Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 15th, 2009 #1
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default What could be more intelligent than an accurate definition of Christian Identity?

You may not believe this, but some people actually hold to the idiotic idea that Christian Identity is a belief that our noble Aryan race, the Nordic tribes, are really Jews. Having incorrectly defined the concept, they then ridicule their own idiotic definition as though it is actually a correct definition.

In reality, CI is a belief that the Jews are NOT the Israel of the Bible, but rather that the Nordic tribes are the true decendents of these once noble Israelites. But whether or not Biblical Israelites were noble people is quite beside the point. What is important is that these people were given by God a birthright and a sceptor of ruling authority and that both of these now rightfully belong to the Nordic race.

You can read all about it in my brilliant masterpiece, "The Secret of the Great White Race", sold by Amazon.com and wherever brilliant masterful works are sold. But if you are too cheap are too poor to buy a few hundred copies, you can read it here for free:

The Secret of the Great White Race
by Richard T. Osborne

Throughout all of history, the Caucasian race has been a race of great shipbuilders, explorers, traders, navigators, developers, astronomers, inventors, scientists, philosophers, and religionists. Most of all national greatness that has come into this world has come in through the lineage of this great race. More importantly, the Aryan race has been the prime vessel through which the Divine has inseminated morality into the world. The yellow, brown, black, and red skinned races have never achieved the greatness attained by the White man. Why is this so? Come with me now on a little journey through time and I shall reveal unto you a great secret, the secret of the Great White Race!

To learn the secret of the Great White Race, we must examine the greatest and most reliable historical and racial document ever written, the Holy Bible. The Bible is a very particular book written about a very particular people. It is written about a people of one particular nationality, namely the children of Israel. Its history, from cover to cover, all its prophecy and all its promised blessings pertain to one particular group of people, the Israelites. The Bible records that all the promises and covenants of God contained therein, all the son-ship and glory of God, belong to this people Israel:

“Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises; whose are the fathers and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.” (Romans: 9:4,5)

So, what are we doing with it? If the Bible is written solely for Israelites with an Israelite God, why do we, the Aryan race, have it? Why do we revere it? Why do we call it holy? What is the basis for our faith? Are we of Israel? If the Jews are Israel, why don’t they use the Bible? If the Caucasian race be Israel, how is this so?

Abraham, The Father of Many Nations

Prior to Abraham, there are few people mentioned as having lived the laws of God that were designed to enable men to achieve happiness and prosperity while on this earth. Abel, Enoch, and Noah are mentioned as being in the right. There were, however, no special people, as a group, as yet who were regarded as followers of God. God then declared to Abraham:

“Get out of your country, and away from your kindred, and from your father’s house, unto a land that I will show you: and I will make of you a great nation; and I will bless you, and make your name great and you shall be a blessing, and I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you, and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen 12: 1-3)

“And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. As for me, behold, my covenant is with you and you shall be a father of many nations. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful and I will make nations of you and kings shall come out of you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you and to your seed after you.” (Gen 17: 2,4,6,7)

“That in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in your seed shall of the nations of the earth be blessed because you have obeyed my voice.” (Gen 22: 17,18)

Abraham and his wife Sarah then had Isaac and God re-iterated the blessing:

“Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed, and you shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant and with his seed after him.”
(Gen 17:19)

Notice that the covenant that God made to Abraham and Isaac was to be “everlasting” and to continue “with his seed after him”. Notice that their seed would number in the billions and would be the source of blessings for all nations. How is it that the national and physical aspects of these promises have been fulfilled through the Caucasian race and not through Jews, African tribes, or through any other people?

Jacob, The Man Called Israel

Continuing the story, Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob. Though Esau was the first-born, God favored Jacob as the son to inherit from Isaac the blessings that Isaac had inherited from Abraham. Said Isaac to Jacob:

“God give you of the dew of heaven and the fatness of the earth and plenty of corn and wine. Let people serve you and nations bow down to you; be lord over your brethren and let your mother’s sons bow down to you: Cursed be every one that curses you, and blessed by he that blesses you.” (Gen 27:28,29)

Economic prosperity and world leadership were thus promised to Jacob and his descendents. To keep his bloodline pure, Isaac admonished Jacob:

“You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.”
(Gen 28:1)
Isaac continued the promises to Jacob:

“And God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you that you may be a multitude of people; and give you the blessing of Abraham to you and to your seed with you, that you may inherit the land wherein you are a stranger which God gave to Abraham.” (Gen 28:3,4)

Then, God appeared to Jacob in a dream and declared:

“And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north and to the south, and in you and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen 28:14)

Again, Jacob and his descendents are promised to number in the billions and to have worldwide dominion as a source of God’s blessings to all mankind. Who else has achieved this but the White race?

