These People Are The Real Chosen People of Your GOD (Only They Can Enter The 1,000 Year Kingdom)

[Liquid Reigns]

After having had this brought to my attention, I have taken the board troll off ignore to issue this as a statement to her and others that might have an interest. Reigns is begging for acknowledgment, but she isn't due any from me. Joe Kings summed it up best when he responded to Reigns in post #52 here with these words:

"A man making comments on something they have no idea about, is probably the dumbest thing a man can do. I couldnt imagine the fog you move around with on the daily. Fuckn dumb bitch"

Let's be honest, accurate and fair. Reigns is a for real fed that gets paid to start pissing matches in the hopes of entrapping people for hate crimes. She pretends to know something about subject matter that she knows nothing about. Those she chose to call out owe her nothing and don't bother responding to those desperate attempts to school you on the topics in question on this particular thread.

Her method of operation is to tell you I don't know what I'm talking about. Then she goes to resisters (or whatever other board I might be posting on), Googles words, phrases and names in the vain hope of deceiving people into believing she is a student of history and / or the Bible by giving us her view based on the left wing swill she Googles. After Googling what others are talking about, she pretends to have a monopoly on understanding. She doesn't. I will respond to one criticism just to expose what this individual does. She mentions E. Raymond Capt and cast aspersions on him. Yet Capt was a part of the academia that Reigns claims "debunked" his work. She is lying. Capt lectured at many major universities in the U.S. and abroad all during his life. Until the last 25 - 30 years, the Anglo Israel thesis was not politicized and isn't known today. The majority of people condemning the thesis confuse it with Christian Identity (which is a movement). Because Capt was an archaeologist and a pyramidologist his findings are accepted by seedliners and non-seedliners, not to mention people that are historians, scientists, etc. as opposed to religionists.

EVERYTHING that Reigns said about that individual is pure bloviating. The balance of her puffery is B.S. as well, not deserving of any response. Reigns has stalked me for over 15 years after having lost an initial debate with me. She has to be getting paid because nobody with an IQ above their shoe size would put so much time in following me for free.

This is the only response that our resident federal informant is due. If you really want to know where Reigns got her material from check this out:

https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/335/bible-1

In the more than fifteen years that Reigns has followed and criticized me, this thread was the FIRST time she mentioned any of the stuff you find in Reply # 2 to the above link. Do you know why? It was the first time I brought up the issues. She didn't even know they existed until that thread. If you want to know why I don't give that POS any more acknowledgment than I have, see this:

You must answer me now | RESISTERS FORUM

Why do you have a fascination with spanking grown men?

resisters.freeforums.net

I didn't give her the courtesy of reading beyond the above quoted post nor will I. All of her criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence. She won't access all the facts, but if this topic interests you, I'm sure you know how to click on links.

As I said, they can't refute any of the facts when their claims come from WIKI. Dumb fukn clown.

What does Resister claim: https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/335/bible-1?page=1&scrollTo=2291

Thank you for specifically mentioning Capt in your post. It came in useful to respond to a troll. It is interesting to note that Capt plays a pivotal role as he and his father were the the two most experienced and relied upon authorities on this subject during their lifetimes. Good article on Wikipedia as well. During my time in Bible college (two full time years) we had to read six books written by Capt and I got to attend four lectures he did at a major university a few decades back. If you haven't read his books Study in Pyramidology and MISSING LINKS DISCOVERED IN ASSYRIAN TABLETS: Lost Tribes I highly recommend them. Finally, for a secular look at the Anglo Saxons as a race check out The History of the Anglo Saxons by Sharon Turner (it has three volumes and lots of pages to read through).

E. Raymond Capt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What's even more laughable is that the WIKI page makes claims that aren't verified by its own citations. Let's look at citation 3 where it claims he received a M.A. in Christian History and Biblical Archaeology from Covenant College in Lake Wales, Florida. There is a Warner University, located in Lake Wales, Florida, which is a private Christian university affiliated with the Church of God (which is probably a simple course to getting ordained in said racist dumb shit religion being how the Church of God is affiliated with the Anglo Israelites). They meant the university affiliated with the Church of God, kind of like how Kingdom Identity Ministries has a Bible course, see here and note that it is the very symbol the Resister uses for his avatar: https://kingidentity.com/ait.htm ). Note KIM is the American Institute of Theology.


Citation 4: Capt was an instructor at the American Institute of Theology. He was on the lecturing staff of the Institute of Pyramidology of Great Britain. the American Institute of Theology links to... wait for it..................................... Kingdom Identity Ministries (where Resister took his study course). It then goes on with the following for the Institute of Pyramidology of Great Britain, which isn't exactly an "archeological or an pyramidoligist in the since of going out in the field and actually doing archeology or actually even touching the pyramids". It refers to theories and theoretical ideological racist stupidity that hey interpreted from "this look similar to this so then this must be this":

Adam Rutherford, a British Israelite, founded an institute called the Institute for Pyramidology in London, England, in 1940. This institute became international with the launch of Pyramidology Magazine in 1941, focusing on “Divine Revelation” and prophecies.

Additionally, British authors such as Basil Stewart, David Davidson, and H. Aldersmith wrote books on pyramidology, exploring the idea that the Great Pyramid of Giza contains encoded predictions, including future events. John Taylor, another British pyramidologist, is often credited as the “founder of pyramidology” due to his 1859 book, which proposed that the pyramid was divinely inspired and built by the Hebrews.

While these individuals and publications demonstrate an interest in pyramidology in Great Britain, there is no conclusive evidence of a dedicated institution or organization specifically named “Institute of Pyramidology of Great Britain” (its like calling a Janitor a Facilities Manager, embellished title to look more important and give credibility where none is due ) or any evidence that they were actual archeologists.

To keep going is laughable. Are these dumb asses truly this fukn stupid?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

The debate over this "Christian Identity" name is always getting in the way of a productive discussion regarding what the Bible is about. In the final analysis, nobody cares about the details regarding Christian Identity. It has become a scare term used to dissuade people from thinking about their heritage, culture and destiny. The 1960s and the overwhelming majority of the 1970s were before my time and even the ADL cannot state with a certainty who was the first person to say the term Christian Identity. What IS relevant is that whether one is a seedline believer or non-seedline, the facts regarding the history of the White, Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian, Teutonic, Germanic and kindred people are known by honest researchers, among them being men like E. Raymond Capt and his father before him.

What I can say is that the people who do use the term Christian Identity have decided that I don't qualify. So, who am I to question them? On their side they have Geronimo (Jeremy Visser), Martin Lindstedt, etc. and I will never be breaking bread with them. They do NOT have a direct connection to Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet nor the American Institute of Theology and its remaining offshoot Kingdom Identity Ministries. None of them graduated from the American Institute of Theology; I'd bet none of them took any courses from Kingdom Identity Ministries. They don't know the material. THAT has been discussed on the board. Bear in mind that I graduated from Bible college before Mike Hallimore gained control of the American Institute of Theology and the copyrights to Swift's works. I never heard the term "Christian Identity" until years later. While the media might imagine all these great connections between the various groups, none exists. If not for people thinking we share the same religious ideology as other groups the media and mainstream labeled "Christian Identity" I wouldn't give a rat's rear end what they call me. But, I'm not affiliated with those groups, don't know the majority of them, and it is questionable that we believe the same things outside of the history of identifying biblical Israelites.

You will find that there are many variations of those who are labeled Christian Identity, but we are Christian Israelites and subscribe to the seedline doctrine. Other things we believe:

The world was not created in six days, but in six periods of time (as the original word yome, in Genesis translated "days," was used)
The Flood was not worldwide, but limited to the area that was understood by the writers
Pre-Adamites were on the earth for an untold number of years before Adam

In "Christian Identity" they argue over all kinds of things such as whether to observe the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday; Rapture vs. No Rapture; whether it is okay to celebrate non_Israelite holidays, etc., etc. The Anglo Israelite Christian Church is a separate denomination wherein those who claim to be Christian Identity have stated we are NOT Identity. So, honest writers won't lump us all together and attempt to make a connection that doesn't exist in reality. Case closed.

Your response attempts to distance the "Anglo Israelite Christian Church" from the broader label of Christian Identity, yet the core beliefs you describe—such as the seedline doctrine and the identification of white Europeans as the true Israelites—are fundamentally connected to the same discredited ideologies. The historical and theological claims you make, including those based on the work of E. Raymond Capt, are not supported by credible scholarship.

The attempt to create a distinction between your beliefs and those of Christian Identity appears to be more about distancing from the negative connotations associated with that label than about genuine theological differences. The doctrines you espouse, particularly those related to race and biblical lineage, remain rooted in the same fringe interpretations that have been thoroughly debunked by mainstream historians, theologians, and geneticists.

Furthermore, while you advocate for a non-literal interpretation of certain biblical narratives, such as the creation story and the Flood, these interpretations seem selectively applied to support your ideological positions. This selective hermeneutics undermines the credibility of your theological arguments.

In the end, whether one subscribes to the label "Christian Identity" or "Anglo Israelite Christian Church," the fundamental problem remains: the beliefs are based on a revisionist interpretation of both history and scripture, driven by racial ideologies rather than a pursuit of truth. It is important to engage with scripture and history in a manner that respects both the text and the evidence, rather than twisting them to fit preconceived notions of race and identity.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

JohnDrake said:

Mam

You are not qualified to judge anyone's religion on this forum or any other. You never heard of the people that were mentioned until they were brought up by The Resister. You wait for others to say something and then you become an instant authority.
This may come as a surprise to you but all of us know how to use Google. You might get away with that elsewhere. It will not happen on my watch here. E. Raymond Capt was a for real person and nothing you have posted negates what has been provided on this board. You can blow smoke up someone elses backside but it will not be mine. You continue to make stuff up and you will continue to be exposed. Your bluffing and puffing cannot change reality.

As for theological differences that has been pointed out to you. If you are too stubborn or too stupid to accept reality that is on you. If someone is hiding what they believe or disbelieve you have failed to show where or what it is. The fact that you plagiarize your criticisms detracts from their credibility. You are no more a theologian than I am a nuclear physicist.


Having grown up as a Catholic the Catholic church does not necessarily hold to a six day creation. They leave the issue to Bible scholars and scholars are not in agreement. St. Thomas Aquinas left the door open by quoting St. Augustine on the matter. St. Augustine posited that the earth was created before days were measured. Additionally the Catholic church does not have an official position on whether or not the flood was a universal flood or something localized. You are out of touch with what scholars think and what they do not think as you are throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks.


What can be witnessed from your criticisms is that you tend to project a lot. Anglo Israelism is no more driven by racial ideologies than is the belief that Jews are entitled to a homeland in the Middle East and that they are special in the eyes of God. As someone that has been faced with examining these issues since coming here there has not been a time when race was used to promote superiority. You have been on a crusade here to try and destroy someone that you have not been able to get rid of. You have ignored the many attempts made here to learn what is at the root of it. As an outsider you are not in the same league as the man you are trying to harm. As an outsider if you were sincere you would ask questions rather than jump to conclusions. You have nothing except atheism and hatred driving you. You are wrong and nobody is willing to debate you because here and other boards know that you are trolling. I am sure you remember that other guy posting on another board talking about the fact that you like to talk about stuff you do not know anything about.

JohnDrake, your response is heavy on personal attacks and light on substance. Rather than addressing the specific points I raised, you've chosen to focus on discrediting me personally, which does little to advance the discussion. Let's refocus on the key issues at hand.

1. Expertise and Credibility: The validity of an argument is not solely dependent on the personal qualifications of the person making it, but on the evidence and reasoning presented. While you dismiss my arguments as "bluffing and puffing," you have not provided substantive counter-evidence to the critiques of E. Raymond Capt and other figures associated with Anglo-Israelism. Capt's work is widely regarded as speculative and ideologically driven, lacking the academic rigor required for credible historical analysis.

2. Theological Interpretation: You correctly point out that the Catholic Church allows for a range of interpretations regarding Genesis. However, this does not validate the seedline doctrine or Anglo-Israelism, which are widely rejected by mainstream Christian theologians and scholars. The selective use of theological arguments to support fringe ideologies is a hallmark of these movements, but it does not lend them credibility.

3. Racial Ideology: Your comparison between Anglo-Israelism and the belief in a Jewish homeland is a false equivalency. The modern Zionist movement is based on a combination of historical, religious, and political factors, not on a racial reinterpretation of scripture. In contrast, Anglo-Israelism is fundamentally about recasting biblical narratives to center white Europeans, which is why it has been criticized as a racial ideology.

4. Engagement and Debate: Accusing me of trolling or suggesting that I am on a "crusade" is a way to avoid engaging with the actual arguments I've made. If you believe that Anglo-Israelism or the seedline doctrine has merit, then the appropriate response is to present evidence and arguments that support these views, not to resort to personal attacks.

In conclusion, the core issues I raised remain unaddressed. The historical and theological foundations of Anglo-Israelism and the seedline doctrine are not supported by credible scholarship, and the attempt to distance these beliefs from accusations of racial ideology does not hold up under scrutiny. If you are willing to engage in a substantive discussion, I am open to it, but it needs to be based on evidence and reasoned argument, not on personal attacks and deflections.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

Thanks for setting the board troll straight, but I have no interest in what she thinks or what she posts. It is agreed that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Now that you have inspired me to move forward from the basic message and there is a post in an earlier thread with a single link to 14 hours of Bible study. That should be enough to get that message across. I want to address one thing here and then turn your thread back over to you. The people that criticize the Anglo Israel thesis miss the fact that numerous authorities are having to admit that there is substance to the claim. In one instance a Rabbi of all people admitted that the Irish were descendants of Israel. But that isn't the point. In order to move on it is important for others to know that we owe no human being any explanation for what we believe. I don't seek the validation of critics and when critics pretend that they have a monopoly on human virtue and understanding, the discussion is over. You taught me the value in just avoiding those kinds of people, putting them on ignore and moving on. I do want to point out that the left lies about this "Christian Identity" stuff. To quote one of those organizations the left loves to rely on, let's go to the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. They state:

"The Christian Identity movement developed out of John Wilson’s 19th-century theory of British Israelism."

That was a lie that we debunked already. Then there is this kind of misinformation from the left:

"Many CI followers also propagate what is variously called dual-seedline theory, two-seedline theory, or serpent-seed theory. Dual-seedline believers, or “seedliners”, claim that Cain was created by an ungodly affair with Eve and the Serpent (Satan), while Abel was created by Adam and Eve. ... The deaths of other prominent Christian Identity leaders like Wesley Swift, Pete Peters, and Willaim Potter Gale also contributed to the decline of the traditional CI movement. ...Another designated CI organization, Eurofolk Radio, operates primarily as a website promoting a mixture of white nationalist and CI radio stations, rather than as a structured organization. Therefore, in our research, we did not consider these three organizations to be active Christian Identity organizations."

Okay, in order to be considered Christian Identity you must be a dual seedline adherent according to these crackpots. Yet Pete Peters did NOT believe in dual seedlines. And Eurofolk, which does believe in dual seedline isn't counted. I love being among those that aren't counted. But, the overall message here is that all the crap you find about what some self styled groups may or may not be teaching simply does not apply to the the Anglo Israelite Christian Church nor has it ever. It didn't apply when we were a church under the banner of Kingdom Identity Ministries. The fact about all this is that I had no idea that William Finck was behind the 14 hours of lectures alluded to earlier. But, that stuff is applicable. Finck denies the Trinity so I would have a doctrinal difference with him. Since he is the head monkey and he claims I'm not Christian Identity, I take him at his word. Among the many allegations that the left hurls at their enemy "Christian Identity," most of the top churches have never advocated violence, National Socialism, etc.

Be that as it may we don't owe anyone an explanation; we don't need to justify our religious ideology; we don't need to meet anyone's standards except our own. For everything else, see my byline at the end of this post. Again, thanks for helping to expose that maggot. Now we can get down to business on this board.

The Resister, your response largely sidesteps the substantive issues I raised by dismissing my arguments as irrelevant and focusing instead on reinforcing in-group beliefs. However, the points I made deserve engagement, not dismissal. Let’s revisit the key issues:

1. Dismissing Criticism: Simply stating that you have no interest in what I think or post does not address the validity of my arguments. If your beliefs are as solid as you claim, they should be able to withstand scrutiny. Intellectual honesty requires engaging with opposing views, not shutting them down without consideration.

2. Unquestioned Beliefs: You assert that you owe no explanation for your beliefs. While you are entitled to hold personal beliefs, the moment those beliefs are presented in a public forum, they become subject to critique. This is how dialogue and understanding progress. If your beliefs are based on solid foundations, then they should be able to withstand public scrutiny and debate.

3. Selective Use of Authority: Your mention of an unnamed rabbi who allegedly supports the Anglo-Israel thesis is anecdotal and lacks context. Serious claims require a broader consensus, not isolated statements taken out of context. Moreover, dismissing critiques as "leftist misinformation" without addressing their content is an evasion, not a refutation.

4. Redefining Christian Identity: While it’s important to recognize diversity within movements, the underlying issues of racial ideology and reinterpretation of biblical narratives remain unaddressed. The fact that some within the movement reject violence or certain ideologies does not absolve the movement from the need for critical examination.

5. Engagement with Ideas: You mention that you don’t need to justify your ideology or meet anyone’s standards. While that may be true within your community, it does not hold in a public or intellectual forum. Ideas and beliefs, especially those that claim historical or theological legitimacy, should be open to discussion, critique, and, when necessary, refutation.

In conclusion, my criticisms remain unaddressed. The refusal to engage with them suggests an unwillingness to have these ideas tested against evidence and reasoned argumentation. If you believe in the strength of your positions, I invite you to engage with the arguments directly rather than dismissing them out of hand. This is the only way to foster meaningful dialogue and understanding.

 

[Mungri]

'Entrap for hate crimes' ... This shit exists in the US? WHAT???

Dear feds / uk cuck police - I HATE ALL HUMANS EQUALLY, I'M A FUCKING SATANIST / NIHILIST/ MISANTHROPE YA DUMB PLONKERS.

 

[TheFiend]

After having had this brought to my attention, I have taken the board troll off ignore to issue this as a statement to her and others that might have an interest. Reigns is begging for acknowledgment, but she isn't due any from me. Joe Kings summed it up best when he responded to Reigns in post #52 here with these words:

"A man making comments on something they have no idea about, is probably the dumbest thing a man can do. I couldnt imagine the fog you move around with on the daily. Fuckn dumb bitch"

Let's be honest, accurate and fair. Reigns is a for real fed that gets paid to start pissing matches in the hopes of entrapping people for hate crimes. She pretends to know something about subject matter that she knows nothing about. Those she chose to call out owe her nothing and don't bother responding to those desperate attempts to school you on the topics in question on this particular thread.

Her method of operation is to tell you I don't know what I'm talking about. Then she goes to resisters (or whatever other board I might be posting on), Googles words, phrases and names in the vain hope of deceiving people into believing she is a student of history and / or the Bible by giving us her view based on the left wing swill she Googles. After Googling what others are talking about, she pretends to have a monopoly on understanding. She doesn't. I will respond to one criticism just to expose what this individual does. She mentions E. Raymond Capt and cast aspersions on him. Yet Capt was a part of the academia that Reigns claims "debunked" his work. She is lying. Capt lectured at many major universities in the U.S. and abroad all during his life. Until the last 25 - 30 years, the Anglo Israel thesis was not politicized and isn't known today. The majority of people condemning the thesis confuse it with Christian Identity (which is a movement). Because Capt was an archaeologist and a pyramidologist his findings are accepted by seedliners and non-seedliners, not to mention people that are historians, scientists, etc. as opposed to religionists.

EVERYTHING that Reigns said about that individual is pure bloviating. The balance of her puffery is B.S. as well, not deserving of any response. Reigns has stalked me for over 15 years after having lost an initial debate with me. She has to be getting paid because nobody with an IQ above their shoe size would put so much time in following me for free.

This is the only response that our resident federal informant is due. If you really want to know where Reigns got her material from check this out:

https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/335/bible-1

In the more than fifteen years that Reigns has followed and criticized me, this thread was the FIRST time she mentioned any of the stuff you find in Reply # 2 to the above link. Do you know why? It was the first time it was brought up. She didn't even know they existed until that thread. If you want to know why I don't give that POS any more acknowledgment than I have, see this:

You must answer me now | RESISTERS FORUM

Why do you have a fascination with spanking grown men?

resisters.freeforums.net

I didn't give her the courtesy of reading beyond the above quoted post nor will I. All of her criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence. She won't access all the facts, but if this topic interests you, I'm sure you know how to click on links.

 

[TheResister]

View attachment 221030

You're full of shit as usual, "fiend." If there is a liar amongst us, you are one of the tops.

 

[TheFiend]

You're full of shit as usual, "fiend." If there is a liar amongst us, you are one of the tops.

Love the irony mate

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I didn't give her the courtesy of reading beyond the above quoted post nor will I. All of her criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence. She won't access all the facts, but if this topic interests you, I'm sure you know how to click on links.

Understanding What Constitutes Evidence and Fact:
The Resister's assertion that "all criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence" reflects a misunderstanding of what constitutes reliable evidence and factual information. Let’s break down what a fact is, what evidence is, and how the theories underlying the Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism fall short of these standards.

