/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I have absolutely no idea what this "Christian Identity" is, and frankly can't be bothered to do a research. Therefore, i'll be focusing on your question about race and religion.

It's not new. In Numbers 12, when Miriam and Aaron talk about Mose's wife, the hebrew word for Cus—e could also be referencing her dark skin (i can't link the sources right now, but that should be enough for you to do your own research). God did not approve what they said.

Colossians 3:11 also talks about this issue, in the way that was relevant to the people of the time: Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all.

People who mix race, nationality with religion are missing the point. "But there are differences of IQ between X and Y". Yes, and? Use the science to solve the science problems.

The factors that go into criminality and the propensity of a group to commit crimes or not are vast, and extend far beyond the realm of religion. Just look at Russia. Why do you think Gopniks exist?

IQ is very real. And it is different between groups. It's even different among both genders. And age. If someone wants to play the "my IQ is bigger than yours", it's ok, but they don't get the right to complain when someone other group with higher IQ sends them to the bauxite mines.

I'm Brazilian, so i see those mixed raced people everywhere and everyday. And people only started to devolve into race groups when things got tough, economically speaking. Criminals are in the majority black and poor. And because criminality breeds poverty, and not the other way around, the future generations, born out of wedlock and raised by single moms, are far more inclined to become criminals as well, the cycle feeds itself.

Still, racism is very real here, and before the PC culture took place, far more visible. The jokes of open BR TV of the 80's would've made a KKK member blush. It's awful.Skin color can't save or condemn you, but its very real the differences.

So, what should we do about that?

>>854886

first poster (>>854869) here again

>The verses you cite are pretty good! But these people start mentioning stuff about "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" and meanings and they make those same verses you mentioned end up actually proving what they say;

Strong's Concordance is online. There are multiple resources, but BlueLetterBible.org is one of the most trusted ones. If you seach up a verse, click on the "tools" part, it should direct you to a series of links with defenitions for each word (that's what Strong's Concordance is).

That being said, Strong's isn't a foolproof tool. It just tells you what each word means individually like in a dictionary, and not what it might mean in it's context. As a result, people can use it to twist the meaning of a verse into something else.

>Abba Moses the Black made me doubt about their position of non-Israelites being unable to be Christian or inheriting Eternal Life Whether Europeans are Israelites or not I don't care, it's more about that part of "non-Israelites won't be saved and have Eternal Life" that bothers me.

This is my main objection, too. I would like to hear some of their explanations of those verses, seeing as they are pretty darn clear. There's also quite a bit of OT evidence for the Gentiles (non-Israelites) being saved.

-

>( they support their viewpoint with those verses where Jesus Christ says "He only comes for the lost sheep of Israel" )

This verse is quoted right out of context. Here is an explanation of this verse by Islam Critiqued (a Christian youtuber) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lrNecQ7eAs

>That Colossians 3:11 verse also came first to my mind but the refutation they provide to it seems kinda valid. They say how Greeks are actually Israelite and that the verse talks about being no differences between Israelites but non-Israelites aren't included.

This (the idea that Greek are Israelites) is unscriptural. If we read Genesis 10:2, we see that it sells us that "The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras". Javan is a name for Greece (if you checked Strong's Concordance you can see that). Abraham was a son of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26), and seeing as Javan (the Greeks) was a son of Japheth, it's difficult to claim that the Greeks are actually Israelites.

>>854886

>The webpage where I found all of that CI stuff used Paul's epistles to validate their point

Then in that case go to Acts 13:46-48.

>46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

>47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

>48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Hopefully that makes sense right away to show, that Biblical Israelites are not the only descendants of man (technically, אִישׁ), who have eternal souls. It is clear that the nations or gentiles are going to be among the saved: that is why we see that in the end times, it is said that the redeemed are out of every kindred, tongue and nation (Book of Revelation 5:9).

>They say how Greeks are actually Israelite and that the verse talks about being no differences between Israelites but non-Israelites aren't included.

That just means they have redefined Israelite to mean something wider than it actually is in Scripture. The Biblical definition of Israelite included those who were part of that nation, and in the New Testament it includes those who are born again and joint-heirs with Christ (as it says via Paul, Rom. 8:17, "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;").