On a later occasion God appeared to Jacob and changed Jacob’s name to Israel which means “ruling with God”. As recorded:

“And God said unto him, your name is Jacob: your name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be your name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of you, and kings shall come out of you.” (Gen 35:10,11)

Israel, then, had twelve sons, all of whom fathered many children and they became known as the twelve tribes of the house of Israel.

“Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: the sons of Leah (first wife); Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulin: the Sons of Rachel (second wife); Joseph and Benjamin: and the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; Dan and Naphtali: and the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, Gad and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob.” (Gen 35:22-26)

Ephraim Receives Birthright From Jacob

When Jacob, or Israel, became old, the time came to pass on all the blessings of the chosen people to his descendents. Reuben was his firstborn son but because of sin he forfeited his birthright. (Gen 49:2-4). Jacob’s second and third born sons, Simeon and Levi were also deemed unworthy to receive the birthright due to cruelty and anger. (Gen 49:5-6). The fourth son was Judah to whom was given the scepter, the symbol of Royal authority. (Gen 49:10). Issachar became a “servant of tribute”, Zebulon a shipbuilder, Dan a judge over his tribe, Gad a military leader, Asher a capitalist, and Naphtali a writer.
(Gen 49:10,16,19-21,22).

Joseph was the one favored to receive the birthright blessings. Jacob told Joseph that he, Jacob, would regard Joseph’s two sons Ephraim and Manasseh as his first and second born sons. (Gen 48:4). Jacob then gave the birthright to Joseph’s sons. Laying his right hand on Ephraim and his left hand on Manasseh, Jacob said:

“…bless the lads and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth”. (Gen 48:16)

“Let my name be named on them” are the key words of this blessing. It was upon Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, that Jacob conferred his God-given name of Israel. Jacob laying his right hand on Ephraim’s head is significant because later God says, “…for I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn”. (Jer 31:9) Ephraim received the blessings of the birthright more so than did Manasseh. A further distinction was made concerning the scepter and its relation to the birthright:

“For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler, but the birthright was Joseph’s.” (Jer 31:9).

While the term “Israelites” is used in a general way to refer to all the twelve tribes of Israel, the title of Israel was given specifically to Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph. Where are their descendents today? What nations in modern times have achieved superior economic productivity and world dominance? Judah? No. They never received the birthright. As we shall later see, Judah has never correctly born the title of Israel. In whom or through which race have the birthright blessings been fulfilled? The Caucasian race? Read on!

The Kingdom Becomes Divided

After these accounts of the passing of the birthright, the twelve tribes passed through several periods; prosperity for a while, enslavement by the Egyptians, liberation by the Levite prophet Moses, and eventual settlement in the promised land around the Jordan River, commonly called Palestine after the Philistines who previously inhabited the area. From all this we learn that the political authority to govern the tribes was held by Judah, the birthright blessings of prosperity and population were Joseph’s, and the ecclesiastical authority was held by the Levite tribe from which came Moses. It was while in Palestine that the tribes of Israel became divided: the Kingdom of Israel to the north and the Kingdom of Judah to the south.

The first King that the Israelites chose to rule over them was Saul. Saul was followed by David and David by Solomon. Solomon had a servant named Jeroboam who was a descendent of Ephraim. Solomon appointed Jeroboam to rule over the tribe of Joseph. (I Kings 11:28).

Solomon had a son named Rehoboam, and though these names are similar, they must not be confused. Jeroboam, of the tribe Ephraim, was made ruler of the tribe of Joseph.

Rehoboam, of the tribe of Judah, was to succeed Solomon as general ruler over all of the Kingdom of Israel. Due to the iniquities of Solomon and excessive taxation, ten of the tribes were to revolt against Judaic rule. Speaking to the Ephraimite Jeroboam through the prophet Ahijah, God said:

“Behold I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to you. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose because he kept my commandments and my statutes. But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand and will give it to you, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe that David my servant may have a light always before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. And I will take you and you shall reign according to all that your soul desires and shall be king over Israel.” (I Kings 11:31,34-37).

From the above verses we learn several important facts. First, that the 12 tribed Kingdom is to be divided into two groups with ten tribes being assigned to Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, as ruler, and with David’s son Solomon (Judah) being given one tribe. Secondly, we learn that the new ten tribed kingdom is the one that will bare the name Israel since the scripture says that Jeroboam “shall be king over Israel”. Also, Ephraim is the son who inherited the title of Israel from Jacob.

