Eli James’ Spurious Position...

ELI JAMES’ SPURIOUS POSITION ADOPTING THE FAULTY PREMISE

OF A 6th AND 8th DAY CREATION IN HIS THE GREAT IMPERSONATION,

Page 113

(Page 125 in my edition of the book, which I received from Eli - WRF) 

Eli states: ... In general, it must be said that the myth that Adam was the first human does not hold up to archaeological evidence. Nor is it Biblically tenable either. The fact is that Genesis 1 is talking about early man and Gen. 2 is talking about Adamic man. Observe: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ... so God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” Vs. 26 & 27. The early man of Gen. 1, the nomadic wanderers and gatherers, was created on the sixth day.

Adam and Eve, however, were created after the seventh day. Early man did not farm or cultivate the earth in a civilized manner, so He went about creating one who does. Gen. 2:7 says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

That we are confronted with two types of man is confirmed by the fact that in Hebrew there are two different words for the English word ‘Adam’: #119, adam, pronounced aw-dam and #120, adam, pronounced aw-dawm. The meaning of adam, #119 is "to show blood in the face." This, of course, can only mean the white race of Adamites. No other race shows blood in the face. The meaning of adam, #120 is “a human being” with the connotation of being “mean” or “of low degree.” But this matter of higher and lower degree only applied to Adam (the individual) before he fell. After the fall, Adamic man became as mortal as all other men. So, we have two reasons, two witnesses for saying that awdawm and awdam are not the same. Awdawm was created on the sixth day and Awdam was created after the seventh day.

Consequently, the contention that the human race is only six thousand years old is simplyuntenable. Applying the principle of one of God’s days being equal to a thousand earth years (2 Pet. 3:8) and counting backwards, we have six thousand years of history from the fall of Adam who was of awdam, plus at least one thousand years of “rest”, plus another one thousand years within which occurred the creation of awdawm (the sixth “day”). And there is no telling how much time delay intervened after the day on which God rested before he eventually created awdam. Genesis 2 does not state how much time elapsed after He rested. ... End of Eli’s excerpt.

Clifton A. Emahiser’s critique: The above hypothisis is corrupt beyond description, and does not accord with the original language of the Bible.

Eli’s The Great Impersonation, Pages 53-57

The Good Figs and the Bad Figs, Version #2

The exclusively Messianic interpretation of the parable holds that, although it may be true that the daughters of Zedekiah went to Western Europe with Jeremiah, it is not correct to identify their descendants with the House of David. As a matter of fact, Scripture clearly identifies Zedekiah and his descendants as the “bad figs”!

Returning to Jeremiah, Chapter 24, we read the parable of the good and bad figs: “The Lord shewed me, and behold, two baskets of figs were set before the temple of the Lord, after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah ... One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad ... Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up ... for they shall return to me with their whole heart” , Vs. 1-7.

Restating this prophecy, the good figs are to go captive to Babylon for their own good – to learn a lesson of humility, perhaps? They are to return again to Judea, and when they do, they will have been reformed and belong once again to God. That is, they will return to His statutes and be His people again. This return from Babylon is a spiritual and moral return as well, and these good figs are to be the progenitors of the Messiah via the descendants of the family of David.

“And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the Lord, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt: And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in a11 the places whither I shall drive them”, Vs. 8, 9.

Zedekiah and his descendants are clearly identified as being the evil figs. Zedekiah’s daughters did indeed migrate to Spain and Ireland; and Jeremiah unwittingly assisted the advance of the evil figs into the rulership of the Lost Tribes by accompanying them there. This was in spite of his own prophecy against Zedekiah which he renewed in Chapter 27, verses 12 to 22 where he again identifies Zedekiah with the evil figs who would not submit to the captivity “for their good.”

L. E. Jandebeur, in an unpublished manuscript entitled “Who Is Your King?”, states: "The British Throne Theory teaches that the daughters of king Zedekiah went with Jeremiah to Egypt, then to Spain and then to Ireland where it married back into another branch of the tribe of Judah. This may a11 be true, but was Zedekiah the rightful heir to the Throne of David and did Yahweh bless this?”, p. 1.

I Chronicles 3:15-19 give us the lineage of Josiah, father of four sons: Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. As is told in both Jeremiah (Chapters 20 - 52) and Josephus (Antiquities, Book X, Chapters 6 through 9), Jehoiakim became the heir to the Throne, although his brothers retained the throne for periods of time.

Scripture tells us no more about Johanan. Shallum reigned for a while but died in captivity (Jer. 22:11, 12.). Jehoiakim also became king (22:18) and had two sons, Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin) and Zedekiah (not to be confused with Jehoiakim’s brother, Zedekiah (I Chron. 3:16). Jeconiah is childless (Jer. 22:30) and his brother, Zedekiah, is not heard about again. Zedekiah, Jehoiakim’s brother and Jeconiah’s uncle, is the father of Scota and Tea Tephi.

Jehoiakim is the older brother of Zedekiah and, therefore, the rightful heir to the Throne. This makes Jehoiakim’s children the rightful heirs after him; and, indeed, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) reigned after Jehoiakim’s death (II Chron. 36:8).

So far, so good. But Jeremiah, 22:30 says this regarding Jeconiah: “Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” This sentence, taken literally, seems to contradict I Chronicles 3:17, which says: “And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel ...” Furthermore, Matthew 1:11 and 12 state: “And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel ...”

There is only one possible conclusion: “Write this man childless” is a figure of speech. It is a lamentation over the conclusion of the active reign of the Davidic monarchs in the land of Judah. At the same time, David’s Throne remains in its perpetual reign, but, as far as we can tell, only through the bad fig seed line of zedekiah!

Jeconiah’s uncle, Zedekiah, was put in Jeconiah’s place by Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24:17) ; and his sons were eventually killed by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 39:6); and Zedekiah himself died in Babylon.

In quoting Jeremiah 43:7 in support of their theory, the British Throne theorists ignore the second half of the quotation: “So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the Lord ...”! Jandebeur’s question is well asked: Did God bless this seed? Apparently not.

But how are we to interpret this fact in the light of European history? The apparent interpretation is that, although the European thrones are of David, Israel is not thereby blessed. What this means is that Zedekiah’s descendants cannot be considered a blessing to Christian Israel. Rather, they ultimately became the ‘reproach and a proverb’ as the progenitors of the arrogant and even anti-Christian aristocracy of Europe. Their perpetual feuding amongst themselves, as well as their cooperation with Jewish bankers, did not do Israel any good. Even though the two Branches of Judah were reunited as prophesied by Ezekiel, this reunion was not a blessing. There is even considerable evidence that the bad figs intermarried with Jewish banking families and thus mixed their seed with non-Israelites; and this would have disastrous consequences for the world by providing the Jewish bankers with positions of influence and power.

The prophecy of the three overturns (Ezek. 21:27) also has its problems. Jandebeur says: “The word overturn, does not mean move the throne from one place to another, as the teachers of the British Throne Theory say, but Strong’s Concordance translates it as ‘overthrow’. Moffatt’s Translation uses the word ‘ruin’”, p. 5.

Again, the second half of the sentence has been disregarded by the Overturn theorists. Let us translate Ezekiel 21:27 using the word ‘overthrow’ and let us also pay closer attention to what the verse says after the third “overturn”: “I will overthrow, overthrow, overthrow, it: and it shall be no more until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.”

It is hard to quibble about the meaning of the words “and it shall be no more”. Jandebeur argues correctly that the reference is to Jesus Christ, the King of Israel. Certainly, the Kingdom of Judah had ceased to exist with the Babylonian captivity. But the royal lineage did not cease to exist; and that was carried on through Jeconiah, Salathiel, Zerubabbel, etc. The two Branches of Judah were indeed reunited but not with the true heirs to the throne. The true heirs returned to Judea where the prohibitions against intermarriage were steadfastly observed down to the time of Christ.

The prophecy that “David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel” (Jer. 33:17) can be looked on in three ways: First, as Jandebeur argues, it refers to the perpetual reign of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Second, even had the family lineage of Jesus died out, the inheritance would revert back to the “evil fig” lineage of Zedekiah. The coming of Christ did indeed infuse Europe with a new spirit. It became known as Christianity; and with this redeeming spirit, Zedekiah’s lineage might be granted a new moral mandate in addition to its technical inheritance. Third, it may refer to actual heirs of the various tribes of Israel, for the passage says “house of Israel,” meaning all Israel. If we take it this way, then the door is left open for us to search the history books and genealogical tables of Israelite families who claim lineal descent from the Holy Family or relatives of Jesus.

Interestingly enough, there are people alive today who claim to be descendants of the Holy Family, for if certain passages of Scripture are interpreted literally, then Joseph and Mary may have had children – in the usual way! – after Mary bore Jesus; and Jesus’ younger brother would have become the rightful heir to the throne. There are very few books which treat of this subject (descendants of the Holy Family. One is Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The authors are self-proclaimed agnostics who even doubt that Jesus died on the cross, but the book is certainly worth reading for the documentation it contains ... .

Further discussion of this topic will have to be carried on within the Christian Identity Movement. Whether or not the present Queen of England is a literal descendant of King David is interesting subject; but two important questions must be addressed by the Overturn theorists: 1.) whether the royal family is of a pure line of descent and 2.) whether it can be shown that this family is not of the “bad figs” of Jeremiah. The answers to these questions will determine the direction of the Christian Identity Movement.

It seems, however, that identification of the “good figs” is a problem which has been solved. As it turns out, Mary, mother of Jesus, had a cousin named Anna, whose father was Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph of Arimathea, Mary’s uncle, was a tin merchant who owned mines in Great Britain. After the crucifixion, Joseph took Anna, Mary, Joseph, husband of Mary, and others to England. Anna's daughter, Penardim, subsequently was married to King Lear of England, so this must be the line of descent of the “good figs” who returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity, who stayed long enough to give birth to Jesus Christ, and then finally migrated to Britain. I will leave it to other researchers to unravel this mystery further. There may important political ramifications of such research. End of Eli’s ideas on the subject

Clifton A. Emahiser’s rebutal to Lee Jandebeur’s false claim that

Zedekiah was a “bad-fig!:

THE CURSE OF JECONIAH

To understand what the curse of Jeconiah was and is all about, I am going to quote from the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 1204: Of interest, too, is the mention of a king named Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 Yahweh pronounced a curse on this man:

Thus says Yahweh:

“Write this man down as childless,

A man who shall not prosper in his days;

For none of his [male] descendants shall prosper,

Sitting on the throne of David,

And ruling anymore in Judah.”

“If Yahshua had been the real son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights of the throne of David. The problem was solved by the miracle of the virgin birth: Yahshua was the legal heir to the throne through Joseph. He was the real Son of David through Mary. The curse on Jeconiah did not fall on Mary or her child since she did not descend from Jeconiah.

For another reference from Jeremiah 22:24-30, concerning Jeconiah’s curse, I will quote from the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 1011: “Prophecy against King Jehoiachin ... Coniah (also called Jeconiah and Jehoiachin), the fourth [son of] king [Josiah], would be taken captive by the Babylonians and would die in Babylon. None of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David. No offspring of Jeconiah succeeded him to the throne. His replacement, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was his uncle. Charles H. Dyer comments: This prophecy also helps explain the genealogies of Yahshua in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew presented the legal line of Yahshua through his stepfather, Joseph. However, Joseph’s line came through Shealthel who was a son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Matt. 1:12; cf. 1 Chron. 3:17). Had Yahshua been a physical descendant of Joseph and not virgin-born, He would have been disqualified as Israel’s King. Luke presented the physical line of Yahshua through Mary, who was descended from David through the line of his son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In that way Yahshua was not under the “curse” of Jehoiachin.”

At this point, it is important to notice the curse of Jeconiah didn’t fall on Zedekiah or his daughters who eventually went to Ireland. Being Jeconiah’s uncle, Zedekiah would be a generation older. To amplify on the above two passages, I will quote from The International Bible Commentary by F. F. Bruce, page 1122: “Humanly speaking Yahshua’s claim to the Davidic throne depended on the willingness of Joseph, the legal heir, to accept Him as his son. Hence Matthew gives only Joseph’s version of the story ... Here let us note that apart from the divine activity in conception, Yahshua’s birth was completely normal. He was not conceived until Mary was married; betrothal was legally marriage.”

Returning now to quote again from the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 1204: “This (Matthew’s) genealogy traces the legal descent of Yahshua as King of Israel; the genealogy in Luke’s Gospel traces His lineal descent as Son of David. Matthew’s genealogy follows his royal line from David through his son, Solomon, the next king; Luke’s genealogy follows the blood line from David through another son, Nathan. This genealogy concludes with Joseph, of whom Yahshau was the adopted Son, the genealogy in Luke 3 probably traces the ancestry of Mary, of whom Yahshua was the real son. A millennium earlier, Yahweh had made an unconditional agreement with David, promising him a kingdom that would last forever and a perpetually ruling line (Ps. 89:4, 36, 37) ... Yahshua united in His Person the only two basis for claims to the throne of Israel (the legal and the lineal) ...”

So the following questions: Are we also to the believe the mother of Christ, Mary’s husband Joseph was also a “bad-fig”? Are we to believe that Yahweh would even consider a “bad-fig” as a betrothal to Mary? Would Yahweh put His stamp of approval for a faithful angel to appear to a “bad-fig”, as one did to Joseph? Would the Gospels speak of Joseph as a “just man”, had he been a “bad-fig”? Why would Yahweh waste his time reveling to him in a dream that Mary was innocent, had he been a “bad-fig”? Why in the world would Yahweh allow a “bad-jig” to come within ten steps of Mary if he were a “bad-fig”? And last of all, why would Yaherh have allowed Christ to come under the roof of a “bad-fig-jew”? Lee Jandebeur has to be out of his mind!