Obviously we all know that all men go one of two ways from this earth. That's what we learn from Christ in Matthew 25:46 - "these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Thus, obviously since Greek, Scythian, Judean, were all descendants of man, possessing eternal souls, it follows that each has a possibility of being saved due to the fact Christ died for them.

The attempt to redefine Israel to encompass all man is simply a problem of redefinition. The part that I mentioned before, however, about "Judaizing," is a much clearer and more definite doctrinal mistake. I know and have seen many CI also try to argue that the old civil laws that the former kingdom of Israel had to follow should still be enforce. This includes things like circumcision or observing the Levitical calendar or ritual purity; things like this. Paul devastates this position in the book of Galatians, so if they admit it, you can pretty much turn straight to Galatians to show how we are not under the law any longer.

Galatians 3:

>22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

>23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

>24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

>25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Galatians 5:

>3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

>4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

>5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

>6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

All of this is obvious to anyone who is saved as to why "Judaizing," which is the call to observe Levitical law, is a false doctrine. See also:

Colossians 2:

>16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

>17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Hebrews 7:

>26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

>27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

>28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Hebrews chapters 7-9 in general (also the book of Galatians) is a good place to go for correcting anything related to Judaizing. Hopefully that helped.

Op Here again!

Thank you all for your replies. You really have helped me a lot and now I'm sure that I'll be saved even if I'm not an Israelite as long as I do what God demands from me!

>>854889

Thank you! I tried following your advice and using Strong's Concordance and indeed while some verses can be made to said only Israelites it can also mean otherwise.

I also thank you a lot for the video, it was pretty helpful! That about Greeks coming from Japheth is pretty interesting too.

>>854918

So descendants of man would be like every human or only people who come from Adam? In a Strong's Concordance online it just says אִישׁ means man and after reading a bit I think that maybe it actually means every person that's a human ("made after our image"). I actually decided to read some more of that concordance and it's quite interesting as a lot of the stuff I read about CI doesn't hold as well.

Related to this I still have my doubts about blacks, mongoloids and caucasoids coming from a common ancestor in this case Adam (I'm mixed race so don't think it's because I'm racist or something; I just see it kinda improbable because the races are way too different: I find it improbable for a phenotype to change so much in 8000 years alone) so I'm wondering about that. Do all humans come from Adam? I would think that maybe not. I think that the men created in Genesis 1 are different to the Adam created in Genesis 2. But still God would save everyone as all humans are made in the image of God even if they don't come from Adam. That's kinda cool tbh; maybe fatal to people who say we come from a single ancestor but I don't care: maybe we aren't all the same but all of us humans still are creatures of God and as God loves everyone equally so we should too love everyone equally if we're His children. Not all humans coming from Adam would explain why Cain found a wife easily (better explanation than incest and I'm sure If Adam had more children than Cain, Abel and Seth if would have been written in Genesis).

===

Today I learned a lot and have cleared a lot of doubts. Apparently this difficulty was really worth it. It's kinda funny that I was getting stressed about this. Now I get to understand once more that one quote of everything being of benefit for a Christian if he has faith and endures it with joy. You've blessed me with your answers: thank you anons!

>>854933

I would add two things to that. The statements Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 15:22 shows that death passed to us "in Adam," which suggests a common ancestor to everyone whom Paul is addressing.

1 Corinthians 15:22

>For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Also Paul refers to Adam as the "first man," meaning anything that exists before him cannot be considered a man, therefore the Genesis 1 creation of man has to be referring to Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:45

>And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The last Adam again is obviously a reference to Christ, who takes a similar place as the king of all who believe and are born again. Hence

John 1:12-13

>But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

>Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Also,

Romans 6:

>Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

>9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

>10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

>11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:11

>11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

===

>You've blessed me with your answers: thank you anons!

Regards

Hello,

I've come here to talk about my experiences with Egregore and tulpa and such and such. It's been months to years dealing with these experiences and I think its resulted in confusion in what they are and as a result it has thrown my life out of control.

I know now there is something evil and controlling and it's devastating my life in terms of being happy and successful. How do I remove this invisible being that is thwarting me?

I have theories that egregore, demon and witch have settled into my life turning it into an apocalyptic event that can't settle. I can't seem to escape this dungeon that holds me in. Is it existential? When will it pass?