When Solomon’s son Rehoboam inherited the throne the people petitioned him to reduce the taxes but he refused. Israel then revolted against Rehoboam of the house of David, the tribe of Judah, and the ten tribed Kingdom of Israel went their own way. This left the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin comprising the Kingdom of Judah. As it says:

“And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel…” (I Kings 12:21-24)

Notice that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah are referred to as two separate kingdoms, clearly describing the separation of the twelve tribe Kingdom of Israel into the ten tribe Kingdom of Israel and the two tribe Kingdom of Judah. From this time forward, Judah is no longer regarded as Israel.

Israel Taken Captive, Become Lost to Judah

At the time that Israel broke from Judah, the people had forgotten their true religion and began worshipping idols. Again a distinction is made between Israel and Judah:

“And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images…Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. Also Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord their God but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the land of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight. For he rent Israel from the house of David.” (II Kings 17:16,18-21).

The Assyrians then took Israel captive:

“Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day (the day this was written).” (II Kings 17:23).

And also: “the King of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria”. (II Kings 18:11). Judah remained in the land around Jerusalem until their Babylonian captivity 130 years later under King Nebuchadnezzar. The descendent of Esau were also taken.

From this time on, the Bible only gives an approximate geographical location of these ten lost tribes of the house of Israel. To Judah, Israel was “lost” because they didn’t know what happened to them after they escaped Assyria. However, the prophet Jeremiah refers to the Kingdom of Israel and to their eventual gathering as a people:

“At the same time, says the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel and they shall be my people. For thus says the Lord; sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish, praise, and say, Oh Lord, save your people, the remnant of Israel. Behold I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the coasts of the earth…They will come with weeping and with supplication and will I lead them…for I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn. Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations and declare it in the isles afar off and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.” (Jer 31:1,7-9)

Jeremiah gives the location of Israel as the “north countries” and “in the isles afar off”. From Assyria, the north countries would be Europe and the British Isles.

About 200 years after Israel was taken captive by Assyria, Judah and Edom escaped the Babylonians and returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the city. Only Judah, Benjamin, a few Levites, and the Edomites returned from Babylon (Ezra 1:5, 2;1). It was the Kingdom of Judah that was there when Christ appeared, not the ten tribe Kingdom of Israel. As to the fate of Israel, we can turn to the Apocrypha:

“And whereas you saw that he gathered another peaceable multitude unto him; Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so they came into another land. But they took this council among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, that they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river. For the most High then showed signs for them and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth. Then dwelt they there until the latter time: and now when they shall begin to come, the Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again, that they may go through: therefore you saw the multitude with peace.” (Apocrypha II Esdras 13:39-47).

The year 721 B.C., is generally accepted as the year of Israelite captivity by the Assyrians. From this account in the Apocrypha we learn that the ten tribes left Samaria in northern Palestine where they were captured and pushed further northward beyond the Euphrates River. There they would find themselves near the borders of the Caspian Sea. To their immediate north, running from east to west, lay the Caucasus Mountain ranges. After crossing the Euphrates, and moving north toward the Caucasus, the scriptural account says the traveled for a year and a half.

If we refer to sources of secular history concerning the history of the Caucasian race we find the origin of the race being traced back to this same period of time, approximately 700 B.C. We learn that the Caucasian race had its point of origin at the time when a large mass of white skinned people crossed the Caucasus Mountains on their way into northern Europe, hence the term Caucasian. Secular historians say they do not know where these people came from prior to this time.

However, Biblical accounts of the promises and blessings given to Israel are clearly being fulfilled through the Caucasian race of today.


The Travels of Israel

Biblical archeologist E. Raymond Capt gives this account of the travels of the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel” after they escaped Assyria and settled in Europe. Quoting from “Heirs of the Promise” by Sheldon Emry, Mr. Capt reports:

“During the last hundred years a number of archeological teams have been working in the Middle East. They have unearthed and published the original contemporary accounts of the Assyrians, who took the Israelites captive. It is from these records that vital clues have come to light. In fact, these records are found in the form of cuneiform tablets. These tablets were found at Nineveh in 1900 and published in 1930. However, their relevance to Israel was overlooked then, because they were found in complete disorder and amongst about 1,400 other texts.

The tablets were Assyrian frontier post reports, dated about 707 B.C.. They describe the activities of the people called "Gamira," who lived in the land of "Gamir." The descriptions of Gamir described the area in which the Israelites had been placed just a few years earlier. One tablet stated that when the king of Urartu came into the land of Gamir, his army was routed, as the Gamira counter-attacked, entered the land of Urartu, and killed their commanders.

Historians are now aware of the fact that the Gamira were the same people, who, about 30 years later, during the reign of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, again were called Gimira. (Notice the slight changes in spelling).

We find in another and later Assyrian tablet that in the second year of the reign of this same king, which would be about 679 B.C., the Gimira, under a leader named "Teuspa," sought freedom by moving north; but the Assyrain army pursued and defeated them in the upper Euphrates district. Nevertheless, they reported a large number of the lsraelites escaped to the shores of the Black Sea. The Greeks also recorded the same activity including an invasion of Sardis, the capital of Lydia, in 645 B.C. In their records they refer to the Gamira as "Kimmerioi," which we translate into English as "Cimmerian."

About 600 B.C. the Lydians drove the Gamira, or Cimmerians, out of Asia Minor, where they settled in the Carpathian regions west of the Black Sea. We find them called in the second book of Esdras, the people of Ar-Sareth (2 Esdras 13:40-44).

We now also know what happened to the larger body of Gamira or Israelites, that did not escape the Assyrians. They formed an alliance with Esarhaddon, the king, when he came under attack of the Medes and the Persians.

This treaty allowed the Israelites to establish colonies in Sacasene in the north and Bactria in the east. With absolutely no help from the Israelites, Assyria fell in 612 B.C. Soon the Israelites themselves came under attack by the Medes. Now those that had settled in Sacasene moved north through the Dariel Pass into the steppe regions of south Russia. There they became known by the Greek name, "Scythians."

The Israelites that had settled in Bactria were forced north and east, and in the records of the Persians they were called Massagetae and Sakka. Thus, archeology has solved two of the greatest archeological problems: First, what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Israelites who disappeared south of the Caucasus; and second, what was the origin of the Cimmerians and the mysterious nomadic tribes, known as Scythians, who suddenly appeared north of the Caucasus - both at the same time in history. They were one and the same people. They were Israelites. Now may I point out what the Bible has to say concerning these same people:

"For lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth" (Amos 9:9).

Our history books pick up the story at this point, recording the westward migrations of the Scythians, as they came into collision with the Cimmerians, who had earlier settled west of the Black Sea. Their kinship lost over the centuries, the ensuing battles forced the Cimmerians west and north to become the Celts, Gauls, and Cimbri. By the end of the fourth century B.C., the Scythians had established themselves as the great and prosperous kingdom of Scythia.

Later, the Sarmatians, these were a mixed, non- Israelitish people of Iranian origin. They in turn drove the Scythians northwest to the shores of the Baltic Sea. At this time in history, we find the Romans introduced the name "Germans" in place of the name Scythians, in order not to confuse the Scythians with the Sarmatians, who now occupied Scythia. Germanus, being the Latin name for "genuine," indicates the Germans were the genuine Scythians.

During this time the Celts were expanding in all directions from central Europe. Some of the Celts invaded Italy and sacked Rome in 390 B.C. Another group moved back into Asia Minor, in 280 B.C., and the Greeks called them "Galatians," as they did another group of Celts that had settled in Gaul, or modern France. This also indicates that Paul's letters to the Galatians were written to his kinsmen Israelites, or at least descendants of the earlier Galatians.

Some of the Celts moved into Spain and became known as Iberes, the Gaelic name for "Hebrews." Others poured into Britain to form the bedrock of the British race. Later, the Iberes moved into Ireland as Scots, and later into Northern Britain to establish the nation of Scotland.

Our history books also record the Germanic tribes breaking up into many divisions such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Vikings. Other Germanic tribes later poured into the lands vacated by the Celts and established the Gothic nations of the Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Burgundians, and others. The so-called "lost tribes of Israel" really, were never lost. They only lost their identity as they migrated westward over the centuries from the land of their captivity.”

Mr. Capt has explained what happened to the millions of Israelites who were dispersed out of old Canaanland 7 centuries before Christ, and who never returned; they migrated onto the continent of Europe, or at least many of them did, and were one the ancestors of the white, European race.

God bestowed upon that one lineage almost every invention and discovery that has improved man's condition and lot upon the earth. Certainly. God made these offspring of Abraham a blessing to all the families of the earth.

In southern Europe there were the descendents of Jacob’s brother, Japheth, from whom came the Gentiles (Gen 10: 2-5). The early Persians, Greeks, and Romans were descendents of Japheth. They are referred to in the Bible as the Gentiles. Darius, the Mede, was a Gentile. The Roman Empire later conquered Europe after the time of Christ. These Gentiles settled parts of Europe and so the blood of Israel was thus dispersed through the Gentile nations. After the Romans destroyed Judea in 70 AD, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin also fled northward and assimilated into European society.

