Took a look at this video and felt my IQ dropping rapidly with each (attempted) point made.
Without even starting to go point by point into the mindnumbing fallacies being used, they completely misunderstand the meaning of Israel. St. Paul explicitly says that those who accept Christ are the seed of Abraham and therefore that Israel, the inheritors of the promise. All of the prophecies of Israel, come to pass in the Church of Christ, the New Israel.
So #1 even if this theory were true from a migratory/populatory standpoint, it would have absolutely 0 ramifications in spiritual terms. Absolutely crazy that MFTP posted from Galatians while passing over these verses.
Pure heresy. Shame on you.
Let me quote St. Paul in more depth to put an end to these lies:
St. Paul could not be any clearer in understanding that his audience of gentile converts were NOT from the bloodline of Israel but they became part of the Church via accepting Christ as Lord.
Once again St. Paul speaking clearly, this time in biological terms, of how his Gentile audience represents a DIFFERENT lineage, that was GRAFTED into the tree that represents the Church, the true Israel, the heirs of the promise.
You are not a priest Iacobus, and neither am I. We are not competing orders of Monks, all of us are in the laity of our confessions. Try to remember that.
You accuse me of writing heresy but you cannot prove it, and if we were members of the clergy, this would be a more serious charge than anything else that could be levied against someone, so you better be prepared to back up your claims with comprehensive evidence if you are going to continue in persisting this accusation.
It is obvious that this topic clearly irritates you, as does everything else that doesn't conform to your position of self-ordained authority. You have made your anti-White bias clear, as have others on here. I do not resent you for this, but it appears that there is resent towards me for being the opposite. So now we have the case of both Pro-White and Anti-White members discussing heated ideas, but only the Anti-crowd dons the accusatory framework from the get go. I am left with no recourse but to defend my position, and that of many others.
I do not write or post this to irritate anyone, but to expose lies and spurn debate to arrive at further truth. It is best for all of us to be prepared to debate the enemies of Christ, even if we are in disagreement about certain principles of theology as well as the nature of certain sins. Do you think that everything is spiritual and nothing is physical? What is the point of life on Earth and these bodies then?
If my discussion of these passages enrages you, then bring in a member of the cloth to intermediate on your behalf, because I guarantee you a priest trained in the proper understanding of historical context, historical languages, cultures, and ethnic customs will not jump to such simple conclusions. A regular priest would not know any better and his job is just to lead sermons at a local parish or Church. Not every member of the church is skilled in these disciplines like the monks of yore. Whether the Church does or does not make a statement overall on certain passages does not mean that they are unable to be discussed to make a case for separation among different peoples, especially when evidence for this separation is presented to all of us every single day of our lives through the witness of grotesque spectacles of heathen violence and depravity.
Your own Church is much more respective of the Nations than my own. I have to contend with a schism within a schism after Vatican II among my confessional brethren, so I am much more adept at discussing theology amongst a schismatic crowd. I would expect differences between you and on Scripture sure, but these are not my analyses of Scripture in origin. There are numerous sources out there that discuss these with proper language and connotation. It may be a bit much of an egg-head approach to Scripture which is ground in terms where the simple man should accept on faith alone, but these days the lie of the devil are coming to fruition with every act of escalating and exponentiating violence in the physical world. Therefore among the skeptical Christians who would condemn themselves to inevitable ruin and suicide in their universalist societies by ignoring the clear Biblical command of separation, would be saved by listening and implementing this wisdom.
Here are more in-depth analyses of the passages you replied with. I did not do the original language analysis but other Christian polyglots did. I have most of them on old word documents that I'd be willing to share if anyone is interested, it covers the entire new testament. I have checked every single passage with available source documents on the internet and whatever I could find in a library, but the originals are exceedingly rare. The truth is buried in multiple variables of the past.
Galatians Chapter 3 specifically deals with the Heirs of the Covenant. Here again is 3:24 and the ones after it to give a bigger context:
24 So the law has been our tutor for Christ, in order that from faith we would be deemed righteous.
In this manner, earlier in this chapter Paul had quoted the prophet Habakkuk where he had written concerning the children of Israel, saying that “the just shall live by faith”. And here the law was supplemental to the promises to Abraham, which are permanent promises given apart from the law. In fact, the law itself foresaw in various ways that the children of Israel would break the Old Covenant. One example is in the curses of disobedience in Deuteronomy chapter 28:
“36 The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.” Yet in Deuteronomy chapter 17, it was already foreseen that Israel would indeed be disobedient in this manner where it says
“14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” Making a law which was contingent upon the disobedience of Israel, God was prophesying their disobedience and their resulting punishment.
