banner sullivan-county.com
Visit Sullivan-County.com the progressive voice of Tri-Cities.

Debunking British Israelism Racists

by Lewis Loflin

British Israelism (BI) and Christian Identity for the most part are the same thing. It's a cult by every definition of the term and even in its mildest form is an utter rejection of reason and the Bible itself. This problem stems from how Christianity itself evolved from distorting the literal meaning of the Old Testament. BI simply takes it to new extremes.

Their main belief is Unitarian in that Jesus is a created being or a type of angel. Others claim Jesus and the devil are brothers. BI may differ from Identity in the question of Creation. Identity claims two, one for "mud people" (nonwhites) and another for whites.

Much of this was borrowed from the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Adventists. (They do not endorse this belief!) Both BI and Identity are obsessed with prophecy and end-times nonsense. Both have infiltrated many Evangelical churches, most of whom don't support them.

Definition of a cult

The problem with Christian churches in general is they call all heretics "cult" while secular definitions tend to attack all religious faith. So, for the record, I use the following criteria for cult:

  1. Claim to an exclusive doctrine totally outside mainstream scholarship and the use of reason. (Obsession with disproved pseudo-science, etc.)
  2. A closed group headed by an over-controlling and exclusive leadership, in particular if they claim any supernatural relationships (direct revelations) or form of self-divinity. This wouldn't include an altering interpretation of scripture.
  3. Attempts to isolate their members from the public and normal every day life. Often secretive and closed to the public.
  4. Demonizing all other people outside their own select group. That is everyone else is in league with Satan, conspiracy theories, etc. Spends a lot of time proving everyone else has it wrong.

Here is the definition I will use from Princeton University at http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cult:

S:(n) cult (followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader)

So who or what is WCG?

Herbert W Armstrong:

Deceased founder of the Worldwide Church of God (originally the Radio Church of God), the Plain Truth magazine and the World Tomorrow radio and TV programs. During his lifetime, Armstrong was the self-proclaimed "Apostle" of the "only true church on earth today." Herbert Armstrong was father of television and radio evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong.

Garner Ted Armstrong:

Radio and television evangelist, son of Herbert W Armstrong. Garner Ted Armstrong was former chief spokesman on the media outreaches of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). He founded the Church of God, International (CGI) after being expelled from the WCG in 1978 during a leadership power struggle in that organization.

He later founded the Intercontinental Church of God (ICG) and the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association after being expelled from the CGI in 1998 as a result of a highly-publicized sex scandal. Armstrong is the self-proclaimed "Ezekiel Watchman"... main prophetic spokesman for God on earth today. Died in fall 2003.

Their claims:

The identification of the descendants of Abraham is an important factor in understanding bible prophecy. The truth is that there are a great number of nations that are descended from Abraham and heir to the promises made by God to Abraham...The Tribal origin of these nations and also the identity of the English-Speaking people...

This could cover British Israelism or in America Christian Identity. (May not be the same.) The largest promoter of this nonsense is the mostly defunct churches of the Armstrong family and racist' hate groups.

What separates them is their view of Jews. The basic idea is the white Americans and British are the lost Ten Tribes of Israel. The Jews/Israel of the Bible are my direct human ancestors (WASP) according to them. Think about that. The Bible tells us Abraham came from Ur, which is in present day Iraq.

In other words, white Europeans are Semites related directly to the Arabs. Ishmael was the other son of Abraham and the traditional father of the Arabs. So the British are the half-brothers of the Saudis. When America and England invaded Iraq, we returned to our ancestral homeland. I don't think this is what they had in mind.

What to do about the Jews

Being blood-relations to Arabs is bad enough for the racists in their ranks, the idea of being related to Jews drives them even more insane. British Israelism as it started never claimed the Jews were not Israel, just the British (and later America) were one of the tribes of Israel.

But here it gets tricky. According to the Identity racists and some of the British Israelism types, the "Jews" we see today are imposters! They are converts from a 8th century Turkish tribe called the Khazars. (They fail to explain the fact the Jews from Muslim countries make up most of the population of Israel.)

Jesus was wrong after all! His "brothers" the Jews really were not the children of Abraham! Any rational person would laugh at this nonsense. Now let's see how this relates to the real Israel, the Jews. What BI advocates is salvation by race, but how do they do away with and real Jews?

They must prove the Jews are not the people of the Bible unless they want to claim Jews as blood brothers, totally unacceptable to those that are just racists. Thus they claim the European Jews are Turkish converts unrelated to the people of the Bible.

That is not a belief of classical British Israelism, but of Christian Identity, a well known hate group. The problem is the racists also claim the title and hijack parts of the belief. The non-racist' members fail to make it clear they are not anti-Semites, but if they do they lose members and are still stuck with Jewish relatives by race.

For more on the actual views of non-racist British Israelism see Khazars and the Modern Jews by Steven M. Collins

. To quote Steve,
Some maintain that the Khazars were non-Israelites who, en masse, accepted Judaism and became the forebears of the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe. This viewpoint tends to disenfranchise Ashkenazi Jews as "legitimate" Jews from the tribe of Judah, and it is historically inaccurate. This viewpoint assumes: (A) all Khazars were gentile, (B) all Khazars accepted Judaism and (C) no members of the house of Judah were already living among the Khazars. All three assumptions are incorrect...

"Another influx of Jewish refugees into various Trans- Caucasian regions took place after the destruction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem (70 C.E.). The height of the influx during the first centuries of Christianity is confirmed by the chronicler Faustus of Byzantium (4th cent. C.E.), who reports that the Persians, under King Sapor II (360 C.E.), invaded Armenia, and took with them to South Persia more than 75,000 Jewish captives, the progeny of those who had previously come to the Transcaucasus from Palestine...

Subsequently they [Transcaucasian Jews] were joined by other Jews from more westerly regions; from Asia Minor, the Crimean Peninsula, and especially from Byzantium (to escape from the severe persecutions which they had been suffering at the hand of Emperor Justinian in the 6th cent. C.E.). It is evident...that Jewish immigration into the Caucasus took Place not only at different times but also from different directions."

Unlike the Identity racists, he acknowledges the Jews of Poland, etc. in fact do originate from Judah. He keeps stressing Judah alone to separate the Jews from Israel. I don't agree with all of his conclusions. The other problem is Yiddish is mostly German. They didn't pick that up in Parthia or the Black Sea.

map Israel 830BC
c. 830 BC

To quote a tract from one racist group,

The Sons of Abraham: Abraham had a number of sons and also the tribes by Lot, his nephew, were associated with him. Lot founded Moab and Ammon in what is now Jordan.

Isaac had two sons Jacob and Esau, and the sons of Esau founded Edom and became the Edomites or Idumeans that partnered the trading system with the Phoenicians. They later became converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus in the era of the Maccabees after 160 BC. They were absorbed into Judea and became the southern Jews as opposed to the Galileans (Israel).

This is a typical anti-Semitic lie from Christian Identity. The Phoenicians were to the north of Israel in modern Lebanon and shared a population with Israel of that time. To quote them, "Esau's descendents. Edom means "red" and the Edomites lived in the mountains to the east and south of the Dead Sea..." That is mostly modern Jordan.

The claim "They were absorbed into Judea and became the southern Jews as opposed to the Galileans" is another attempt to split Israel and Judea into two races, claim Judea was not the same as Israel, etc. To perpetrate the lie that white, Anglo-Saxons are the people of the Northern Kingdom called Israel, he must discredit all Jews, the real Israel.

They have reduced Judah to Edomites, a constant claim of Christian Identity racists. Jews are thus false Israel. But let's look at the above map. Much of the population of Israel in the north had assimilated the people of Phoenicia, Ammon, and parts of Aram-Damascus. This is proven by the Bible itself in Judges 3:5-6:

"And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites: And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons..."

So much for the pure white race. When Assyria attacked from the northeast, most of the population fled into Judah. If for example Kentucky was attacked from West Virginia, where would you and your family flee to for safety? I'd flee to Tennessee to the south. To quote,

Despite the attempt by Assyrians to decapitate the Israelite kingdom by settling people on its eastern frontier with the Medes, archaeological evidence shows that many people fled south to Judah at this time, whose capital city, Jerusalem, now seems to have grown by over 500%. This also seems to have been a time when many northern traditions were incorporated within the region of Judah.

This period of Israel's eclipse seems to have coincided with the rise of a line of independent prophets - Amos, Joel, Hoshea, Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah- all highly critical of the monarchs of Israel. The spiritual tradition that was later to coalesce in the biblical story, according to many biblical scholars, would have had its origins here.

Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

But we have a number of theological problems here. This is what the Bible has to say,

"Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation...(Duet. 23:7)

Even if Judah was just Edomites as the racists claim, then Jesus too was an Edomite. The Edomites are also Israel anyway. What does the Bible say in regards to Jesus?

There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink...Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (John 4:7-9 KJV)

What is their answer? To quote,

Judah was allowed to remain for a while because of its repentance but later it too went into captivity to the Babylonians. Judah was restored under Ezra and Nehemiah so that Messiah could be born and established in Judah from Bethlehem Ephratah and called from Egypt as the Son of God.

The Bible says no such thing. So it seems the Edomite Jews were kept around just so Jesus could be born in Judah? Of coarse Jesus was not a Jew and I'm sure they will find some reason why. But Jesus was Jewish, Jews are Israel, the Bible says so.

Who are Israelites in the New Testament use of the word? Does the New Testament make a difference between a "fleshly Jew" and a fleshly "Israelite"? In answer to these questions, the following parallels are submitted:

1. John preached repentance to the Jews "of Judea"-Mark 1:4-5.

But John preached "repentance to all people of Israel" Acts 13:24.

2. Nicodemus was "a ruler of the Jews"-John 3:1.

But Nicodemus was "a master of Israel" John 3:10.

3. Paul the apostle was "a Jew of Tarsus"-Acts 21 :39.

But Paul the apostle was also "an Israelite"-Romans 11:1.

4. Paul called the Jews his own nation-Gal. 1:13-14.

But Paul called Israel his nation-Acts 28:17-20.

5. Paul was a fleshly Jew "by nature"-Gal. 2:15.

But Paul was the same kind of an Israelite-2 Cor. 11:22.

In Radio Address, Aug. 28, 1943, Dr. John Matthews said that Paul was a Jew only in a religious sense. Well, he was a Benjamite-Ph. 3 :15-and the tribe of Benjamin remained with Judah, not the ten tribes, hence not Israel, according to these modern "Israelites."

Moreover, Paul's use of the word "Jew" in Acts 21:39, when he declared himself a Jew, was in contrast with the word "Egyptian" in verse 38, in the same connection. He was the same kind of a Jew that the other fellow was of "an Egyptian."

Paul says that he was a fleshly Jew, a Jew by nature, a Hebrew and a Benjamite, yet we are told that he was a Jew only in a religious sense, a religious Jew by nature, or just naturally a religious Jew! A natural religious Jew, or a religious natural Jew-which? Such twaddle makes us feel like saying "Pshaw!"

6. Paul called Peter a Jew like "other Jews" Gal. 2:11-15.

Peter called himself a Jew in contrast with "another nation"-Acts 10:28.

7. Jews "out of every nation" were dwelling at Jerusalem-Acts 2:5.

Peter referred to all of these Jews as "men of Israel"-Acts 2:22.

8. The old covenant was given to the Jews-Rom. 3:1.

But the old covenant was given to Israel-Rom. 9:4.

9. Paul called the Jews the circumcision-Rom. 3 :29-30.

He referred to Israel as the circumcision-Gal. 6:13-16.

10. The gospel was first preached to the Jews-Rom. 1:16.

The gospel was first preached to Israel-Acts 10:36.

11. At first the gospel was preached only to the Jews-Acts 11:

19 But at first the gospel was preached to Israel-Acts 10:36.

12. The Jews and Israel were identified as being the same in Acts 13.

Verse 6 refers to the "synagogue of the Jews" in which Paul preached. In verse 16 Paul called them "men of Israel" and in verse 17 "this people of Israel." In verse 24 he says that John "had first preached repentance to all the people of Israel," in verse 26 he called them the "stock of Abraham," and in verse 33 he referred to the Jews as "us their children"; then, showing that the Jews were the ones to whom he was speaking, verse 42 says "when the Jews came out of the synagogue."

So Acts 13 adds up to this: Paul went into the "synagogue of the Jews"; talking to the Jews in their synagogue, he called them "men of Israel," "this people Israel," "all the people of Israel," "stock of Abraham," and "us their children"-and-then "the Jews came out of the synagogue"-but Anglo-Israelists say that the Jews were not Israel.

13. Matthew called Jesus the king of the Jews-Matt. 27:29-37.

Mark called Jesus the king of Israel-Mark 15:17, 32.

Let it be observed here that Pilate asked only one question. He did not ask if Christ was king of the Jews and then ask if he was king of Israel. The records of Matthew and Mark therefore show that they used the terms interchangeably; one said that he was king of the Jews, but the other said that he was king of Israel-but they meant the same thing. Therefore, Jews and Israel were understood by the gospel writers as being one and the same thing

14. Paul declares that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah-Heb.7:14

John declares that Jesus was Lion of the tribe of Judah Rev 5:5

If Paul had been of the tribe of Judah, would Anglo-Israelists admit that he was a Jew? Yes. Then, since Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, what keeps him from being a Jew? Yet the Anglo-Israelists insist that neither Christ nor any of the apostles of Christ were Jews. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah; Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, which merged with Judah and continued under the name of Judah.

This fact is clearly stated in 1 Kings 12:2023. So Paul the Benjamite, and Jesus the Judahitc but neither of them was a Jew according to an Anglo-Israelite.

16. Finally-in his conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus said that he was a Jew John 4:9-22.

First, the woman of Samaria said to Jesus: "How is it that thou being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria ? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." Here Jesus permitted this woman to call him a Jew, and John the apostle wrote it down that way in the gospel record. Then m verse 22, Jesus said to the woman, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Thus Jesus accepted the name Jew when the woman called hind one, and then in referring to "ye" and "we" when replying to her he called himself one.

As the matter stands, Paul the Hebrew, the Benjamite, the Israelite, was a Jew. Jesus who "sprang out of Judah," and who was the "Lion of the tribe of Judah," was a Jew. Paul said "we Jews"-Gal. 2:15-and Jesus said "we Jews" John 4 22-so Jesus and Paul were Jews if their own words count any thing or have any meaning. The baseless assertions of Anglo-Israelists to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Seventh: They must prove that God chose the ten tribes over Judah.

In Psa. 78:67-68 David says very specifically that God "refused the tabernacle of Joseph" and "chose not the tribe of Ephraim" but "chose the tribe of Judah." (WWW.BIBLE.CA) To quote,

Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

When did God change his mind and elect the British? If the Bible is so overwhelming in disproving this nonsense, how can they still believe it? They claim the Bible is a fraud! According to them all the bibles everyone uses today are based on frauds printed by the Rothchilds in the 1700s! One just can't make this stuff up. This is the point when fundamentalism is mental illness.

  » Archive 1   » Archive 2   » Archive 3   » Archive 4   » Archive 5
  » Archive 6   » Archive 7   » Archive 8   » Archive 9
  » Archive 10
Loading