There are also, of course, the imposters. The so-called Jews who falsely claim to be Israelites, but who are really descendents of Esau and his Canaanite wives. They are known as Edomites, Idumeans, and Herodians. Herod was an Edomite. Since the world has been duped into believing that Jews are Israelites, the Jews have thereby tricked the world into believing that Israelites murdered Jesus. It is true that the Jews hated and murdered Jesus, but the Jews are not Israelites. The tribe of Judah lived mainly in Galilee and many accepted Jesus and thereafter became the Christians. After the Jews (Edomites), murdered Jesus, they set out to murder and persecute the Judahites who accepted Jesus. These Christian Judahites fled into Europe and the British Isles and settled among the 10 Tribes of Israel who were living under Roman rule. After the fall of Rome, the European Israelites, under Germany’s leadership, regained control of Western Europe. God thus gathered Israel from among the Gentiles. Today, the tribes of Israel mostly comprise what is commonly called the Caucasian race. God continues to gather Israel by a great sifting process, which is enabling Israel to come to a knowledge of itself and reclaim its identity. The “times of the Gentiles” have now essentially been fulfilled.

As for the Jews, the Romans destroyed Judea in 70 AD, and the Edomites, over the next several decades, fled northward.

Most settled among the Turks in southern Russia who founded the great Khazar Kingdom. The Turks also descended from Esau. The Khazars accepted Judaism in preference to Christianity or Islam, thereafter becoming known as Ashkenazim Jews. Other Edomites fled to Spain. Spain in Hebrew is Sepharad, hence Sephardim Jews. Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews presently comprise most of what the world today calls Jews. They are not Israelites. They established the counterfeit state of Israel in Palestine and for the last 60 years have waged a campaign of theft and murder against the natives of that land.

God’s Promise

Our pilgrim fathers, who were Christian Israelites from Europe and knew God's promises, called this North American continent "The Wilderness" and "New Canaanland." They said they had come hither to establish the Kingdom of God. God turned Israel from Antichrist leaders in Europe, and brought them to America. It is America that is Zion, the new land, the New Israel, the land wherein the New Jerusalem shall be established. America is the nation from which the Light of God’s Word has gone to the ends of the earth. (Is 49:6).

Today, the great Israel nation of America is threatened from abroad by Gog (Russia), and Magog (China) (Ezek. 38-39). America is the land to which they will come as foretold by Ezekiel. The wicked of the earth, who are the enemies of Jesus Christ, have grown strong and arrogant threatening our land. Internally, they have infiltrated our schools, the news media, churches and government, in their attempt to keep our people in ignorance of their identity as Israelites. They teach that racial separation is prejudice and bigotry, while at the same time promoting racial integration as something virtuous. By this means, they present good as evil and evil as good. But freedom of association, and its twin, freedom from association, is the basis of human dignity. By imposing a governmentally mandated social order, they are attempting to destroy our freedom of choice and steal our heritage that they may conquer America and take rule over the whole earth.

The time has come when God is casting down all lies, exposing the false prophets, and revealing the Truth to His people Israel. The key to understanding the Bible is the truth that Caucasians, the Aryan tribes, are Israelites, heirs of the promise.

God Almighty has decreed the destruction of those who hate Jesus Christ and His true Israel People. In a last battle they shall be defeated, we shall be delivered, and the earth will be prepared for the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Bibliography


Are We of Israel, George Reynolds, Deseret Sunday School Union, Salt Lake City, UT., 1916.
The Covenant People, Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass., 1966.
Tracing Our White Ancestors, Frederick Haberman, Lord’s Covenant Church, Inc., Phoenix, AZ 1979. 1st printing 1934.
Heirs of The Promise, Sheldon Emry, Lord’s Covenant Church, Inc., Phoenix AZ. See, Church of True Israel.
The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, by Herbert W. Armstrong, Ambassador College Press, Pasadena, CA., 1967.

Last edited by richyrichard; September 15th, 2009 at 08:15 PM.
 
Old September 15th, 2009 #2
Todd in Ohio
Member
 
Todd in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 446
Default

I take an extended break from posting, come back, and am at once confronted with why I took a break from discussion forums in the first place.

Religion is the bane of logic (see above post as Exhibit A).
 
Old September 15th, 2009 #3
Gabry Ponte
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,024
Default

Europeans are not Aryans. Nordics are not Aryans. aryans are gypsys from the Hindu Kush.


