Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Identity Message-ID: <5617@duke.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 19:24:06 EST Article-I.D.: duke.5617 Posted: Mon Mar 25 19:24:06 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 02:44:34 EST Organization: Duke University Lines: 196 [*] My thanks to Don Black for a clear posting of the beliefs of Identity Christianity. As the net (well, 3 or 4 vocal members) has been clamouring for a response from some other Christian, I'll post my reply. Note that I am totally unacquainted with "Identity Christianity"; I am assuming that Don Black's articles accurately represent the position associated with that label. Before I begin, a query to Mr. Black: Is "Identity Christianity" a position you completely affirm, a position you only partly affirm, or a position you do not hold? If only partly, on what points do you disagree? (Just to clarify the nature of the discussion.) ******************************************************* > Basically, Identity Christians believe that: > > 1. The United States, based on scriptural reference and description, > is the true Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey. Personally, I would disagree, but this is the sort of thing that is difficult (impossible?) to verify or falsify, as it is simply the application of a metaphor to "reality". I am interested, however, in the reference to "scriptural reference and description": is it claimed that the U.S. can be demonstrated *based on the Bible* to be the "Promised Land"? I'm skeptical about that; I would like to see such a demonstration. > 2. God knew of the future existance of the United States.... Granted. > Christ, being God, obviously knew about it, too.... I would disagree that the deity of Christ implies his omniscience (Johannine writings notwithstanding), but I think this one is already being argued in net.religion.christian. > 3. Christ is not a Jew.... I need clarification here. Do you mean that Christ the man was not of Jewish descent and/or faith? (That's clearly false.) Or do you mean that Christ as the second person of the trinity is not more closely related to one ethnic group than another? (That would be correct.) > 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Again, I need clarification. Do you mean that Christians are biological descendants (false) or "spiritual"/ideological descendants (debatable, perhaps true) of the tribes of Israel? > 5. God dispersed the tribes because of their failure to trust > Him, and their failure to obey His Laws. As part of their punish- > ment, He told them they would forget who they were; they would lose > their identity. He promised, though, that He would send to them > a Light Who would show them the Way, and that through this Light they > would know that they are the Children of God, and that they would > know who they are, and that they would be known by a different > name--His name! (CHRISTians) The first sentence is OK, but the rest sounds strange. Can you justify this? > 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. I need an American history expert to help me out here. My understanding is that some but not all of the colonies were founded by people seeking religous freedom and that some but not all believed America to be a "Promised Land" or "new Israel". Some colonies (Massachusetts and perhaps Virginia, e.g.) had established churches; some did not. Many of the "founding fathers" were Deists, a faith which is not strictly Christian but has similarities, particularly in ethics, to Christianity. > By comparison, most of the accepted financial policies > in use today have their roots in ancient Babylon. This has > been shown by secular archeologists. There is scriptural > references to today's practices also. This sounds a bit strange, but I have no information about the financial practices of Babylon. > 7. Scriptural law, including but not limited to Mosaic Law, is binding > upon the Israelites.... Sounds OK, unless there is an unexpected double meaning to "Israelite" here. > 8. As prophecied in Revelation (Apocalype), in the End Time Days, > there will be a major battle between the forces of the Antichrist > and the Christians. Mystery Babylon, the Red whore, will be destroyed > starting from within. After a period of tribulation from which no > Christian will escape, Christ will return in triumph to aid His > Children Israel, and proclaim His Kingdom. > > 9. The Antichrist is anyone who is anti-Christ. Interpretation of the escatological writings of the Bible is difficult and probably not worth debating here. The position stated in #8-9 sounds like a reasonable but not unanimously held interpretation of Revelation and other texts. > 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. No. Esau was the brother of Jacob, both sons of Isaac. The descendants of Esau were the Edomites. The descendants of Jacob, renamed Israel, were the Israelites. The nation of Israel divided, after the reign of Solomon, into the nations of Israel and Judah. Israel was conquered by Assyria, Judah by Babylon. During this time of "exile" in Babylon the people of Judah became known as Jews (from the word "Judah"). The Canaanites were distinct from both Israelites and Edomites. > 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes > and Pharisees.... Scribes and Pharisees were only two of several groups within Judaism at that time. > 3. Irregardless of the proclaimation of Vatican II, St. Paul > tells us that it was in fact the Jews who nailed Christ to the > Cross. (It is a valid point of dicussion as to whether or not > modern Jews still bear the responsibility for the Crucifixion. > After all, the crime took place two millennia ago. Should the > descendents of the criminals be held liable to punishment for > crimes of their forefathers? Personally, I don't believe so.) Christ was condemned by *a group of* Jews, and the execution was carried out by the branch of the Roman government in Judea. It is *not* a valid point of discussion whether modern Jews are responsible, though I suppose we should discuss it long enough to dismiss it: THE JEWISH PEOPLE AS A GROUP ARE *NOT* RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Not even all first-century Jews were responsible, much less modern Jews. > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned.... See #2: I imagine most of the sects of first century Judaism have modern descendants. Tim Maroney may well be right, however, in claiming that the Pharisees became the dominant group and that it is their thought which "won out". Note that Christ's condemnation of the religious establishment of his time cannot be taken (well, not without substantial further argument) as a condemnation of Judaism in general. > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." "Therefore"? I see no basis for this. > 6. However, scripture says there is salvation for all flesh that > believes in Christ. OK. > 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the > religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon.... I do not have adequate information to respond on this point. > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple > passion? I certainly do. They have every right to "hate Identity Christian[ity] with a purple passion". Some of the positions stated above would be very offensive (I expect) to a Jew. > 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? Yes, it is a free country, and Identity Christians have as much right to life, liberty, and net access as anyone, *assuming* their freedom is not acted upon in such a way as to harm others. > Sleep well tonight. A chilling ending. I will sleep a little less well, perhaps, than I might have. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt