      could hold true for prosecuting anyone hiring a border jumper. The
      jobs are intended for men, rather than women. They are also intended
      for Britains, rather than Spanish Conquistodores, in the case of
      America. See what I am getting at?
      > Larry

      All the best to you,
      Fred.
      >
      >
      > --
      > No virus found in this outgoing message.
      > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date:
      3/28/2006
      >
    • Fred blahous
      G day Edgar, You are right. I shouldn t have confused the two. There are many Christian Arabs out there. Quite a few of them living right here in Queensland.
      Message 2 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        G'day Edgar,

        You are right. I shouldn't have confused the two. There are many
        Christian Arabs out there. Quite a few of them living right here in
        Queensland.

        All the best,
        Fred.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
        Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Fred,
        >
        > Just a correction on your classification of people. Just because
        one is
        > an Arab, that does not mean they are Muslims. Remember the largest
        > Muslim nation is just north of you, namely Indonesia, and they are
        NOT
        > Arabs. There are many Arabs that are Christians, and even
        > Presbyterian/Reformed ones:
        >
        > http://merf.woh.gospelcom.net/ <http://merf.woh.gospelcom.net/>
        >
        > So be cautious in your lumping of people groups, especially when
        > violance is advocated.
        >
        > Not only do I pray for the destruction of Papal Anti-Christ, I
        also pray
        > for the down fall of Islam.
        >
        >
        >
        > War against Rome and Mecca,
        >
        > Edgar
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
        > <fritzbau@> wrote:
        > >
        > > G'day Larry,
        > >
        > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in
        the
        > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
        > > inillegible for citizenship, and certain other restrictions
        apply.
        > > No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
        > > excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
        > > immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking.
        Certainly,
        > > both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling
        all
        > > persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
        > > state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
        > > Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace,
        Crete
        > > and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you
        mention
        > > could easily be invoked. We also have the issue of sedition and
        > > subversion from Muslim populations in the west. Jews and Asians
        > > contribute wealth to us and pose a net benefit, Arabs tend only
        to
        > > contribute crime and bombing attacks, as we have seen throughout
        the
        > > world, especially in Tel Aviv. If we removed the Muslim threat on
        > > our own doorstep, their would be no need to keep any troops in
        the
        > > Mid East, and they could all go home to their families again.
        > >
        > > All the best,
        > > Fred.
        > >
        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
        > > lbump@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: "James" jim043@>
        > > > > James replies:
        > > > >
        > > > > Do you have a scripture reference for that?
        > > >
        > > > All the OT talks about "the alien among you".
        > > > The fact that non-Israelites would live in the land is assumed,
        > > and they are
        > > > protected.
        > > >
        > > > Larry
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
        > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        > > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
        > > 3/23/2006
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
        Fred, Are you a member of or an adherent of Christian Identity? Do you believe that the lost tribes of Israel are the Europeans of today? Oh, if God meant to
        Message 3 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Fred,

          Are you a member of or an adherent of Christian Identity? Do you
          believe that the lost tribes of Israel are the Europeans of today? Oh,
          if God meant to keep Israelis' blood separate from the Moabites (you
          class them as Asians), then god FAILED, because in Jesus' bloodline
          there is a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2 & Matthew 1:5).

          Thanks,

          Edgar Ibarra

          Communicant Member-RPNA

          Albany Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church

          Albany, New York


          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
          <fritzbau@...> wrote:
          >
          > Replies follow;
          >
          >
          > > > G'day Larry,
          > > >
          > > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in
          > the
          > > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
          > > > inillegible for citizenship,
          > >
          > > By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain groups
          > were, and
          > > those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a
          > Moabite (maybe
          > > others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow Yahweh's
          > law and
          > > becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the Land
          > > (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote, serve,
          > etc..
          >
          > Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite
          > (African) and Moabite (Asian). Curious, that these should be the
          > only ones specifically mentioned? Most likely, when the regulations
          > came in, God was doing it to keep the Israelis permanently seperated
          > from Japeth and Ham. The implication is that all nations should be
          > mono-ethnically formed after the pattern given to the three sons of
          > Noah. If we accept the 1644 premise that all European, Turkic, and
          > Hebrew people share a common blood, (lost Ten Tribes of Israel),
          > then full citizenship as well as marriage rights would be limited on
          > those lines. As for those who were allowed were to join the
          > Gentiles Court. There is no mention of suffrage for them. They would
          > obviously have had their own judges. So back then, there would have
          > been restricted citizenship, even for other tribes of similar
          > appearance to the Hebrews.
          > >
        • Fred blahous
          G day Edgar, I am most certainly not an Identity cultist. Unfortunately, certain devious men with hatred for others stole the beautiful Anglo-Israeli teaching
          Message 4 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            G'day Edgar,