That the law was “our tutor for Christ”, again those of the faith in Christ are those who had once been under the law, and out of all of the world's peoples as well as all of the children of Abraham, that can only apply to the children of the twelve tribes of Israel. If only they were ever under the law, then only they from faith may be deemed righteous in Christ. As it says in Isaiah chapter 45,
“25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” Yet for an Edomite to be under the law is folly, as today's jews claim, since the law was given only to Israel and they are not Israel.
25 But the faith having come, no longer are we under a tutor; 26 for you are all sons of Yahweh through the faith in Christ Yahshua.
But the faith in Christ is that He would reconcile the children of Israel to God, as read from both Daniel and Isaiah. There is no faith in Christ outside of this faith in Christ: that in Christ the children of Israel are reconciled to God. That is because there are no Old Testament promises for anyone of any other race. The faith having come, the children of Israel would no longer be condemned by the law, as Paul explains in Romans chapter 7:
“1, Are you ignorant, brethren (I speak to those who know the law,) that the law lords over the man for as long a time as he should live? 2 For a woman married to a living husband is bound by law; but if the husband should die, she is discharged from the law of the husband: 3 so then as the husband is living, she would be labeled an adulteress if she were found with another man; but if the husband should die, she is free from the law, she is not an adulteress being found with another man. 4 Consequently, my brethren, you also are put to death in the law through the body of Christ; for you to be found with another, who from the dead was raised in order that we should bear fruit for Yahweh. 5 Indeed when we were in the flesh, the occurrences of fault, which were through the law, operated in our members for the bearing of fruit for death; 6 but now we are discharged from the law, being put to death in that which we were held, so that we are bound in newness of Spirit, and not oldness of letter.” The Romans were of the children of the lost tribes of Israel as well as the Galatians.
27 For as many of you have been immersed in Christ, Christ you have been clothed in.
Translators may have done better to write the last clause “in Christ you have been clothed”, but the phrase “clothed in” comes from a single Greek word, and wherever that happens translators avoided splitting such phrases.
As previously seem in Galatians, being “immersed in Christ” means being immersed in His death: in the purpose of His having died on behalf of the children of Israel. As Paul had written in Romans chapter 6: “3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
28 There is not one Judaean or Greek, there is not one bondman or freeman, there is not one male and female; for all you are one in Christ Yahshua.
I've posted this before in the Christianity and Race thread, I will now do so again. Paul isn't saying that there should be no more slaves. The word for
bondmen is the same Greek word, δοῦλος, which was translated as
servants in 1 Timothy 6:1 where, in an epistle written several years after this epistle to the Galatians was written, Paul wrote:
“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” Rather, Paul is saying that among Christians, slaves should get equal love and respect with freemen, as he later wrote in the epistle to Philemon, where he wrote to him of the slave Onesimus, that he being a Christian should be treated “16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?” The word for servant in that passage is also δοῦλος each time it appears. Paul also continued to make distinctions concerning sex, where he wrote in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, an epistle which was written several years after this one, that “it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Therefore he is not saying here that there will be no more distinction between the sexes.
So it isn't as if there would no longer be Judaeans or Greeks, but as Paul had said in Galatians chapter 2, “6 Now from those reputed to be something, whatsoever they were then makes not one difference to me. God does not receive a man's stature, therefore to me those of repute are conferred nothing.” Again he later wrote in Romans, chapter 3: “
9 What then, are we better? Not at all: for we previously accused both Judaeans and Greeks all with being at fault: 10 just as it is written, 'that there is none righteous, not even one.'” Paul's words therefore have nothing to do with servitude, race, nationality, or sex in these passages.
Therefore, all of these things only have to do with the status of a person, and that there should be no distinctions of status among Christians: they should all love and treat one another equally. This is also the meaning of Paul's later discourse on the parts of the body of Christ which he had made to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians chapter 12 where he concludes
“25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” Paul is only speaking in reference to the Body of Christ, to the seed of Abraham, and that is a distinction which he maintains throughout this chapter. The conclusion of the chapter actually reinforces that assertion:
29 But if you are Christ’s, then of the offspring of Abraham you are heirs according to promise.
The KJV has added the conjunction
and to the last clause of this verse, which is in none of the original manuscripts. However many other versions have added things far more sinister.
Without adding any words or punctuation and without changing any of the original word order, this verse is difficult to comprehend in English, and may be literally translated: “
But if you of Christ then of Abraham offspring you are heirs according to promise.” The word for “then” is the Greek word ἄρα. According to Liddell & Scott ἄρα was generally used to describe a thing which is next in order after another, or something which explains what has preceded. Both of these uses are manifest where ἄρα also appears in different types of conditional sentences.
The Greek word ἄρα often serves to introduce the
apodosis in a conditional sentence (the
then... part), a clause which answers to the
protasis (the
if... part), where the word ἄρα can have an inferential force. For example, “If it is raining, then I cannot go fishing.” But there are several types of conditional sentences. They can either express factual implications, or they can express hypothetical situations and their consequences. In order to determine the type of conditional sentence to which such a statement belongs, the grammar of each of the clauses in the sentence must be examined. We see conditional sentences using the same Greek words for
if and
then in Matthew 12:28 and in Hebrews 12:8. In both instances, if the protasis, which is the clause following the
if is true, then the apodosis, which is the clause following the
then must also be true. These are conditional sentences which express factual implications.
Here in Galatians 3:29 where Paul wrote
“if you are Christ’s, then of the offspring of Abraham you are heirs according to promise”, once again the verb in the clause in the “then” side of the statement is Indicative, not Subjunctive, expressing a definite statement. So this is also a type of conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication. If you are Christ's, you are also Abraham's seed. Paul did not write that if you believe in Jesus you
may be, or you
could be, or you
shall be Abraham's seed, in the manner in which the denominational sects claim. Both sides of the statement must be true. If you are Abraham's seed, according to what Paul had explained in Galatians 3:16, then you are of Christ.
The commentators of the denominational sects isolate this one verse, and then they claim that it is a conditional sentence which expresses a hypothetical situation and its consequences, but that is a lie. Rather, this is a conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication, just as in Matthew 12:28 and Hebrews 12:8, or else all of Paul's previous statements in this chapter are no longer true, and Paul is a liar. But Paul is not saying that someone can simply claim to be Christ's and imagine himself to be of Abraham's offspring. Instead all through this chapter Paul's words prove that someone cannot claim to be Christ's and imagine himself to be of Abraham's offspring.
Now Ephesians, Chapter 2, verses 11-13:
11 On which account you must remember that at one time you, the Nations in the flesh, who are the so-called ‘uncircumcised’ by the so-called ‘circumcised’ made by hand in the flesh, 12 because you had at that time been apart from Christ, having been alienated from the civic life of Israel, and strangers of the covenants of the promise, not having hope and in the Society without Yahweh;
The phrase “without Yahweh” is from the single Greek word ἄθεος, which only appears here in the New Testament, and literally means
without God.
The KJV translation of this passage is ridiculous in that it has Paul calling the Ephesians former Gentiles. If that were so he would not continually refer to them as Gentiles throughout the rest of this epistle. In none of Paul's epistles do we see the concept of a former Gentile. Rather, the phrase “at one time” refers to the time mentioned in verse 12 where it says “at that time”, and both are a reference to the time during which the children of Israel were alienated from Yahweh their God for their sin, as we also see in verse 12, where the translation in the KJV is even worse.
Instead Paul is stating “at one time you … because you had at that time been apart from Christ”, and in between the clauses we see a short digression where Paul explains something about who they are, so that we may see how they fit into the purpose of God's will for Israel. The Ephesians were not “gentiles in the flesh”, and they were not formerly Gentiles because Paul was not trying to make them into jews and because he continued to call them Gentiles, but the Greek word actually means
nations.
These Ephesians were certainly some of the descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel, and therefore they were among the “Nations in the flesh” according to the promises made to Abraham, that his seed would become many nations and inherit the world. Paul described this same thing in much greater length in his earlier epistle to the Romans, in Romans chapter 4 where he had told the Romans that Abraham was their forefather, and among other things he then said:
“13 Indeed, not through the law is the promise to Abraham or to his offspring, that he is to be the heir of the Society, but through righteousness of faith. (So the promise remains to the offspring of Abraham, and it was not for anyone else.) 1
4 For if they from of the law are heirs, the faith has been voided, and the promise annulled. (So circumcision is no longer a sign of the promise
.) 15 For the law results in wrath, so where there is no law, neither is there transgression. 16 Therefore from of the faith, that in accordance with favor, then the promise is to be certain to all of the offspring, not to that of the law only, but also to that of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all; 17 (just as it is written, 'That a father of many nations I have made you,')
before Yahweh whom he trusted, who raises the dead to life, and calls things not existing as existing; 18 who contrary to expectation, in expectation believed, for which he would become a father of many nations according to the declaration, 'Thus your offspring will be.'” Paul says that Abraham's seed became many nations, and the universalist denominational churches twist that into the lie that many nations somehow became Abraham's seed. But God is not a liar and His word continues, as Paul taught.
As it says in Hosea chapter 4 of the children of Israel who were being alienated from God at that time,
“4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: 5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.” So according to the word of God, having lost all of these symbols and institutions of their kingdom, we cannot expect them to have maintained the associated rituals or customs such as circumcision. But the Old Testament histories concerning Israel had already made it clear that they had turned to paganism and had already abandoned many of these things. In the latter days, returning to their God, they must return to Him through Christ. Here Paul, where he is telling the Ephesians that they are the “Nations in the flesh” in much the same way that he had also earlier told the Corinthians that same thing (1 Corinthians 10), is informing them that these things which are written in the prophets are being fulfilled in them. At the end of this chapter he informs them that the Body of Christ is established on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.
13 but now you among the number of Christ, who at one time being far away, have become near by the blood of the Christ.
The children of Israel in captivity and their subsequent wanderings were far away from God both physically and spiritually, and during this time, as the Word of God says in Hosea chapter 5: “6 They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the LORD; but they shall not find
him; he hath withdrawn himself from them.” Likewise, speaking of those same circumstances and people, it says in Amos chapter 8: “12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and from to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find
it.”
In Micah chapter 4 another portrait of the same punishment of Israel is found in a promise of reconciliation: “
6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; 7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. 8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” This is the fate of the Israel which God had alienated, but which would be reconciled to Him in Christ.
And Romans, Chapter 11: 13-18, 19-24:
13 Indeed I speak to you, the Nations, because I am an ambassador of the Nations; I honor my office, 14 if possibly I would provoke to jealousy my kinsmen, and preserve some from among them. 15 Indeed if the disposal of them is the reconciliation of the cosmos, what would the acceptance be, if not life from among the dead?
Paul clearly imagined that being provoked to jealousy upon seeing the Gospel of Christ go out to the Nations, which were indeed the children of scattered Israel, by that he would also turn his Israelite kinsmen among the Judaeans to Christ. Paul is a kinsman to all Israel, but here he expresses his desire for his kinsmen in Israel, because not all of those in Judaea are his kinsman, and doing so he is emphasizing the racial scope of the Gospel. Not once did Paul express concern for any Edomite or non-Israelite. Not once did Paul express any concern for “whosoever believeth” in Judaea. Not once did Paul express a lack of concern for Israelites who did not believe: all of his concern in this aspect was for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” who did not believe hoping that they would somehow be preserved.
If the Israelites of Judaea had not acceded to the desires of the Edomite Sadducees, from which was the party of the high priests, as well as others of the party of the Pharisees who desired to put Christ to death, then there would be no reconciliation to Yahweh for the Israelites scattered abroad, since Christ would not have been the Lamb of God and there would have been no release from the Law in the manner which Paul described in Romans chapter 7. The Edomites only had their way because much of Israel went along with them. Therefore Peter, addressing the people of Judaea and speaking of Christ as it is recorded in Acts 2:23, exclaimed that
“He (Christ) by the appointed will and foreknowledge of Yahweh was surrendered, who crucifying through lawless hands you have slain!”
Here Paul also defines the scope of the word
cosmos, or world, as the Adamic world of scattered Israel and the Adamic Genesis 10 nations, since he himself has confined the message of the gospel to the nations which sprung from the loins of Abraham in Romans chapter 4, who are those of the Roman οἰκουμένη who were both Judaean and Greek, Scythian and Barbarian, slave and free.
16 Now if the first fruit is sacred, then also the balance, and if the root is sacred, also the branches.
The word rendered balance is literally
lump and may be a reference to the mass of dough made from the grain.
Since a good tree does not produce bad fruit, all of Israel, which is every single Israelite, must be worthy of salvation. From Matthew chapter 7, the words of Christ:
“17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Yahshua Christ Himself being the root of the Adamic tree, the children of Israel and the entire Adamic race is indeed sacred.
17 But if some of the branches have been broken off and you, being of a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, [and]
having become a partaker of the richness of the root of the olive tree, 18 you must not exult over the branches; but if you exult, you will not sustain the root, or the root you.
The 3rd century papyrus P46 and the Codex Claromontanus want the words “of the root” in verse 17. The Codex Alexandrinus and the Majority Text (Byzantine and Ecclesiastical text) have “the root and the richness”. The text follows the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B) and Ephraemi Syri (C).
As for the phrase ἀλλὰ ἡ ῥίζα σέ in verse 18, which is literally “but the root you”, the word ἀλλά (alla, Greek for "but") is a conjunction which is primarily adversative, however the context of the preceding clauses must be considered (and especially when the preceding clause is negative) and in this case it must be rendered “or” rather than “but”. It may have perhaps more properly but not necessarily been rendered as “nor”.
This comparison made by Paul here is reminiscent of a passage from Homer's
Odyssey, Book 5, in which Odysseus encounters a place where two olive trees, one cultivated and one wild, grow out of the same spot.
19 Now you will say, Those branches have been broken off, in order that I would be grafted in?
Once again, none of the major versions, nor the Nestle-Aland
Novum Testamentum Graece read this verse as a question. I must let the context stand for itself. The Future Indicative is often interchangeable with the Aorist Subjunctive (see MacDonald, p. 46). I may have written more properly “...that I shall be grafted in?” Grammatically, οὗν as an interrogatory particle (see Thayer, οὗν, B.) and a verb of the Indicative mood (here the Future tense, ἐγκεντρίσθω) is a pattern Paul uses elsewhere for interrogatives, for example at Romans 3:31 and 7:13.
20 Correct, in disbelief they were broken off, and you in faith stand. Be not proud, but reverent. 21 Indeed if Yahweh spared not the natural branches, perhaps you may not be spared.
The cutting off of certain of the people of Judah was a matter of prophecy. This is found in Jeremiah chapter 24, in the parable of the good and the bad figs. The Judahites who were obedient to Yahweh and went into captivity were to be acknowledged as good figs, allegorically of course. Yet certain Judahites were to be given over to bad figs. It is not that they themselves were bad figs, but that they would be given over to bad figs. These were “Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt”. Yet this could not have been fulfilled until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and some of the subsequent Judaean revolts against Rome, since it was not until then that Judaeans began to be taken captive into all nations and to become “a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places” where they were driven. In the time of Trajan (circa 115 AD) there were Judaean revolts against Rome in Cyrpus, Cyrene and Alexandria, which were put down by the Romans and which decimated Judaean s in those areas. Only then were Jeremiah's words fulfilled concerning “them that dwell in the land of Egypt”. Later, in the time of Hadrian (circa 135 AD) there was the Bar Kokhba rebellion in Judaea. During these three Judaean wars against the Romans, several million Judaeans died, and nearly all of the cities they inhabited were laid to waste. Perhaps hundreds of thousands were sold into slavery, and were distributed throughout the Greco-Roman world in fulfillment of the prophecy.
22 Behold then the goodness and severity of Yahweh: certainly upon those who have fallen, severity; but the goodness of Yahweh upon you, if then you abide in that goodness, otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 Moreover they also, if they do not remain in disbelief, shall be grafted in; indeed Yahweh is able to graft them in anew. 24 If you from out of a naturally wild olive tree had been cut off, and contrary to nature had been grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more can those natural ones be grafted into their own olive tree?
The text of the Nestle-Aland
Novum Testamentum Graece (in original Koine Greek) does not mark verse 24 as a question, although the KJV agrees with the reading here.
There are three words pertaining to olive trees which Paul uses here: ἐλαία which is simply an
olive tree or even the
olive itself, ἀγριέλαιος which refers to the
wild or
uncultivated olive, and καλλιέλαιος which is the
garden or
cultivated olive tree. In Latin the olive is
olea, and the wild olive
oleaster. They are the same kind, and the distinction is only one of
cultivation but not of
species or
race. There is another word for the wild olive, κότινος, which Paul did not use here. We can estimate that his use of words based upon ἐλαία was purposeful, demonstrating an intrinsic connection between the wild and the cultivated olives which he describes.
Paul had told the Romans in Romans chapter 2 that
“as many as have done wrong without law, without law then are they cleansed; and as many as have done wrong in the law, by the law they will be judged”. Yet Paul also indicated many times that the Romans were indeed of the dispersions of the ancient Israelites. In that same chapter he told them
“for when the Nations, which do not have the law, by nature practice the things of the law, these, not having law, themselves are a law; who exhibit the work of the law written in their hearts”, referencing a prophecy in Jeremiah concerning the children of Israel. The Romans may have been wild olives, but they nevertheless grew into a society based on the rule of law with the stature of an olive tree.
In contrast to his message to the Romans, Paul told the Corinthians, who were Dorian Greeks and not Romans,
“that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all had passed through the sea. And all up to Moses had immersed themselves in the cloud and in the sea, and all had eaten the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of an attending spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ.” So the ancestors of the Corinthians were in the Exodus with the Israelites. Likewise, in Galatians chapter 4 Paul told the Galatians
“Now I say, for as long a time as the heir is an infant, he differs not at all from a bondman, being master of all; but he is subject to guardians and stewards until a time appointed by the father. Just as we also, when we were infants, we were held subject under the elements of the Society. And when the fulfillment of the time had come, Yahweh had dispatched His Son, having been born of a woman, having been subject to law, in order that he would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons. And because you are sons, Yahweh has dispatched the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Father, Father. So you are no longer a bondman but a son”.
The Dorian Greeks were Israelites who migrated out of Palestine during the later part of the Judges period, perhaps as early as the 12th century BC. While they departed from Israel and went off into paganism before the beginning of the Kingdom period, the laws of Yahweh and Hebrew traditions practiced by their ancestors for several hundred years were still a part of their culture and had an impact on their manner of life. The Galatians were Galatae, Israelites of the Assyrian deportations who had also long been pagans. While these Galatians in Anatolia had become Hellenized and had some Greeks among them, they still had many centuries of Yahweh's law in their heritage. Even long after a people become disconnected from their original culture, aspects of that culture have a continued effect on their society and their morality. We can detect this in our own society today, which still upholds many of the values expressed in documents as old as the Magna Carta, and which still upholds many Biblical values even though today a great number of people have rejected Christ.
Paul never used the wild olive allegory in reference to the Corinthians or Galatians, or of anyone other than Romans.
With all certainty, Judaean Israelites who turned to Christ would indeed have once again become a part of the family of Yahweh. But by this Paul does not mean the Edomite Jews. Paul is only writing these things in reference to his kinsmen “according to the flesh who are Israelites”, and the Edomites are bastards who are not of his flesh. As Paul explained in Hebrews chapter 12, there is a clear distinction between sons and bastards, and no bastard can be a son which is why Esau, who was a fornicator, could find no room for repentance. That was also mentioned by Paul in that same chapter of Hebrews, being related to the distinction between sons and bastards. Sons are included, and bastards are excluded, and that is the teaching of Scripture.
Paul indeed knew who the nations were, and that is why each of his letters and epistles was tailored to each one.
As for this thread, you can't ignore 2500 years of archaeological facts, linguistic adaptations, and migration patterns on top of a historically contextual and linguistic reading of the Scriptures. When you connect all the dots you will see a much more revealed hidden history than what any of us were told.
This is not to turn any non-White away from Christ, but that it should drive every single White on this Earth into the faith with a zealousness that no Talmudic jew can ever rival. These universalist lies of "only the spirit" spawned from jewish infiltration and subversion doesn't keep anybody around. The White race, being a spiritual race cannot cling to these empty doctrines, and the non-White races invoking these creeds, in perpetual struggle with their constant repression of their natural impulsivities, end up changing and modifying the Gospel to suit their own desires of the flesh or memories of their paganist ancestors. Look at any Black Baptist, Methodist, or Pentecostal "congregation". The emptiness of faith in modern Whites is precisely because of this unnatural and inserted diversity nature of modern interpretations of the Gospel. They are castigated and punished for doing anything exclusive to their own kind, while every other race on Earth gets the opposite treatment. It is foolish to think these state of affairs can maintain themselves perpetually.
. They claim that after the final Jewish revolt in the 100s the tribe of Judah made it to West Africa and Black Americans are the authentic descendants of Judah. Starting this thread is probably making me sound as goofy as them.