---

1. What Is a Fact?​

A fact is a statement that can be objectively verified and is supported by empirical evidence. For something to be considered a fact, it must be:

• Observable and Measurable: Facts are based on objective data that can be tested and confirmed.
• Consistent Across Time and Space: Facts hold true regardless of who observes them or when they are observed.
• Independently Verifiable: Multiple sources should be able to verify a fact through their own independent investigations.

2. What Is Evidence?​

Evidence consists of data or information that supports or refutes a claim or hypothesis. Reliable evidence must be:

• Credible: Originating from trustworthy, expert sources that adhere to rigorous standards of verification.
• Relevant: Directly related to the claim being made.
• Sufficient: Comprehensive enough to support the claim on its own without requiring significant leaps of logic or interpretation.

---

3. Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism: Lacking Factual Basis​

Seedline Doctrine:​

The Seedline Doctrine claims that certain racial groups are descended from specific biblical figures, such as Cain or Esau, and that these lineages are cursed or inherently evil. The doctrine further asserts that white Europeans are the true descendants of the biblical Israelites.

• Lack of Genetic Evidence: Modern genetics, particularly studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome haplogroups, have thoroughly mapped the genetic relationships among human populations. These studies demonstrate that human genetic diversity does not align with the racial categories proposed by the Seedline Doctrine. There is no credible genetic evidence to support the idea that white Europeans are uniquely descended from biblical Israelites, nor that there is a distinct, cursed lineage as the doctrine claims.
• Misinterpretation of Historical Texts: The Seedline Doctrine relies on highly speculative and often distorted interpretations of biblical texts, taking passages out of their historical and cultural context. Mainstream biblical scholarship, which adheres to rigorous historical and linguistic analysis, overwhelmingly rejects these interpretations.

Anglo-Israelism:​

Anglo-Israelism claims that the Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, Scandinavian, and related peoples are the true descendants of the ancient Israelites.

• Historical Inaccuracy: The historical record does not support the notion that these groups have any direct lineage from the ancient Israelites. The idea emerged in the 19th century, driven by a combination of nationalistic pride and a desire to connect the British Empire with biblical prophecy. It is widely dismissed by credible historians as a pseudohistorical construct.
• Racial and Ideological Bias: Anglo-Israelism is rooted in a racial ideology that seeks to elevate certain ethnic groups above others based on a distorted view of history. This perspective aligns with broader racist ideologies that have been used to justify discrimination and exclusion.

4. Why These Theories Are Considered Racist:​

• Promotes Racial Superiority: Both Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism promote the idea that certain races are divinely chosen or superior to others. This is the foundation of many racist ideologies that have been used to justify oppression, segregation, and violence against those deemed "inferior."
• Exclusionary and Divisive: By claiming a divine mandate for racial purity or superiority, these doctrines inherently marginalize and dehumanize those who do not fit their criteria, leading to social division and conflict.
• Rejection by Mainstream Religion: These doctrines are not accepted by mainstream Christian denominations, which typically emphasize the spiritual unity of all believers and reject racial or ethnic divisions as antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

---

Conclusion:​

In conclusion, the claims made by Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism do not stand up to scrutiny when evaluated against the standards of factual evidence. They are based on speculative theories, historical misinterpretations, and a biased reading of religious texts. These ideologies are considered racist because they promote the idea of racial superiority and exclusion, which has been widely rejected by credible scholars, geneticists, and religious leaders.
Your reliance on what you call "documentary evidence" does not meet the criteria for credible or factual support. Instead, it perpetuates a narrative that is not grounded in objective reality. Engaging with actual evidence requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and to revise one's beliefs in light of new, verifiable information—a standard that the proponents of these doctrines consistently fail to meet.

 

[TheResister]

Love the irony mate

There is no irony there, "mate." BTW, I'm not you mate. You are a liar that enjoys the company of other liars. You're also a chicken shit that uses the Internet for harassing people as entertainment. Just makes you a low life... and a liar.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There is no irony there, "mate." BTW, I'm not you mate. You are a liar that enjoys the company of other liars. You're also a chicken shit that uses the Internet for harassing people as entertainment. Just makes you a low life... and a liar.

You have yet to prove anybody has lied about you or your comments. If you are posting on a forum, you are open to having your claims tested and scrutinized against facts and evidence. If you can't handle that then the internet isn't for you. You should probably slink away and hide in your basement.

Your other option is to present actual facts and evidence of your claims, not misinterpretation and biased readings, or speculative theory that you claim as factual. "If it's on the internet, it must be true!" SMFH

Learn to do actual research.

 

[TheFiend]

There is no irony there, "mate." BTW, I'm not you mate. You are a liar that enjoys the company of other liars. You're also a chicken shit that uses the Internet for harassing people as entertainment. Just makes you a low life... and a liar.

Again with the irony aye.
Your originality is off the scales mate.

 

[TheResister]

Again with the irony aye.
Your originality is off the scales mate.

That appears to be non-responsive. If you have a personal problem with me maybe you want to take it up in pm or I can make myself available to you some other way. I don't feel insulted by you. I've heard that a man is known by the company he keeps. And you hang with the lowest of the low.

Are you some kind of gay pirate with that aye mate B.S.? You had better have something substantial to say about this thread the next time you post or I will ignore you. You are being disrespectful toward the OP. Like I said, you have an issue with me, take it up somewhere else and show that you have at least a modicum of class.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You had better have something substantial to say about this thread the next time you post or I will ignore you.