            I am most certainly not an Identity cultist. Unfortunately, certain
            devious men with hatred for others stole the beautiful Anglo-Israeli
            teaching and twisted it around into a fascistic creed. The movements
            of Armstrongism and Kinsmen Redeemer, Identity, et al are based upon
            premises in diametric opposition to the original teachings of the
            first Anglo-Israeli movement. Contrast the following;

            1. Identity believes that Jews are either the product of illicit
            union between Eve and Satan, or the descendents of Essau (Edom).
            a. Anglo-Israeli's believe the Jews are the descendents of the Two
            Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the former being the Line of Christ.

            2. Identity believes that other races are "mud people" and not of
            the lines of Noah's three sons. As such, Christ is not for them.
            b. Anglo-Israeli's believe all white people are descendents of Shem,
            all Asiatics are descendents of Japeth, and all Africans are
            descendents of Ham. Under the New Covenant, no people are excluded
            from the claims of Christ, and all have equal access. No one is
            excluded from the obligations to the laws, OT or NT.

            3. Identity proposes a mere tribal god like the Wodinic cult which
            is sadly reviving in response to mass apostasy throughout Europe.
            c. Anglo-Israeli's believe the scope of salvation is universal (not
            confined to one land), but also local (National Establishment of
            local church in each kingdom).

            I think it's important to realise that not all who see Europeans as
            descendents of the Lost Tribes maintain the hateful teachings of
            Armstrongism. The original 1644 treatise on the topic was made by a
            confessional Presbyterian from England, and later taken up by an
            Episcopal minister in England who wrote the seminal treatise on what
            is called "British Israel". Cromwell actually made use of the 1644
            treatise to promote the return of the exiles in 1655, and it is
            simply appalling to see it used today for the exact opposite purpose
            from that originally intended.

            As for Ruth, she is simply referred to as a lady living in Moabite
            territory, and not as an ethnic Moabitess. This could inferr an
            Israelite living in Moab.

            All the best,
            Fred.

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
            Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Fred,
            >
            > Are you a member of or an adherent of Christian Identity? Do
            you
            > believe that the lost tribes of Israel are the Europeans of today?
            Oh,
            > if God meant to keep Israelis' blood separate from the Moabites
            (you
            > class them as Asians), then god FAILED, because in Jesus' bloodline
            > there is a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2 & Matthew 1:5).
            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > Edgar Ibarra
            >
            > Communicant Member-RPNA
            >
            > Albany Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church
            >
            > Albany, New York
            >
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
            > <fritzbau@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Replies follow;
            > >
            > >
            > > > > G'day Larry,
            > > > >
            > > > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers
            in
            > > the
            > > > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
            > > > > inillegible for citizenship,
            > > >
            > > > By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain
            groups
            > > were, and
            > > > those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a
            > > Moabite (maybe
            > > > others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow
            Yahweh's
            > > law and
            > > > becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the
            Land
            > > > (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote,
            serve,
            > > etc..
            > >
            > > Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite
            > > (African) and Moabite (Asian). Curious, that these should be the
            > > only ones specifically mentioned? Most likely, when the
            regulations
            > > came in, God was doing it to keep the Israelis permanently
            seperated
            > > from Japeth and Ham. The implication is that all nations should
            be
            > > mono-ethnically formed after the pattern given to the three sons
            of
            > > Noah. If we accept the 1644 premise that all European, Turkic,
            and
            > > Hebrew people share a common blood, (lost Ten Tribes of Israel),
            > > then full citizenship as well as marriage rights would be
            limited on
            > > those lines. As for those who were allowed were to join the
            > > Gentiles Court. There is no mention of suffrage for them. They
            would
            > > obviously have had their own judges. So back then, there would
            have
            > > been restricted citizenship, even for other tribes of similar
            > > appearance to the Hebrews.
            > > >
            >
          • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
            Fred, Wrote... ... How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that contradicts your words: And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee,
            Message 5 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              Fred,

              Wrote...

