TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 33

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20210403-100Proofs-33.mp3 — Downloaded 2399 times


TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 33

Now that we have completed a discussion of particular passages in the epistles of Peter where certain terms are either mistranslated or misunderstood, we would like to discuss certain statements and descriptions in the epistles of James, Peter and Jude which demonstrate that differences between particular people are indeed racial in nature, and that the concept of race as we know it was certainly understood and recognized by all three apostles. Then we hope to discuss the descriptions of the antichrist in the epistles of John, which also correlate with what we shall see here in 2 Peter and in Jude.

47) James and the appearance of your race

First, we must understand that James had addressed his epistle to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad” and therefore none of what he wrote is meant for any other people but the members of those twelve tribes. James was not writing to Judaeans, as it is evident that he remained in Jerusalem until he was killed by the Sadducees around 61 AD, a crime which was recorded by Flavius Josephus. So James’ salutation is a proof in itself, since with only one recorded exception, that of Anna the prophetess, by all ancient accounts there were never more than a remnant portion of three tribes from Judah, Benjamin and Levi which had returned from captivity to rebuild and inhabit Jerusalem, along with parts of Judah and Galilee.

History accounts for the presence Anna, of a woman of the tribe of Asher, in first century Judaea, since the ancient Tyrians, which were within the territory of Asher, were not taken in the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations, and were not removed from their island city until the coming of Alexander the Great. By that time many of them apparently spread back to the mainland in the Persian period, as Herodotus records that they had assisted the Persians in building and staffing their navy. So for the most part, from elements of three tribes, along with large numbers of Edomites and other aliens, the Roman province of Judaea was formed. But larger portions of all twelve tribes had been taken into Assyrian captivity, while larger portions of those three had also never returned to Judaea, and it is they whom James is addressing in his epistle.

The scattered children of Israel being twelve tribes of one family, or nation, we would expect them all to have similar racial characteristics, so long as they had not mixed with other races. Where Josephus describes them as an innumerable multitude dwelling beyond the Euphrates River in his own time, he was not reckoning their having migrated northward, as the prophets foresaw, but was speaking of their numbers in the place of their captivity from his own perspective. However when we see who the geographers and historians such as Herodotus, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus describe as being in that region, we find only Scythians or Sakae, the tribes who were also called Galatae or Galatians by the Greeks, and who ultimately became known as the Germanic people. But of course, James’ salutation also must have included many of the Greeks and Romans, Parthians and Phoenicians who had also descended from the ancient Israelites.

With this in mind, we should read James 1:23-24, first from the King James Version: “23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.”

Now if men of any race, regardless of their appearance, could be Christians and keep the word of God, what would the look of their faces have to do with their behavior? Why would James make an analogy comparing the look of a man’s face to his behavior? But here the Greek passage translated in the King James Version as “his natural face” is τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ. These are two nouns accompanied by definite articles and a pronoun.

The first article and noun, τὸ πρόσωπον, are in the accusative case and therefore they are the object of the verb translated as beholding, which we would interpret as observing. The subject of that verb is of course the man doing the beholding. The word πρόσωπον is literally a face, visage, countenance, or in some contexts the appearance or look of a person. Here, speaking of a man looking into a glass or mirror, it can mean nothing else but a face.

The second article and noun, as well as the pronoun, τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ, are all in the genitive case, which primarily shows possession, source or origin. The pronoun being masculine and singular is of him or his. Being together, the three words must be taken as a unit which describes what was mentioned before, which is τὸ πρόσωπον. So the phrase τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ is a sort of adjectival phrase modifying the noun πρόσωπον, and that is how the words are treated in the King James Version and at least most other translations. But while it may be an adjectival phrase, the word γένεσις is still a noun, and by itself it should not merely be reduced to an adjective, as natural in the phrase where the King James has “his natural face”. That creates a lie which allows the translator to obscure or circumvent the true meaning of the term. The Greek language certainly had adjectives for such a purpose, if that were what James wanted to say. For example, the word φύσις or the related term φυσικός appear as natural several times in the writings of Peter and Paul. So this is a blatant and perhaps a purposeful error on the part of the translators of the King James Bible and many subsequent versions.

The word γένεσις, for which we have the genitive singular form γενέσεως here, is a noun which means, according to Liddell & Scott, an origin, source, productive cause, and then, in reference to living creatures, a manner of birth, race, descent and a race, kind, family. So, describing a man looking into a mirror and in relation to James’ following remark about what sort of man he was, which as he says, you can see when you look in a mirror, therefore it can only refer to his race and that is the way that it must be translated. The word γένεσις is not by itself an adjective which means natural. Rather, it is a noun, written in English as genesis, which means origin, descent, kind or race.

Furthermore, the word which the King James Version translates as manner in verse 24 is ὁποῖος and it is defined by Liddell & Scott to mean of what sort or quality, or of what kind, and it is that which James says that a man can see in a mirror, so that also informs us that by using the word γένεσις he was referring to race.

So we must translate the same passage, James 1:23-24, in this manner: “23 Because if one is a hearer of the Word and not a doer, he is like a man observing the appearance of his race in a mirror, 24 for he observes himself and departs and immediately forgets of what sort he was.”

In the New American Standard Bible at James 1:23, where just like the King James Version they also wrote “his natural face”, there is a footnote stating “ Lit., the face of his birth; or, nature”. So they admit the literal meaning of the phrase, but they cannot accept it, and they could not bring themselves to use the term race even in their footnote, which is the determining factor of the face of one’s birth or nature, as well as the true meaning of the term since for people their γένεσις is none other than their γενεά, or race.

The message which James is conveying here is that although a man may be a child of Adam and of Israel, born in the image and likeness of Yahweh God, this is not enough by itself: for unless he is also a doer of His Word then he is certainly not doing well, and he is not performing to the intent of the Creator. He may as well be of some other race, since he is not serving the purpose for which he was created. However, and this is also important, by using the phrase “appearance of his race” James also indicated that not every race here was born in that same image and likeness, and for that reason, race does matter.

Looking at this verse at Bible Hub, which offers the texts of verses as they appear in all the popular Bible translations, every single one of them either ignores the word γένεσις or translates it as a mere adjective, as natural, when the word is not an adjective. And of course James, writing to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, also expected them to be all of the same race.

Now understanding this, we hope that it helps to lend understanding to the substance of our next proof, which is:

48) The racial message of Peter found in chapter 2 of his second epistle.

Here we shall discuss the 2nd chapter of 2 Peter and the racial message it contains, whereby addressing Christians who were descended from the twelve tribes of Israel, as we demonstrated when we discussed the salutations of his epistles and the various mistranslations they have suffered, he speaks to them of false prophets and the heresies they shall introduce among Christians, and relates those who introduce them to the fallen angels, to the sins of Cain and Sodom and Gomorrah, and then informs his readers that even when they feast together with them they are only natural brute beasts who were born in corruption and destruction.

Because this chapter of Peter’s second epistle and the lone epistle of Jude so closely parallel one another in this respect, we are going to make a few cross-references between them, as we believe that one compliments the other. Yet because they are also separate attestations of the same circumstances, they deserve to be treated separately, each being proofs of the racial message of Scripture in their own right.

While we will read the entire chapter, so that we can see the context of the statements we choose to discuss, we cannot possibly comment on the entire chapter, nor do we need to for our purposes here. We will follow the King James Version, and offer our own translations wherever we feel it is necessary:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 3 and with greediness they shall make profit from you with fictitious words, for whom from of old their judgment is not idle and their destruction does not sleep!

Since Christ had redeemed only the children of Israel, it may seem that Peter is speaking of Israelites here, where it might be imagined that Peter is saying that Christ redeemed false prophets with His blood, and therefore the false prophets also may be redeemed. But that is not the case which Peter is making. Rather Peter states, “from of old their judgment is not idle”, as the destruction of the ungodly had been ordained long beforehand. There was no Israelite who was condemned “from of old”, as all of the disobedient Israelites of the Old Testament were purposely destroyed, which is explained in Scriptures up to the Judges period, as examples to the people. So they were not left to further corrupt the people and teach false doctrines among them. That included rebels such as the sons of the high priest Eli who were sons of Belial, and Achan, in the valley of Achor, and Korah, who will be mentioned later in this chapter. In the books of the prophets, the Israelites were promised chastisement and then mercy and eternal life and preservation, but never condemnation.

So apparently Peter is discussing the body of the people as a whole, who have always had false prophets among them. The false prophets and wolves in sheep’s' clothing are apparently Israel, they claim to be Israel, but they are not truly Israel and therefore their judgement is ordained from of old. Denying the Master, they must be tares, and not wheat. So ostensibly, Peter is speaking in terms of what was apparent to men in his day, and not purely in terms of genetics. The books of genealogy were long lost, and the Gospel of Christ was the only way for men to tell apart the wheat and the tares, the godly and the ungodly.

An examination of the Old Testament shows that because the children of Israel did not remove all of the Canaanites as they were commanded, that those Canaanites were to be “pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides”. That these pricks were always able in one way or another to infiltrate and to corrupt the people of the nation is also quite evident throughout scripture, and especially in the prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Peter is recognizing that it is the Gospel which must separate the wheat from the tares, that until it does, we must assume that men are wheat and let them prove themselves, and at one time it certainly did. It should still do that today. Likewise, as long ago as the time of Daniel, upon finding out the two priests who attempted to use their positions of authority to corrupt a young woman, the prophet exclaimed at Susanna, 56: “... O thou seed of Chanaan, and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.” Peter is telling us likewise how to identify the infiltrators: those who do not acknowledge the Word of God but who teach another gospel and introduce heresies are false prophets, and false prophets come as infiltrators from the camp of the enemy. Yet we must be careful to understand that Peter is talking about the deceivers, and not merely the deceived. So we have ostensibly White Israelite pastors today in denominational churches who are teaching the heresies privily introduced by Jews, Converso-Jews and their followers. Today we have a thousand years of Jewish converts to Christianity who have corrupted Christianity, and therefore Scripture is no longer translated properly according to the actual meanings of the words.

The words of Jude help to clarify for us Peter's intention here, where he states in his epistle at verses 3 and 4: “3 Beloved, making all haste to write to you concerning our common salvation I had necessity to write to you encouraging you to contend once for all for the faith having been delivered to the saints. 4 For some men have stolen in [they themselves were not saints], those of old having been written about beforetime for this judgment [as Peter also said], godless men [Yahweh is not their Father], substituting the favor of our God for licentiousness [deceiving the sheep with lust] and denying our only Master and Prince, Yahshua Christ.” Cults come and go all the time, but genes are passed down through generations “from of old”.

Saying “from of old”, Jude clarifies Peter’s intent, and now Peter also relates these men to the sinners of ancient times who were condemned “from of old”:

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter is not quite done with his thought, but we will interrupt only to state concerning verse 5, as we had explained last week, we would translate it to say:

5 and He did not spare of the old society but He had kept Noah, the eighth proclaimer of righteousness, having brought a deluge upon the society of the impious,

This “society of the impious” are those Adamic people who died in the flood. It is not them who were condemned from of old, although they were destroyed on account of their sin. Rather, these are the “spirits in prison” to whom Christ preached the gospel, which in 1 Peter chapters 3 and 4. Peter informs his readers that had been accomplished. In the flood of Noah, the Adamic people who died were reconciled with God during the time of the Resurrection of Christ, as Peter had explained in chapters 3 and 4 of his first epistle, and now he tells us a short time later that the angels which sinned were reserved unto judgment. These are from of those angels that sinned who are condemned “from of old”, who did not originate with Adam.

So now to continue with Peter:

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

Like Peter’s reference to the “angels that sinned”, Jude states in his verse 6: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude then had also gone on to associate them with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the error of Balaam, which is race-mixing as the Scriptures demonstrate that it was Balaam who consulted Balaak to lure the Israelites into race-mixing with the daughters of Moab. The fallen angels, or Nephilim, certainly are the common denominator in the sins of the world of the flood, the sins of Sodom, and the error of Balaam. Here Peter also informs us that Lot had tormented his own spirit by living among such lawless perverts.

Throughout this chapter of Peter and throughout Jude, in reference to these men who infiltrate the body of Christ and introduce false doctrines, they never give these men one opportunity for repentance. There is no allusion or any reference to the ability for repentance, reconciliation, or salvation, but only the mention of their impending destruction. They cannot be true Christians, and they are offered no opportunity to be truly converted because it is not possible, as they are bastards.

In the epistle of Jude the apostle had cited writings attributed to Enoch. There he also attributed to the angels the sin of fornication, which he described as the pursuit of different flesh. While there are other references and allusions in the Enoch literature, and in 1 Enoch, to the events described by Peter in this chapter and also by Jude, in 1 Enoch chapter 10, from the translation by R. H. Charles, we find statements concerning the fallen angels, or Nephilim who had mingled with the daughters of Adam to precipitate the flood of Noah, where it is speaking prophetically of some future event, and says things such as: “9. And to Gabriel said the Lord: 'Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy the children of fornication and the children of the Watchers from amongst men…” Angels, described as “Watchers” here, are also given that title in the Book of Daniel in chapter 4, although here it is speaking of fallen angels, the angels that sinned. It is their offspring who are the bastards who were condemned “from of old” but who, until their condemnation is achieved, would infiltrate and corrupt the assemblies of the children of God.

The bastards produced by these angels did not all die in the flood, as we see frequent references in later Scriptures to Rephaim and to the Kenites who are the descendants of Cain. In Genesis 6 the Hebrew word for giants is Nephilim, or fallen ones, and it is a reference to the angels that sinned. Where we see the phrase “sons of God”, from the Masoretic Text, we see the phrase “sons of Heaven” in the Enoch literature, and “angels” in some manuscripts of the Septuagint, whereby we can know that the Masoretic Text is corrupt, as Adam is the son of God and these are his daughters race-mixing with the fallen ones in Genesis chapter 6. Then in Numbers 13:33 we see that the Rephaim and Anakim had descended from the Nephilim, the fallen angels, although in both Genesis and in Numbers the Hebrew word is unfortunately translated as giants, but it means fallen ones, and they are still on earth long after the flood. Their descendants are still among us today, usually in the form of Arabs and Jews. It is these whom Peter and Jude are warning about here, as only they were condemned from of old.

Now Peter makes a conclusion:

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Yet he goes on to describe them even further, describes how they were operating in his own time, and likens them to beasts:

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

So these men have no fear of God or of godly authority, and while they are not as powerful as the angels, not even the angels found it necessary to accuse them before God., ostensibly because they have already been condemned from of old. So in Jude verse 8, speaking of the same men he wrote: “8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” The enemies of God, as we can observe in our modern world, blaspheme everything good and noble and honorable, and seek to create their own sick perverted version of Creation.

So likewise, we read in Jude in verse 9: “9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” In that passage, the “body of Moses” is actually an allegory for the body of the law.

Now Peter continues to describe them quite frankly:

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Here we have a problem with translation, which, once corrected, we shall certainly see that Peter is speaking of a different race of men. The verb γεννάω occurs about 97 times in the New Testament, and about 41 of those occurrences are in the genealogy of Christ given in Matthew chapter 1. Then outside of Matthew 1 it appears most often in the writings of John, and then the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts. It is found once here in Peter, once in Mark, and a few times in Luke. Of people, it literally means to be born. On just about every occasion, the King James Version translates the word either as born or, in a passive context, as begotten. Yet here, rather oddly, it renders the word as made. Of course, people are not made outside of being born. However reading the King James Version one may get the errant impression that salvation and destruction are dependent on one’s own choices, rather than along the lines of the racial divisions of creation and corruption.

In the Book of Genesis, everything which Yahweh God had made was declared to be good, and nothing He made was “born to be taken and destroyed”, as Peter says of these men here. Ostensibly, that is because Yahweh Himself did not make them, as He did not make the bastards and the children of the Watchers, as the bastards are called in Enoch. So we translate verse 12 to read:

12 But these, having been born as natural irrational animals into destruction and corruption in which blaspheming they are ignorant in their corruption they also shall perish,

One is either a son of Yahweh, created in His image, or a bastard, and his father is the devil, the creator of bastards. The New American Standard Bible actually translates this word γεννάω correctly here, and I will cite that version of 2 Peter 2:12 simply to corroborate my own translation of the word: “But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed...” As Paul talked about the vessels of mercy being the descendants of Jacob, and the vessels of destruction being the descendants of Esau, since Esau had taken his wives of Canaanites, we see here in Peter that there are people who are “born as natural irrational animals”, not having the Spirit of God, and therefore by the circumstances of their birth they are certainly not ever to be candidates for Christianity, since none of them could ever be “saved”.

Soon we hope to present John’s view of the antichrist and how that also correlates to these passages in Peter and Jude. For now a few references to John’s writing will suffice:

John chapter 3: “3 Yahshua replied and said to him: 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man should be born from above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of Yahweh.'”

1 John 4: “4 You are from of Yahweh, children, and you have prevailed over them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in Society. 5 They are from of Society: for this reason from of Society they speak and Society hears them. 6 We are from of Yahweh: he knowing Yahweh hears us. He who is not from of Yahweh does not hear us. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception.”

There are two classes of people in the world, those born of Yahweh, who are of the Adamic race, and who can identify themselves in a mirror and realize they should keep the Word of God, and those born of the world, who are bastards. Unless a man is born from of Yahweh – a son of Adam – he shall not see the kingdom of heaven.

13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

So the bastards may be deceived, or deceive themselves into thinking that they can be Christians, and feasting with Christians they are merely spots in those feasts. They are also cursed children, and in Scripture the children of the bastards, of Cain, Canaan and Esau, certainly were all cursed. Now, as Jude also does, Peter associates them with the way of Balaam:

15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

Jude described them much the same way when he wrote that: “11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12 These are the spots in your feasts of charity, feasting together without fear, tending to themselves, clouds without water being carried away by the winds, late-autumn trees without fruit, twice dead being uprooted, 13 stormy waves of the sea foaming up their own shame, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness is kept forever!”

As we may demonstrate, Cain was a bastard, whereby “sin lieth at the door” and for that reason he could never do well. Likewise the way of Balaam is explained in Revelation chapter 2: “14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” From the account in Numbers we can therefore see what fornication is, as the men of Israel had joined themselves to the daughters of Moab, causing a plague to come upon themselves. But while Korah was not a bastard, he did attempt to undermine what Yahweh had instructed Moses, set up his own priestly order, and when challenged he and those who had followed him all died for having introduced “strange fire” into the camp of Israel.

Peter continues his description:

18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

The liberty offered by those who would corrupt the Gospel is actually not liberty, but licentiousness, by which men become servants of corruption.

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Even if they truly follow the Gospel, at least for a time, ultimately their true nature is revealed and they return to the sins of the world, or even seek to justify those in the name of Christ or of God. So just like dogs or pigs, regardless of how you clean them up or train them, they cannot be sheep, they return back to their natural state of filth. They cannot help themselves, because it is not in their nature, or their race, to do good. Here Peter is warning about a race of men whose nature it is to do evil. These men have no hope in Christ and cannot depend on their own works to be saved, as their own works are inherently, naturally evil.

While the children of God sin, they have a propitiation in Christ, and a higher calling, to walk in the spirit and not in the lusts of the world, as Paul explained in Romans chapters 6 and 7. So while the Adamic man may sin, he has an inherent capacity to do good, and while these men whom Peter describes may at times appear to do good, in the end they cannot help but sin, so it would be better for them if they had never tried to do good in the first place.

So dogs should stay dogs, and pigs should stay pigs, and they should not try to be sheep. For that same reason Christ portrayed Himself as saying to them “get away from Me, I never knew you!” He only knows and He Himself professed that He came only for the sheep.

ChrSat20210403-100Proofs-33.odt — Downloaded 28 times