Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Identity
Message-ID: <4290@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 23:00:31 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4290
Posted: Sun Mar 24 23:00:31 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 11:01:30 EST
References: <1243@decwrl.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 116

In article <1243@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes:

>	3.  Christ is not a Jew.  (It's sometimes confusing to write about
>	a Person Who exists for all time, but for a period in the past
>	walked as a Man.)  As Christ, the Man, He was born as a Galillean
>	of the Israelite tribe of Judah.  He followed the Israelite/Hebrew
>	religious practices common to the area.  He was sent not to the 
>	"Jews," but rather to the lost nations of Israel (one specific 
>	reference to this is in Luke 22, I believe.)

Not in my Bible.  Jesus at one point says "I was sent only to the lost
*sheep* of Israel" to the Canaanite woman, with the clear implication that
those he has been teaching and ministering to ARE the house of Israel. (Matt.
15:24)  I do not understand why you believe that these people are not the
ancestors of todays Jews.

>	4.  Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of
>	Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel.  Now, the Bible usually 
>	refers only to TWELVE tribes of Israel.  Jacob, of course, had
>	twelve sons, one of whom was Joseph (with the coat of many colors).
>	As Jacob was dieing, he put a special blessing on Joseph's two
>	sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and rearranged the tribe of Joseph as
>	a twin tribe (sort of like having twelve births, one of which is
>	a set of twins, making thirteen children.)  Further, at one point
>	the tribe of Levi (the priests) are dispersed amongst the other 
>	twelve.
>
>	6.  America (which for our definition includes both the US and
>	Canada) was founded by Christians who knew they were Israelites.
>	They immediately made it perfectly clear that the new nation was
>	founded only for Christian purposes.  (Example:  the Mayflower
>	Compact.)  The laws of the original colonies made it obvious
>	that this was to be a Christian nation, and the original intent
>	was that it would stay that way.  The Declaration of Independence,
>	the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787 are
>	all based on scriptural law.  The Common Law accepted throughout
>	the Nation is scriptural in origin.

Grossly wrong.  These passages betray a lack of elementary knowledge of
Puritan theology and history.  The notion of being the new Israel is a
metaphor; it was never intended to imply that there was some sort of lineal
descent from Jacob.  Furthermore, English Common Law is based mostly upon
Anglo-Saxon law, whose primary roots are pagan.

>	Regarding the Jews, we believe:

>	1.  They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his
>	birthright for a bowl of beans.  (Read scripture to find out
>	the exploits of Esau.)  These people eventually became known as
>	the Canaanites, amongst others.  Esau was very prolific.

>	2.  At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes
>	and Pharisees.  Christ had absolutely nothing good to say about them.
>	In fact, He even identified them directly as the sons of Satan 
>	(in John 8 as I recall).  

He also identifies them as sons of Abraham; clearly the reference is
metaphorical.  These two statements contradicgt scripture, not to mention
alomst every historical account.  As far as I know, there is no direct
evidence to support these claims.

>	4.  Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ
>	condemned.  (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit
>	reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which
>	the Jewish author actually admits this.  I personnally don't 
>	like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.)

Wrong.  The theological traditions of modern jewry derive from pharisiac
origins, but the people we now know are the descendants of Jacob, and are
the true Israel.  No other group, especially a group of Teutons, Saxons, and
Celts, has any valid claim to the title.

>	5.  The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites."

>	7.  It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the
>	religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon.  Remember that the
>	Israelites were in captivity in Babylon for a period of time, and
>	many Israelites adopted the religion and practices of Babylon.
>	Christ also condemned the "ancient traditions of men" that were
>	practiced by the Pharisees.

Another falsehood.  It is called the BABYLONIAN Talmud because it was
largely compiled in that area (I believe, but I'm not certain on this point).
The Talmud does not begin to exist in its present form until the time of
Christ and even later.  The claim that its contents have anything to do with
Babylon is utterly wrong; it is simply a way to hand the whore's name around
the Jew's necks.  In point of fact, it is quite clear that Babylon in the
Revelation is to be identified with ROme, anyway.

>	     Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple
>	passion?  This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of 
>	the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up
>	by archeology, history, and tradition.

I cannot believe this.  All of the evidence I know of contradicts this.  I
can understand why the Jews would not like these statements; you are trying
to deprive them of the birthright.  Your implicit denial of the holocaust
tends to indicate that your 'knoledge' of history is rotten to the core.

>	     As I have stated previously, These are VALID religious concepts.
>	They are recognized even by the IRS.  And they really have no conflict
>	with the theology of any established religion  (Correction:  any
>	CHRISTIAN religion).  Is it racist?  Only mildly so.  Is it Nazism?
>	Well, take a look at who's calling it that.  Is it "nice?"  Maybe not.
>	Is it true?  That's up to the individual to decide, after all, it's
>	still a free country, isn't it?  Aren't we all committed to keeping it
>	that way?

 What an apology.  First of all, what you claim certainly contradicts the
teachings of the Episcopal Church, the Romans, almost any other protestant
group, every Orthodox church.... need I go on?  

Well, it is apparent to me, at any rate, that this system is fabricated out
of a lot of misinformation, at best.

Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe