100 Proofs the Israelites were White, with Truthvids

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 61

In Parts 25 through 31 of this series, we presented what we had designated as Proof 45, a discussion of Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in the epistles of Paul. Now we shall revisit Paul’s epistles, as they contain many testimonies that serve as stand-alone proofs of the identity of the true children of Israel. Some of these proofs may include our own translations, and we will not always preoccupy ourselves with explaining all of the nuances of translation again since we already discussed it in Proof 45, however we shall repeat what is necessary. Paul is of the utmost importance to an understanding of apostolic Christianity, since he was the first apostle who is recorded as having brought the Gospel to Europe, and that must have been in accordance with the specific commission which the apostle had received from Christ to bring His gospel to a specific people, as well as Paul’s own descriptions in relation to that commission. So for that same reason, we shall begin with Paul’s commission, and how he himself had understood his commission.

79) Paul’s Commission from Christ

Paul of Tarsus had been persecuting Judaean Christians, and especially those who had moved outside of Jerusalem to Damascus, after he witnessed the stoning of Stephen which is recorded at the end of Acts chapter 7. Then, after the Road to Damascus event in Acts chapter 8, where Christ had appeared to him, we read that he is taken to Damascus to the home of a man named Hananias. But Hananias was dubious of Paul’s intentions, as he knew that he had been persecuting Christians. So we read in Acts chapter 9: “13 And Hananias replied ‘Prince, I have heard from many concerning this man, how much evil he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem, 14 and thus he has authority from the high priests to bind all of those being called by Your Name.’ 15 But the Prince said to him ‘Go! For he is a vessel chosen by Me who is to bear My Name before both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.’ As we have already explained, the King James Version has “Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel”, however the particle joining the phrases, τε, does not translate simply into the English word and, as does the particle καί. In his Greek-English Lexicon, Joseph Thayer states that τε differs from the particle καί, the usual word translated as and, where καί is conjunctive, but τε is adjunctive and that “καί introduces something new under the same aspect yet as an external addition, whereas τε marks it as having an inner connection with what precedes” (Thayer, τε, p. 616, column B).” So we stand by our translation of the phrase as being the correct translation.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 62

In our last two proofs, we discussed Paul’s commission as an apostle from Yahshua Christ, which states that he was to bear the Name of Christ “before both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.” Doing this, we demonstrated how Paul had interpreted that commission as being to the twelve tribes of Israel, and also how he fulfilled it, by bringing the Gospel of Christ to the nations of Europe. Now we shall discuss other aspects of Paul’s epistles which also prove these things, that Paul brought the Gospel to Europe because he knew with all certainty that Europe is where the children of Israel had been scattered abroad, as well as Anatolia and other areas to the north of Palestine. But the scope of these subjects are not all limited to Paul’s epistles.

81) The Subjects of Redemption

There are often assertions made by denominational churches that Jesus came to redeem all of mankind, or all men, as a reference to every single biped that has ever existed, regardless of race or any other aspect of a man’s existence. Then they use the same concept to force Christians to accept people of all races, and even grievous sinners such as sodomites or fornicators. But is that assertion really true? Did Jesus come to redeem all of mankind? Or do the Scriptures inform us explicitly that Christ came to redeem only certain or particular men. And if the Scriptures inform us that Christ redeemed only a certain race or family of men, how can the churches change that on their own? Who gave them the authority, if it is not found in the Word of God?

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 63

In our last few presentations here we have been discussing themes found in the ministry and epistles of Paul of Tarsus which help to establish that the nations to whom he had brought the gospel were indeed the same nations which had descended from the ancient children of Israel. So we have already discussed the substance of Paul’s Commission from Christ, how Paul himself had applied his commission, the subjects of Biblical redemption and what Paul had meant by the phrase strangers from the covenants. Now we shall continue with the subject of adoption, as that word, as it appears in English Bibles, is only found in Paul’s epistles, and it has a very specific application.

83) The Adoption of Israel

Just as the denominational churches try to extend the redemption which Yahweh had explictly promised to the children of Israel to other races and nations, they do that same thing with this concept of adoption. However the word only appears in Paul’s epistles, three times in Romans, and once each in Galatians and Ephesians, and Paul himself states explicitly that the adoption is for Israel, in relation to Israelites who are his own kinsmen “according to the flesh”. There is not a single statement in Scripture which suggests that the adoption of which Paul had spoken could possibly be attained by anyone who is not of his flesh, who could somehow imagine that he may magically become an Israelite.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 64

Once again, over our last few presentations here we have been discussing themes found in the ministry and epistles of Paul of Tarsus which help to establish that the White European nations to whom he had brought the gospel were indeed the same nations which had descended from the ancient children of Israel. So we have already discussed Paul’s commission from Christ, how Paul had applied that commission, the subjects of Biblical redemption, Israel having been estranged from the covenants, the adoption of Israel and the ministry of reconciliation. All of these things prove that Paul of Tarsus was taking the Gospel of Christ to Israelites, descendants of ancient Israel who were by that time known by many other names, as he toured Europe. Now we shall continue with Paul’s explanation of the scope of the covenants, and his references to the family of the faith, which is not a reference to mere believers joining some church.

85) The Scope of the Covenant

We discussed this subject in Proofs 35 and 36, in Part 12 of this series, in relation to both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Now we shall speak of them again, but this time from the perspective of the ministry of Paul because his confirmations of these prophecies stand as a proof as to why he had taken the Gospel of Christ to the White nations of Europe.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 65

In our last presentation we continued our discussions of themes found in the epistles of Paul of Tarsus with the Scope of the Covenant and the Family of the Faith, as they certainly do consist of the White European nations to whom he had brought the gospel of Christ. Now we shall continue with a discussion of the word church, and what is the true church as it is described by Scripture and in the definitions of the word used which has traditionally been translated as church. A church certainly is not a collection of mere believers congregating in some building. That is actually something which is better described by the word synagogue, rather than church.

87) What is the Church?

Portions of this presentation are taken from an essay at Christogenea which is titled Misconceptions Concerning Paul and the Church.

Here we are not going to digress at length on what a Christian church is not, except to mention that priests, in the sense of an officer of a church organization, are not found in Christian writings until the 4th century AD. In the New Testament, every man is a priest of God in the sense that he serves God by loving his brethren and keeping the commandments. But once Christianity began to be accepted by Rome, a new class of Christian priests developed, and pagan temples began to be converted for use into church buildings. Once the emperor Justinian created the office of pope, eventually nuns, orders of monasteries, a college of cardinals, and a hierarchical, centralized organization which conducted or supervised the ordination of priests and bishops all developed. While many of these institutions were useful or helpful in medieval society, and did things which are useful to us today, none of them are necessarily Biblical or required by Christianity. They are actually antichristian in several ways, because they set up authorities over men which the Scriptures do not advocate or support, and in some cases even refute or condemn.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 66

As it may have become evident throughout recent portions of this series of our 100 Proofs, proving that the Israelites were White goes far beyond examining Old Testament verses which describe or allude to the color of their skin. Rather, if the apostles of Christ had brought the Gospel to the White nations of Europe exclusively, and if time and again we can demonstrate that they themselves had believed that they were bringing the Gospel to the people who were descended from those Israelites who were scattered abroad in ancient times, then each aspect of that belief, as the apostles themselves had expressed it, is also a sure proof of our assertions. So last week we described What is a Church, and this week we will discuss a related subject, which is What is a Saint?

88) What is a Saint?

In the Old Testament one Hebrew word which is typically translated as saint is qadesh or qadosh, קדש or קדוש, and it refers to someone or something which has been sanctified or separated for a particular reason. Sometimes, unfortunately, another word translated as saint is chaciyd or חסיד, but that word really only describes someone who is merely faithful or pious. In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word translated as saint is always from the Greek word ἅγιος, which Liddell & Scott define primarily as “devoted to the gods”, although in the Bible we would say God, or properly, Yahweh. But after that definition, even they go on to provide the typical Church definitions of the word, sacred or holy, without any further explaining those definitions in relation to the primary meaning.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 67

In recent presentations in this series we hope to have answered the questions, What is the Church?, and What is a Saint?, from a proper Biblical perspective: that the Church is the collective of the children of Israel in the world, that a church is properly a gathering or community of those same people as Christians, and furthermore, that those same people are also the Saints, regardless of whether they profess to be Christians. Saints are not something which a pope designates: saints are the people whom Yahweh God has already separated, or distinguished, from all of the world’s other peoples. Then, since Christ and His apostles had used these terms in relation to White Europeans, we see that the ancient Israelites must have been White, because it was in the Old Testament that both the Church and the Saints were designated by Yahweh God, and Christ was the embodiment of promises made to them which are found throughout the words of the Prophets.

89) The words of the Prophets

Here I may have researched statistics on how many times the prophets were cited in the New Testament, which is well into the hundreds, but instead I chose to focus on illustrating a handful of significant examples.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 68

In our last presentation of these 100 Proofs, we discussed the critical importance of the words of the prophets to interpretations of Christianity, as attested by both Christ and the apostles. Then we discussed what Yahweh God had cleansed on the cross of Christ, which must have been the children of Israel whom He had promised to cleanse in the words of those same prophets. So if God had only cleansed certain men, as He had promised, it must be evident that there were men who were not cleansed by Him, men who could not be cleansed, and that shall be our subject in this presentation. Some portions of the following two proofs were already discussed in our proof on all of the mistranslations found in the letters of Paul, however they merit separate treatment because they each stand as proofs on their own, that the Israelites were White as they demonstrate that the Gospel was intended exclusively for the White Europeans to whom the apostles had evangelized.

91) Men who Could Not be Cleansed

In John chapter 13 there is a detailed description of the event which is popularly called the Last Supper, and the apostle explained how Christ had washed the feet of all of the disciples. So as He proceeded to do that, we read in part: “8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.”

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 69

In our last presentation of these 100 Proofs, we endeavored to show that there are certain men whom Yahweh God could not have cleansed, and whom He had never intended to cleanse because, as it is prophesied in the Old Testament, He only intended to cleanse the children of Israel of their sins. So for that same reason, in the presentation preceding that we had discussed what Yahweh God had cleansed on the cross of Christ, which must have been the children of Israel whom He had explicitly promised to cleanse in the words of the prophets. So if God had only cleansed certain men, and only men of Israel as He had promised, it must be evident that there were men who were not cleansed by Him, and as we argued here last week, it is for that reason that Judas was not clean, and that Paul of Tarsus spoke of “disgusting and wicked men” who were never candidates for conversion to Christianity but against whom Paul had prayed for protection. Furthermore, of such men are the unclean whom Paul had told his readers to come out from among, particularly in 2 Corinthians chapter 6, where he was paraphrasing the words of the prophet Isaiah. Since the Scripture describes the cleansing of men with the blood of the Lamb, that will be the subject of our next discussion.

93) The Blood of the Lamb

An allegorical description of the crucifixion of Christ as the blood of a lamb is found in 1 Peter chapter 1, where we read: “18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” When Peter wrote those words, he was addressing Christians of the Roman provinces of Anatolia, having described them as sojourners, where he also informed them that they were elect “according to the foreknowledge of God.” Then he encouraged them, that upon their trials they could look forward to “9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 70

Here we shall depart from our Biblical proofs in order to discuss the similarities which the Hebrews had with ancient Greek culture. This will demonstrate that Hebrews and Greeks held many common beliefs, even if one side is from a pagan perspective. While we shall not get to it in this presentation, next we shall discuss the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe. Those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related.

95) Israelite and Greek Culture were the Same.

There were many parallels between ancient Hebrew and Greek religious beliefs and customs that cannot be explained if the cultures were not related. Here we shall revisit material I had compiled for a June, 2010 presentation titled Greek Culture is Hebrew. The focus here is on the Tragic Poets, namely Aeschylus and Euripides, both of whom wrote in the 5th century BC. Aeschylus is esteemed to have been born in 525 BC, and Euripides in 480 BC, which makes him a contemporary with Herodotus.

>TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 71

In our last presentation we discussed many of the countless similarities which the Hebrews had with ancient Greek culture, demonstrating the fact that Hebrews and Greeks held many common beliefs, even if one side was from a pagan perspective. Now we shall discuss the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe, mostly Latin, Greek and English. Those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related. But before we get into that discussion, we shall discuss a prophecy where Yahweh God had promised that He would speak to his people in a language other than Hebrew, and that language must have been Greek.

96) Why the New Testament was written in the Greek language, and most quotations from the Old Testament were made from the Greek Septuagint.

There are rumors that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, which is also sometimes called Syriac, but that is a lie. The oldest known manuscripts of any portion of the New Testament in Aramaic dates to the 5th century, and several known translations into Aramaic from Greek were created even later, such as the Philoxeniana in the early 6th century or the Harklensis in the early 7th. There was a Syriac harmony of the Gospels called the Diatessaron made in the late 2nd century by Tatian which has not survived. But that was an attempt to rewrite the four Gospel accounts in harmony, and should not be reckoned as actual Scripture. There are also related claims that Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic, and not Hebrew. But often, the apostles mention their native tongue, and they always called it Hebrew, and not Aramaic. Syriac and Hebrew are distinguished in Isaiah chapter 36, which records events that occurred about 700 BC. In that account it is evident that Hebrew speakers could not normally understand Aramaic, or Syriac. There may have been differences between the Hebrew of the first century and that of Isaiah’s time, but it was nevertheless Hebrew, and the apostles must have known better what language they were speaking than modern commentators.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 72

In our last presentation we discussed why the New Testament was written in the Greek language, and the fact that the majority of quotations from the Old Testament which are found in the New Testament were made from the Greek Septuagint, which shows that the authors of our New Testament scriptures were very familiar with Greek text of the Old Testament even if they had also maintained a familiarity with the Hebrew version, or versions. Then we began a discussion of the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe, mostly Latin, Greek and English. As we hope to have already shown to some degree, those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related. Here we shall continue that discussion.

97) Similarities of words in European languages with Hebrew, continued

First, there are a couple of points I left unanswered in our last presentation, which I would like to address here. Evidently the Wisdom of Sirach did survive in Hebrew. Judith is more controversial, as there is a shorter Hebrew version that dates the work to a completely different period, the 2nd century BC rather than the 7th, and although it is in the Septuagint that version has not survived in Hebrew, or perhaps never existed in Hebrew. Like Esther, no portion of Judith was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But for several reasons, I believe Judith is a historical novel that was rewritten in different ages. Tobit was not preserved by the rabbis of Judaism, but fragments of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are no surviving Hebrew copies of Baruch, or of the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah, and arguably both works may have been originally written in Greek. There are no known Hebrew copies of the apocryphal works attributed to Daniel: Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children, and Susanna. The same is true of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Prayer of Manasseh and the four books of the Maccabees, which survived to us in Greek. A Hebrew original is claimed for 1 Maccabees, and that is acceptable, but if it existed it did not survive. The book known as 1 Esdras, from the Septuagint, seems to be a more complete copy of the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah known from the text of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. These are all of the books of the Apocrypha that are worth mentioning here, but I do not accept many of them as being canonical. Many of them do not belong in our Bibles.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 73

This is now part three of our discussion of the Hebrew language and its relationship to the languages of Europe, which for us is mostly limited to English along with some Latin and Greek. We hope to have already demonstrated that many common everyday words which are found in each of these languages are similar or even identical to Hebrew words in both sound and meaning. Of course, words which only sound similar but have unrelated meanings can and should be dismissed as being coincidental. But when a great variety of words are practically identical in both sound and meaning, the implications cannot be overlooked -- especially since there are also a great number of broader cultural similarities and historical links between these same nations. Once these links are acknowledged, we find that language connections between the ancient Israelites and the nations of Europe go far beyond the fact that those nations use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, and that these languages must be directly related, and were even derived or descended from Hebrew, albeit with other ancient influences. Here we shall continue that discussion.

Before we begin, we should discuss our presentation of these 100 Proofs in general. Here I would have to admit not having been a very good accountant. This list, and the order in which it has been presented, has gone through many changes, additions, and permutations as we had proceeded. So often, I neglected to change the numbering of the proofs as I began my writing. While I already admitted having to Proofs numbered 37, Truthvids recently discovered that I had mistakenly reused numbers in the 60’s on five occasions. We would never get to 100 at that rate. Therefore, since I rarely mention the numeration of the Proofs in these podcasts, I decided to renumber them to correct those more recent errors. So this current proof on the similarities of words in number 97, and not 92 as I had it when we began. The papers at Christogenea have been corrected to reflect the appropriate numbers.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 74

This is now part four and hopefully the final part of our discussion of the Hebrew language and its relationship to the languages of Europe, which for us is mostly limited to English along with some Latin and Greek. Eventually we hope to add many more entries for those and other languages to this list, as soon as we can afford the significant amount of time it would require to continue this study. However for now, we certainly hope to have already demonstrated that many common everyday words which are found in each of these languages are similar or even identical to Hebrew words in both sound and meaning. There will always be skeptics, however the implications of the evidence which we have offered here cannot be overlooked, especially once they are considered along with the cultural similarities and historical links between these same nations. The affinities between the languages of the ancient Israelites and the nations of Europe go far beyond the fact that those nations used the same so-called Phoenician alphabet. These languages must be directly related, and were even derived or descended from Hebrew, albeit with other ancient influences. Here we shall continue that discussion.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 75

Having finished our exposition on the linguistic connections between Hebrew and some of the languages of Europe, primarily English, there are only a handful of proofs left in our list. So now we will turn to another aspect of history, which is the relationship between the Parthians and Judaeans which predates Roman times, and then after discussing the identity of the Magi we shall move on to discuss various archaeological proofs of the ethnicity of the Israelites, that they were indeed White. There are at least four, traditionally five, and possibly more magi mentioned or referred to in the New Testament, and all of them are portrayed as Judaeans, or as having special knowledge of certain of the affairs relating to Judaea. In the end, I will also make a few assertions here with implications that I have restrained myself from making in the past, but some of them do have multiple witnesses even if the entire picture is not as complete as I would prefer.

98) Parthian role and interest in first century BC Judaea. Why Josephus wrote Wars, and for whom, and the interest which Josephus maintained in Parthia up through the end of his histories. The identification of the Magi.

Before discussing the Parthians and their interest in the history of Judaea in Roman times, perhaps we should first have some background on Parthia, and also on neighboring Hyrcania, as Hyrcanus was a name taken by several of the Hasamonaean high priests even a hundred years before Rome became involved in Judaea, and I doubt that is a coincidence. The name Hyrcanus, as it is applied to the high priest which we know by that name, is known only from Josephus, but not from Maccabees where he is referred to only as John the son of Simon. However there is also a later high priest named John Hyrcanus, who was slain by Herod in 30 BC, and in 2 Maccabees 3:11 another Hyrcanus is named, the son of Tobias, so the name Hyrcanus is not unusual in Judaea.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 76

Last week we discussed the Parthian Empire and the Parthian interest and role in Judaea in the first century before Christ. What is more important to us, however, is the interest which Josephus had in the affairs of the Parthians, as he spent considerable time discussing them throughout his writings, and in many places makes statements supporting the fact that the Parthians were indeed a significant portion of those Israelites who had been taken into Assyrian captivity many centuries before. Presenting the statements made by Josephus in this regard, we also discussed the magi, and have hopefully demonstrated that the magi who came to Judaea in order to worship the Christ child were descendants of the ancient Levites who had gone into captivity, who remained priests, and who were ultimately known to the pagan world as magi. Now we shall discuss the magi as they were traditionally depicted in early Christian art, and how those depictions have been corrupted over time.

In our discussion last week, we may have spoken more about how well the various Hasmonean rulers, the high priests John Hyrcanus II and Antigonus, had been treated by the Parthians even if one of those men had employed them to help him supplant the other. On the surface, that may be attriubted to politics or political expediency, but that is not necessarily true. Rather than merely disposing of John Hyrcanus II, the high priest who had been deposed by Parthia and taken as a prisoner, the Parthian king Orodes II treated him kindly, supported him generously as he was held in Parthia, and released him to return to Jerusalem once his own son Pacorus was slain by the Romans. On the other hand, when Hyrcanus returned, Herod mistreated him and had him slain. We can only wonder whether Antigonus was ever able to warn his uncle about the danger of making deals with a devil.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 77

Last week we discussed how the magi had been portrayed throughout history, and how all of the art of which they were the subjects had always portrayed them as three White men, until certain of the Dutch and Italian artists of the 15th century and later began to make innovations. We also discussed early Ethiopian Church art, and how up to the 10th or 11th centuries it depicted Christ and the apostles as being White, at least apparently, in wall paintings and printed illustrations. We found no such art which depicted Christ or the apostles as being black until the building of more recent churches during the colonial period. So here we made the assertion that these are both instances of cultural appropriation, first where White men injected blacks into a historical setting in which they had no part, and later where black Ethiopians changed the nature of early historical figures in order to suit themselves.

Now we shall discuss early Judaean and Christian art, dating generally from the 2nd or 3rd to the 5th centuries AD, where not only were Christ and the apostles always depicted as having been White and European-looking, but that is also how the Judaeans had depicted themselves. If early Judaeans portrayed themselves and their forbears as having been White, then White they must have been. While we had spoken of some of these discoveries in archaeology as part of Proof 5 in this series, they deserve a more thorough discussion and a proof of their own.