              >
              > As for Ruth, she is simply referred to as a lady living in Moabite
              > territory, and not as an ethnic Moabitess. This could inferr an
              > Israelite living in Moab.
              >
              > All the best,
              > Fred.

              How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that contradicts your words:

              And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people my people, and thy God my God.   Ruth 1:16

               

              And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi… Ruth 2:2

               

              And Ruth the Moabitess said,… Ruth 2:21

               

              An Israelite living in Moab, I think NOT!  That would be Naomi NOT Ruth.

               

              For in Christ there is NO distinction

              of persons,

              Edgar Ibarra

            • Nikolai
              ... Edgar, even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is clearly stated: And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:

                > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that
                > contradicts your words:
                >
                > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from following
                > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I
                > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God. Ruth 1:16

                <snip>

                Edgar,
                even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is clearly
                stated:

                And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the one was
                Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten
                years.

                "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if she was
                living in Moab at the time.

                Nikolai
              • Cheryl Grenon
                How Christian Identity gets around this is to state that earlier in their history, Israelites moved into Moab s land and populated it so that they are really
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  How Christian Identity gets around this is to state that earlier in their history, Israelites moved into Moab's land and populated it so that they are really Israelites and not Moabites living there.  They are just using the place name to call themselves by.
                   
                  Cheryl -- who, unfortunately, has way too good an aquaintance with Christian Identity
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Nikolai
                  Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:00 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Fred, two questions...

                  Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:

                  > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that
                  > contradicts your words:
                  >
                  > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from following
                  > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I
                  > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God.   Ruth 1:16

                  <snip>

                  Edgar,
                  even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is clearly
                  stated:

                  And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the one was
                  Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten
                  years.

                  "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if she was
                  living in Moab at the time.

                  Nikolai





                • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                  Ah, yes Nikolai, thank you for pointing that out! I must have missed that when I read the text. Thanks again! ... God that ... following ... lodgest, I ...
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 11, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ah, yes Nikolai, thank you for pointing that out! I must have
                    missed that when I read the text.

                    Thanks again!


                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Nikolai
                    <psalmos@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:
                    >
                    > > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of
                    God that
                    > > contradicts your words:
                    > >
                    > > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from
                    following
                    > > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou
                    lodgest, I
                    > > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God. Ruth
                    1:16
                    >
                    > <snip>
                    >
                    > Edgar,
                    > even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is
                    clearly
                    > stated:
                    >
                    > And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the
                    one was
                    > Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there
                    about ten
                    > years.
                    >
                    > "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if
                    she was
                    > living in Moab at the time.
                    >
                    > Nikolai
                    >
                  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                    Hello my sister Cheryl! I just recently read a C.I. web site the other day, boy the way they quote Calvin & Luther...yuck! anyways, having read the Book of
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 11, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello my sister Cheryl!

                      I just recently read a C.I. web site the other day, boy the way they
                      quote Calvin & Luther...yuck! anyways, having read the Book of
                      Mormon before, while eating a Burrito with hot sauce, just to make
                      sure I got a burning in my bossom and therefore get all I could out
                      of that Book...I found that both C.I. and the Mormons are really,
                      really good story tellers and excellent historical fiction writers.

                      hehehehehe.

                      Your Mexica brother in Christ,

                      Edgar

                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl Grenon"
                      <cheryl@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > How Christian Identity gets around this is to state that earlier
                      in their history, Israelites moved into Moab's land and populated it
                      so that they are really Israelites and not Moabites living there.
                      They are just using the place name to call themselves by.
                      >
                      > Cheryl -- who, unfortunately, has way too good an aquaintance with
                      Christian Identity
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: Nikolai
                      > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:00 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Fred, two questions...
                      >
                      >
                      > Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:
                      >
                      > > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of
                      God that
                      > > contradicts your words:
                      > >
                      > > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from
                      following
                      > > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou
                      lodgest, I
                      > > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God. Ruth
                      1:16
                      >
                      > <snip>
                      >
                      > Edgar,
                      > even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is
                      clearly
                      > stated:
                      >
                      > And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the
                      one was
                      > Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there
                      about ten
                      > years.
                      >
                      > "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if
                      she was
                      > living in Moab at the time.
                      >
                      > Nikolai
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -------------
                      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                      >
                      > a.. Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub" on the web.
                      >
                      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.
                      >
                      >
                      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -------------
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.