Aryan (IPA: /ˈɛɹiən/) is an English language loanword denoting variously

in historical or dated usage,
the Indo-Iranian languages and their speakers, viz. the Iranian and Indo-Aryan peoples
the Indo-European languages more generally and their speakers,
in scientific racism the "Aryan race" taken to correspond to the original speakers of Indo-European languages
in contemporary usage,
in colloquial English informed by Nazi racism, persons corresponding to the "Nordic", "blond-haired, blue-eyed" physical ideal of Nazi Germany[n 1]
within US white supremacism, the "white race".
As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has "long been in English language use".[2] Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ā́rya- meaning a speaker of North Indian languages.[2] When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.[3]

Then, in the 1830s, based on the erroneous theory that words like "Aryan" could also be found in European languages, the term "Aryan" came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, "language" was still considered a property of "ethnicity", and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be the so-called "Aryan race", as contradistinguished from the so-called "Semitic race". By the late 19th century, the notions of an "Aryan race" became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). This "master race" ideal engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews.[4][n 2] By the end of World War II, the word 'Aryan' had become firmly associated with the racial delusions and atrocities commited by the Nazi regime.

In colloquial modern English it is typically used to signify the Nordic racial ideal promoted by the Nazis.

In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been mostly lost, the denotation having been semantically replaced by other, secondary, meanings. In Iran, the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir", and in the name of Iran itself.[5] In present-day academia, the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" have made most uses of the term 'Aryan' obsolete, and 'Aryan' is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" to represent (speakers of) North Indian languages. Notions of an "Aryan race" only survive in the context of fascist nationalism, in which nationhood is defined by ancestry.

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Before the 19th century
1.2 19th century
1.3 20th century
2 Notes
3 References



[edit] History

[edit] Before the 19th century
The meaning of 'Aryan' that entered the English language in the late 1700s was the one associated with the technical term used in comparative philology, which in turn had the same meaning as that evident in the very oldest Old Indic usage, i.e. as a (self-)identifier of "(speakers of) North Indian languages".[2][n 3] This usage was simultaneously influenced by a word that appeared in classical sources (Latin and Greek Arianes, e.g. in Pliny 1.133 and Strabo 15.2.1-8), and recognized to be the same as that which appeared in living Iranian languages, where it was a (self-)identifier of the "(speakers of) Iranian languages". Accordingly, 'Aryan' came to refer to the languages of the Indo-Iranian language group, and by extension, speakers of those languages.[6]


[edit] 19th century
In the 19th century, linguists still supposed that the age of a language determined its "superiority" (because it was assumed to have genealogical purity). Then, based on the (now known to be erroneous) assumption that Sanskrit was the oldest Indo-European language, and the (now known to be untenable) position that Irish Éire was etymologically related to "Aryan", in 1837 Adolphe Pictet popularized the idea that the term "Aryan" could also be applied to the entire Indo-European language family as well. The groundwork for this had been laid in 1808, "when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, 'honor', and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning [according to Schlegel] something like 'the honorable people.' (This theory has since been called into question.)"[1]

Following this linguistic argument, in the 1850s Arthur de Gobineau supposed that "Aryan" corresponded to the suggested prehistoric Indo-European culture (1853-1855, Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races). Further, de Gobineau believed that there were three basic races – white, yellow and black – and that everything else was caused by race miscegenation, which de Gobineau argued was the cause of chaos. The "master race", according to de Gobineau, were the Northern European "Aryans", who had remained "racially pure". Southern Europeans (to include Spaniards and Southern Frenchmen), Eastern Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Iranians, Central Asians, Indians, he all considered racially mixed, degenerated through the miscegenation, and thus less than ideal.


The earliest epigraphically-attested reference to the word arya occurs in the 6th century BCE Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed "in arya [language or script]" (¶ 70). As is also the case for all other Old Iranian language usage, the arya of the inscription does not signify anything but "Iranian".[7]By the 1880s a number of linguists and anthropologists argued that the "Aryans" themselves had originated somewhere in northern Europe. A specific region began to crystallize when the linguist Karl Penka (Die Herkunft der Arier. Neue Beiträge zur historischen Anthropologie der europäischen Völker, 1886) popularized the idea that the "Aryans" had emerged in Scandinavia, and could be identified by the distinctive Nordic characteristics of blond hair and blue eyes. The distinguished biologist Thomas Henry Huxley agreed with him, coining the term "Xanthochroi" to refer to fair-skinned Europeans (as opposed to darker Mediterranean peoples, who Huxley called "Melanochroi").[8]


Madison Grant's vision of the distribution of "Nordics" (red), "Alpines" (green) and "Mediterraneans" (yellow).
William Z. Ripley's map of the "cephalic index" in Europe, from The Races of Europe (1899).This "Nordic race" theory gained traction following the publication of Charles Morris's The Aryan Race (1888), which argued that the "original Aryans" could be identified by their blond hair and other Nordic features, such as dolichocephaly (long skull). A similar rationale was followed by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in his book L'Aryen et son rôle social (1899, "The Aryan and his Social Role"), in which the French anthropologist argued that the "dolichocephalic-blond" peoples were natural leaders, destined to rule over more brachiocephalic (short-skulled) peoples. Archetypes of these short-skulled people, according to Vacher de Lapouge, were the Jews.[9] To this idea of "races", Vacher de Lapouge espoused what he termed selectionism, and which had two aims: first, achieving the annihilation of trade unionists, considered "degenerate"; second, the prevention of labour dissatisfaction through the creation of "types" of man, each "designed" for one specific task.