Because you have no ability to factually rebut the presented facts disproving your and Kingsolomonswisdom's racist religious claims.

You are being disrespectful toward the OP.

Nah, just you. OP ran away along time ago.

Like I said, you have an issue with me, take it up somewhere else and show that you have at least a modicum of class.

Its funnier to do it in the open, where everybody can see just how full of shit you are.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

For quite a number of years I have interspersed our Christian heritage with the goings on in the political realm. About 80 percent of the Bible is about governing and government. The reality before us is that politics is religion in action. Start with the issue of abortion. An atheist wouldn't give two hoots in Hell about abortion. A Christian (or maybe some other religion that believes in a Right to Life) would. The same can be said for anything we deem to be fair or unfair.

The history of our country is beyond dispute despite the attempts by modern historical revisionists to change the facts. We have challenged notions about history like the Masons being responsible for our form of government. For example, the Freemasons themselves state:

"Of the 56 men that signed the Declaration of Independence, it appears that only nine were Freemasons"

freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/united-states-masonic-founding-fathers/

I found so much wrong with conspiracy thinking on this. There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. Of those 9 are Freemasons which leaves 47 signers that are not Freemasons. Now, I'm not going to say those who were Freemasons didn't have any influence in the Declaration of Independence, but am I expected to believe that 47 men that signed the Declaration of Independence were all idiots? Secondary to that, the Illuminati had not taken over the Freemasons at that point as the Illuminati wasn't formed until May of 1776.

The Deniers of History want to challenge the fact that America was founded on Christian principles. So dishonest are they that they change the meaning of that statement to create a strawman argument and proceed to prove a position that Christians have never made. Christian principles do not make a form of government. Just because most people in the founding and framing era were Christian doesn't mean they started a theocracy just because America was founded on Christian principles. The Deniers of History don't have a leg to stand on. That is why they need to create a false narrative to argue against. And, since error feeds off of error, these people claim that America never was great; was never an example for the world to follow... was nothing special. If you argue against them, they become triggered and fight like a caged animal to keep the facts censored. They are all about transparency and "freedom" until they disagree with what someone else says. What they really fear is the truth. But, what if?

What if, as they claim, America was founded by One Worlders; it has never been great; it has never been anything special; the country is on life support (which is the only point we agree on)? What if that were the correct narrative? If that is true, then the atheists, humanists, One Worlders, Democrats, socialists, left wingers, communists - all those in control currently ARE the problem and America would be due a regime change. What if they were right? The problem is, they aren't right.

1. Misconceptions About Atheism and Moral Issues:The Resister begins with a false dichotomy, suggesting that only religious individuals, particularly Christians, care about moral issues such as abortion. This assertion is not only incorrect but also dismissive of the complex and diverse moral frameworks that exist outside of religious belief. Many atheists and secular humanists oppose abortion on ethical grounds, demonstrating that one’s stance on such issues is not solely determined by religious affiliation.

2. Misrepresentation of American History:The Resister's argument that "America was founded on Christian principles" oversimplifies and misinterprets the complex history of the United States. While it's true that many of the Founding Fathers were cultural Christians, the U.S. Constitution explicitly avoids establishing a state religion, reflecting Enlightenment principles of reason, individual rights, and secular governance. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797), ratified by the U.S. Senate, even states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

• Christian Principles vs. Secular Governance: The Founding Fathers were influenced by a variety of philosophical traditions, including Christianity, but they were also strongly influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu, who advocated for the separation of church and state. This is why the U.S. Constitution does not reference God and why the First Amendment ensures freedom of religion, preventing the establishment of any single religious doctrine as the foundation of American law.

3. Strawman Arguments and Historical Denialism:The Resister accuses critics of creating strawman arguments by claiming that America was never great or special. This mischaracterization ignores the more nuanced criticisms that recognize America’s achievements while also acknowledging its historical failures, such as slavery, the treatment of Indigenous peoples, and systemic racism.

• Critical Examination of History: A critical examination of history is not about denying America’s achievements but about understanding the full scope of its history, both the good and the bad. This is necessary for an honest and informed view of the nation's past and present. Critics of the "America was founded on Christian principles" narrative are not denying history but rather challenging an oversimplified and often mythologized version of it.

4. The Misuse of "Christian Principles":The notion that America was founded on "Christian principles" often serves as a vague catch-all used to promote specific political or religious agendas. However, the principles that shaped the U.S., such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the protection of individual liberties, are rooted in a broader philosophical context that includes, but is not limited to, Christian thought.

• Religious Freedom: One of the most important principles established by the Founding Fathers was religious freedom, which includes the freedom not to adhere to any religion. This principle is inherently at odds with the idea of a government based on specific religious doctrines.

5. Anglo-Israelism and Seedline Doctrine as Racist Ideologies:The Resister fails to address the core issue: the Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism are rooted in racist ideologies. These doctrines are based on the belief that certain races are divinely chosen or superior, a belief that has been used to justify exclusion, discrimination, and violence.

• Racial Superiority: These ideologies are not just about religious or cultural identity; they are about promoting the idea that certain races are inherently superior to others. This is the very definition of racism, and it has no place in a society that values equality and human dignity.

Conclusion:The Resister’s arguments rely heavily on misrepresentations, historical revisionism, and an oversimplification of complex issues. The attempt to frame America as a nation founded on Christian principles ignores the secular and Enlightenment foundations of its government. Moreover, the failure to address the racist underpinnings of the Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism speaks volumes. Facts and evidence must be grounded in reality, not ideological dogma. Understanding history and moral issues requires a nuanced approach that considers all available evidence, not just selective interpretations that serve a particular agenda.

 

[TheFiend]

That appears to be non-responsive. If you have a personal problem with me maybe you want to take it up in pm or I can make myself available to you some other way. I don't feel insulted by you. I've heard that a man is known by the company he keeps. And you hang with the lowest of the low.

Are you some kind of gay pirate with that aye mate B.S.? You had better have something substantial to say about this thread the next time you post or I will ignore you. You are being disrespectful toward the OP. Like I said, you have an issue with me, take it up somewhere else and show that you have at least a modicum of class.

Mate it's fuckin' comical seeing you talk about class.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

I wouldn't worry about any of this. You know where you stand and what to expect no matter what you believe in. Everybody on the Earth has now access to the gospel. And most people hear the gospel by the time they are a adult.

Either you believe as a child does. Or you are not fit to.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

I think the most important lessons you can get from the bible are right there in the oldest chapter Genesis.

So what was the main lesson from the garden of Eden ?
Stop blaming others and learn to take responsibility.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

So what was the main lesson from the garden of Eden ?

Not to trust a woman!

All kidding aside, it is clear that what should be taken from the story is to obey, for promise of paradise, not to disobey for the little things.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

Not to trust a woman!

All kidding aside, it is clear that what should be taken from the story is to obey, for promise of paradise, not to disobey for the little things.

Well for me its to take responsibility.

God knew they were going for the fruit eventually, we are inquisitive beings.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

So here is a outside perspective on that side of history.

Since this topic is even more destructive than politics I'm sure even God haters can just let shit go sometimes and also make the right decisions. I don't think God is petty like we are. So if they can let shit go, it's just as good as a Christian letting shit go and making the right decisions.

So if God isn't petty then it's looking to the bigger picture. Doesn't matter about the fruit or all the murder. God uses the time to let man culture and then selects who is allowed to remain. Otherwise it would just start over completely unless that were somehow impossible.

All forms of culture sought God and they all made different tales of it, but similar. And that is no mystery we are humans. However Christianity is the lasting religion that eventually brought the Holy Bible and the record of the people that were inside. It wasn't just the white kings. All the world was aligned Egypt and those countries except China and the others that were written about by the late apostle.

We know the Aztecs and Inca had similar cultures to the Egyptian but without Christian influence. So where does your common sense lead you when you look at how the Aztecs and Inca religions were. They did human sacrifice. And if anyone has been paying attention.... If that information is even still out there. Then that means it's true and all the things some of us older people know about savage lands are also very true.

Christianity ended the need for killing animals and humans in the name of God this way. It was never meant to be like that. It was supposed to be about taking responsibility.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

We know the Aztecs and Inca had similar cultures to the Egyptian but without Christian influence

OF course because Christ had not be around just yet.

Christianity ended the need for killing animals and humans in the name of God this way.

Correct, amongst many other things.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

God knew they were going for the fruit eventually, we are inquisitive beings

That gets into an entirely different subject, but I understand what you are saying.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

That gets into an entirely different subject, but I understand what you are saying.

It does. Everything in the book does. The current model of teaching rely on old interpretations which are actually polictically influenced and introduce infighting.

That is why the following was important to Jesus.
"Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way."

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

If you believe and follow the bible you tend to lean on the side of prophecy. Meaning that all the things that will come to pass are fortold and inevidable in one way or another.

The Aspotles were created to pass on what the bible refers to as the Holy Spirit. They walked in great faith their purpose. They went baptizing people and those who will obtain the HS.
Except this has now been lacking, seeing as many do not have that sort of faith. The HS is lacking and that is not a good thing for a people.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The current model of teaching rely on old interpretations

I disagree.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

"Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?"

The word terrible might mean something negative. If the individuals heart is blocked and ears are stopped. But it actually means wonderful and terrible at the same time. This is why nobody can read the bible correctly because it is filled full with things like that. And even the interpretation we have was when it was translated.

In general the heart wants to hear what it wants to hear and not what it's actually being told.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

For some religion is like getting your fortune told by some random stranger on the street. For others it's a lifestyle choice.
For me it was a choice at least. The truth is some religions are forced as part of a culture. Christians in America got to choose.

If you are into reading and you do the bible.
I did a internet search for one word in the bible and it showed all the script throughout the bible for that one word. It seamed odd to me at first because it reads like a mini bible, really short. Really odd ? Especially if you read until the end.

--------------------


Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.

Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.

Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible.

Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners.

Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea.

And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.

Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.

Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.

He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?

They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.

And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible acts: and I will declare thy greatness.

When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence.

O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.

He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen.

Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.

For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Therefore shall the strong people glorify thee, the city of the terrible nations shall fear thee.

Thou shalt bring down the noise of strangers, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of a cloud: the branch of the terrible ones shall be brought low.

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly.

And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Page 2?

And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us; and we came to Kadeshbarnea.

The burden of the desert of the sea. As whirlwinds in the south pass through; so it cometh from the desert, from a terrible land.

The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen.

Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;

But the LORD is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten.

Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!

For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall.

By the swords of the mighty will I cause thy multitude to fall, the terrible of the nations, all of them: and they shall spoil the pomp of Egypt, and all the multitude thereof shall be destroyed.

But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.

He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.

After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.

Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:

And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion.

And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.

And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.

And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches are fallen, and his boughs are broken by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

For some religion is like getting your fortune told by some random stranger on the street. For others it's a lifestyle choice.
For me it was a choice at least. The truth is some religions are forced as part of a culture. Christians in America got to choose.

