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

Fred, two questions...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.