Meanwhile, in India, the British colonial government had followed de Gobineau's arguments along another line, and had fostered the idea of a superior "Aryan race" that co-opted the Indian caste system in favor of imperial interests.[10][11] In its fully developed form, the British-mediated interpretation foresaw a segregation of Aryan and non-Aryan along the lines of caste, with the upper castes being "Aryan" and the lower ones being "non-Aryan". The European developments not only allowed the British to identify themselves as high-caste, but also allowed the Brahmans to view themselves as on-par with the British. Further, it provoked the reinterpretation of Indian history in racialist and Hindu nationalist terms,[10][11] and – in following a special interpretation of Max Müller's identification of "Aryan" as a national name – gave rise to the so-called "Out of India" theory, which sought an Indian origin of the Indo-European "Aryans".

The racialist ideas that were developing independently in India and Europe fused in esoterica. In The Secret Doctrine (1888), Helena Petrovna Blavatsky saw the "Aryans" as the fifth of her seven "Root Races", dating them to about a million years ago, and tracing them to Atlantis. She considered "Abraham" to be a corruption of a word meaning "No Brahmin", from whom the Semites – "degenerate in spirituality and perfected in materiality" – had descended, and who were one rung down on the Root Race scale. The Jews, according to Blavatsky, were a "tribe descended from the Tchandalas of India, the outcasts".

In Iran, racialist rhetoric became a literary idiom during the 7th century, i.e. in the aftermath of the Islamic conquest, when the Arabs became the primary "Other" – the anaryas – and the antithesis of everything Iranian (i.e. Aryan) and Zoroastrian. But "the antecedents of [present-day] Iranian ultra-nationalism can be traced back to the writings of late nineteenth-century figures such as Mirza Fath Ali Akhunzadeh and Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani. Demonstrating affinity with Orientalist views of the supremacy of the 'Indo-European peoples' and the mediocrity of the 'Semitic race,' Iranian nationalist discourse idealized pre-Islamic [Achaemenid and Sassanid] empires, whilst negating the 'Islamization' of Persia by Muslim forces."[12] In the 20th century, different aspects of this idealization of a distant past would be instrumentalized by both the Pahlavi monarchy, and by the Islamic republic that followed it; the Pahlavis used it as a foundation for anticlerical monarchism, and the clerics used it to exalt Iranian values vis-á-vis westernization.[13]


[edit] 20th century

An intertitle from the silent film blockbuster The Birth of a Nation (1915). "Aryan birthright" is here "white birthright", the "defense" of which unites "whites" in the Northern and Southern U.S. against "coloreds". In another film of the same year, The Aryan, William S. Hart's "Aryan" identity is defined in distinction from Mexicans.Back in Europe, in a summary of the status-quo, Hermann Hirt (1905, Die Indogermanen - Hirt consistently used Indogermanen, not Arier, to refer to the Indo-Europeans) asserted that there was no longer any question that the plains of northern Germany were the Urheimat (p. 197) of the Indo-European languages, and he connected the "blond type" (p. 192) with the core population of the early, "pure" Indo-Europeans. The identification of the Indo-Europeans with the north German Corded Ware culture bolstered this position. First proposed by Gustaf Kossinna in 1902, it gained currency over the following two decades, until Vere Gordon Childe concluded that "the Nordics' superiority in physique fitted them to be the vehicles of a superior language" (1926, The Aryans: a study of Indo-European origins).

Gordon Childe would later regret having expressed that idea, but the depiction as possessors of a "superior language" became a matter of national pride in learned circles of Germany. Against the background of the lost World War I (portrayed to have been lost because Germany had been betrayed from within – miscegenation was at fault, more evidence for which was seen in the "corruption" represented by socialist trade unionists and other "degenerates"), Alfred Rosenberg asserted that there was a "racial threat" to Germany's homogeneous "Aryan-Nordic" (arisch-nordisch) or "Nordic-Atlantean" (nordisch-atlantisch, cf. Blavatsky above) civilization. In Rosenberg's view, the "racial threat" was "Jewish-Semitic race" (jüdisch-semitisch Rasse). Where Germany's homogeneous people were a "master race" capable of, or with an interest in, creating and maintaining culture, other "races" were merely capable of conversion, or destruction of culture.