If you are into reading and you do the bible.
I did a internet search for one word in the bible and it showed all the script throughout the bible for that one word. It seamed odd to me at first because it reads like a mini bible, really short. Really odd ? Especially if you read until the end.

--------------------


Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.

Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.

Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible.

Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners.

Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea.

And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.

Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.

Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.

He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?

They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.

And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible acts: and I will declare thy greatness.

When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence.

O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.

He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen.

Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.

For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Therefore shall the strong people glorify thee, the city of the terrible nations shall fear thee.

Thou shalt bring down the noise of strangers, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of a cloud: the branch of the terrible ones shall be brought low.

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly.

And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Page 2?

And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us; and we came to Kadeshbarnea.

The burden of the desert of the sea. As whirlwinds in the south pass through; so it cometh from the desert, from a terrible land.

The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen.

Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;

But the LORD is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten.

Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!

For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall.

By the swords of the mighty will I cause thy multitude to fall, the terrible of the nations, all of them: and they shall spoil the pomp of Egypt, and all the multitude thereof shall be destroyed.

But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.

He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.

After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.

Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:

And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion.

And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.

And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.

And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches are fallen, and his boughs are broken by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him.

please site verse when copying the bible

 

[MalO]

I can't tell if you are right or wrong. I'm sure religious scholars and scientists will all chime in on this, convicted in their ideas. But I don't think anyone alive today can factually prove one way or the other, what ethnicity Isaac was and which ethnicities are descended from him.

You can look at texts and point at documentation of bloodlines, but the oldest texts are younger than the year Isaac is estimated to have died, about 1716 BC. The oldest religious text is the Devangari, a Hindu text that dates back to 1500 BC. So the Jews do not have any existing texts that date from the time of Isaac, and all their existing texts are copies made from copies, made from copies.

You expect me to believe that you are descended from this guy that lived 3700 years ago, based on your book?

You can look at DNA, sure. You can even show that existing ethnicities can be traced back to a common ancestor. But how do you prove who that ancestor was? How do you prove that one ethnicity is descended from Isaac, and that other ethnicity is descended from Esau?

You can't. Not unless you have remains that you can definitively prove beyond any doubt is actually the remains of Isaac and Esau, and you run a comparison.

There are no known remains of Isaac, Abraham, or Esau. Funnily enough, there is a tomb called the Talpiot Tomb in Jerusalem where a "Jesus son of Joseph" is buried, but since that conflicts with his resurrection and ascension into Heaven, nobody believes that it's actually him, and nobody cares to run a DNA test.

In the end, all we have to act on is the currently existing knowledge available to us, and that knowledge certainly isn't perfect. So personally, I don't care.

Let the Jews have the holy land. I don't want to live in a desert anyway.

 

[That Middle Aged Guy]

please site verse when copying the bible

Thats every one that has the word terrible, in the order they arrive.

 

[millerboo]

Anybody that has read the OP is now dumber then they were 30 minutes ago.

If you think the Bible is factual and the inherent word of God then you deserve to be as dumb as you are. On top of that the OP makes it about race, as if that has anything to do with the stories within the 66 books of the Bible, is even dumber.

Yeah, that's insanity of this, its trying to be anti-J but it can't stop worshiping that culture. You actually think Norse people were enslaved in Egypt in the time of Moses? Many Caucasians (eastern Europeans from Caucasus mountains) live in Israel today, that's a critique I've heard that the original people were more arab/sephardic, but whatever. The point is don't trash talk whites while you try to claim Thor is black.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Yeah, that's insanity of this, its trying to be anti-J but it can't stop worshiping that culture. You actually think Norse people were enslaved in Egypt in the time of Moses? Many Caucasians (eastern Europeans from Caucasus mountains) live in Israel today, that's a critique I've heard that the original people were more arab/sephardic, but whatever. The point is don't trash talk whites while you try to claim Thor is black.

I'm having a hard time following your post. A significant portion of the population of Israel includes Muslim, Christian, and Druze Arabs. They are often classified as part of the Middle Eastern ethnic group rather than Caucasian in the traditional sense. Only a portion of the Ashkenazi Jews would be classified as "Caucasian".

Who claimed Thor was Black? The tribes of what is now Europe came from modern day Ukraine and Southern Russia prior to 1200BCE. The Iranians were actually considered to be Aryan, but not in the sense that Hitler claimed Aryan.

Origins of the Term "Aryan":​

• The word "Aryan" comes from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. In its original context, "Aryan" (or "Arya") referred to the Indo-Iranians, a group of people who spoke the early Indo-Iranian languages and migrated to regions that now include Iran, India, and parts of Central Asia around 2000–1500 BCE.
• In ancient texts, like the Avesta (the holy scriptures of Zoroastrianism) and the Rigveda (an ancient Indian text), the term "Aryan" was used by these people to describe themselves as noble or honorable.

Modern Misuse of "Aryan":​

• In the 19th and 20th centuries, Western racial theorists and later Nazi ideology distorted the term "Aryan" to refer to a supposed "master race" or "Nordic" people of Northern European descent. This misuse has no basis in historical or linguistic reality and is completely separate from the ancient Indo-Iranian meaning of the term.
• The modern Iranian identity still retains a connection to the ancient term "Aryan" through the name Iran and the historical awareness of their Indo-Iranian ancestry, but they reject the racialized connotations that were imposed in later centuries.