Rosenberg – one of the principal architects of Nazi ideological creed – argued for a new "religion of the blood," based on the supposed innate promptings of the Nordic soul to defend its "noble" character against racial and cultural degeneration. Under Rosenberg, the theories of Arthur de Gobineau, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Blavatsky, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and those of Hitler ("the exact opposite of the Aryan is the Jew") all culminated in Nazi Germany's race policies and the "Aryanization" decrees of the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s. In its "apalling medical model", the annihilation of the "racially inferior" Untermenschen was sanctified as the excision of a diseased organ in an otherwise healthy body.[14]


In academic scholarship, the only surviving use of the word 'Aryan' is that of the term "Indo-Aryan", which indicates "(speakers of) languages descended from Prakrits." Older usage to mean "(speakers of) Indo-Iranian languages" has been superseded by the term "Indo-Iranian", and the 19th century meaning of "(speakers of) Indo-European languages" is no longer used by scholars.By the end of World War II, the word "Aryan" had lost its Romantic or idealist connotations and was associated with Nazi racism instead. By then, the term "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" had made most uses of the term "Aryan" superfluous, and "Aryan" now survives only in the term "Indo-Aryan" to indicate (speakers of) North Indian languages. Indo-Aryan and Aryan may not however be equated; such an equation is not supported by the historical evidence.[15]

The use of the term to designate speakers of all Indo-European languages is now considered an "aberration to be avoided."[16] Notions of an elite "Aryan race" only survive in nationalist contexts, to include White nationalism, Indian nationalism and Iranian nationalism. Echoes of "the 19th century prejudice about 'northern' Aryans who were confronted on Indian soil with black barbarians [...] can still be heard in some modern studies."[15] In a socio-political context, the idea of a white, European Aryan race is still entertained by certain circles, usually representing white supremacists who call for the stemming of migrations of Muslims from Turkey, the Middle East and Africa into Europe.
 
Old September 15th, 2009 #4
Gabry Ponte
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacManus View Post
I take an extended break from posting, come back, and am at once confronted with why I took a break from discussion forums in the first place.

Religion is the bane of logic (see above post as Exhibit A).
yes it is a serious flaw with Wn's
 
Old September 15th, 2009 #5
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabry Ponte View Post
yes it is a serious flaw with Wn's
Your signature is an oxymoron.
 
Old September 15th, 2009 #6
Marvin Nash
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Default

jesus is your buddy

 
Old September 15th, 2009 #7
Gabry Ponte
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richyrichard View Post
Your signature is an oxymoron.
It was the motto of the Hitler Jugend. I think they have more credibility then you friend.

 
Old September 16th, 2009 #8
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabry Ponte View Post
It was the motto of the Hitler Jugend. I think they have more credibility then you friend.

That's a nice doctored photograph.
 
Old September 16th, 2009 #9
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin Nash View Post
jesus is your buddy

Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes.
 
Old September 16th, 2009 #10
albion
Senior Member
 
albion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,499
Blog Entries: 2
Default Acharya S.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible. Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge derived from celestial observation and natural forces. A book that will initiate heated debate and inner struggle, it is intelligently written and referenced. The only book of its kind, it is destined for controversy.
 
Old September 17th, 2009 #11
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albion View Post
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible. Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge derived from celestial observation and natural forces. A book that will initiate heated debate and inner struggle, it is intelligently written and referenced. The only book of its kind, it is destined for controversy.
So, Flavious Josephus and Philo of Alexandria were sort of the Grimm Brothers of the Roman Empire?

At best, this book is an attempt to fictionalize history with speculation, psychic knowings of what is in other people's minds, supposition, and propaganda.

There were a large number of people living in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Mark was a Roman scribe who recorded what happened then.

Besides, Hercules was a real person.

Last edited by richyrichard; September 17th, 2009 at 12:45 PM.
 
Old September 29th, 2009 #12
Marvin Nash
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richyrichard View Post
Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes.
That's just one depiction of Jesus, though. There is African Jesus, Arab Jesus, Jewish Jesus, Hispanic Jesus... it really depends on the frame of reference of the person following the religion. The Church seems to encourage this because it allows for more conversions and more followers.

I know what you're saying though, with CI believing Jesus was an Aryan and if you believe Jesus was Aryan, that's your thing and that's cool in my book.

I don't really know myself and won't presume to say Jesus was any particular race. I do believe he existed, whatever race he was, and was killed by the jews because he challenged their existing social hierarchy. Perhaps he wasn't the peace-nick guy we've been told he is? I think he was a real revolutionary in his own time which is why he was killed.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 AM.
Page generated in 0.48303 seconds.