Refuting Universalism

It is Biblical to be Caucasian, Song. chs. 4-7, (#4)

Category: 

With the first three installments of this theme we covered many of the benefits of being a pure White Caucasian; that we find ourselves in a delicate balance with our solar system and environment. Song 5:10-15 states:

10 My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. 11 His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. 13 His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh. 14 His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. 15 His legs are as pillars of marble8836, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. 16 His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

“... Spots in Your Feasts of Charity ...” – Jude 12

Category: 

In order to get the context of Jude 12, we really should read vv. 9 through 12 thusly:

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, Yahweh rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 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. 12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots ....”

It is Biblical to be Caucasian, Song. chs. 4-7, (#3)

Category: 

With the first two installments of this theme we covered many of the benefits of being a pure Caucasian. We find ourselves in a delicate balance with our solar system and environment in many ways, especially our light spectrum, which works with our translucent skin to absorb vitamin D. We should therefore avoid over-covering ourselves with clothing, or applying excessive sun block to frustrate this natural benefit of which nonwhites are greatly deficient.

We now turn to a discussion on Acts 17:26, and how it is misused and abused by nominal churchianity! Unless one has an astonishingly low IQ, or lack the proverbial “eye to see”, then one should comprehend that the entire Bible concerns one man and his family in the person of Abraham, from whom sprang Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes of Israel. From cover to cover, they are the dominant theme that one should not confuse. Yet, in spite of this fact, some make the spurious claim that all races have an equal standing with the people whom Yahweh chose and made exclusive Covenants with. These Scripture-twisting clowns will teach Acts 17:26 completely out-of-context in order to accomplish their evil, cunning subterfuge thusly:

And [Yahweh] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ...”

It is Biblical to be Caucasian, Song. chs. 4-7, (#2)

Category: 

We will continue this subject by quoting Lam. 4:7:

Her [Israelite] Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy119 in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire ...”

Question: What is there about the purity of “snow” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about a color “whiter than milk” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about the phrase “more ruddy in body than rubies” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about the color of “rubies” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: Why does this Biblical verse exactly describe pure White, Caucasian Europeans or Americans, and their like kindred people around the world?

Who’s Who in the World of “HATE” vs. “LOVE”, John 15:19

Category: 

 It is glaringly clear that from time immemorial the world and Christianity have had two opposing criterion (Gr. kriterion, means of judging) to define the scope of “love” and “hate”.

In order for every Christian to have absolutely no doubt in their mind as to the Biblical positions of “hate” and “love”, I will now quote Christ at John 15:18-25:

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But, ... that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.” [underlining mine]

Misapplication of the Biblical Term “Gentile”

Category: 

We are about to examine how the Latin word “gentile” was introduced into our present Bibles. Yes, “gentile” is a Latin word, but no Bible writer ever used the term as there is no such word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. The first time that the Latin word “gentile” ever appeared in any Bible is when Jerome translated the original manuscripts from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into Latin! Secondly, and more importantly, in Jerome’s day, the Latin term “gentile” (gentilis) never had today’s corrupted definition meaning “non-Jew”. The Junior Classic Latin Dictionary published by Wilcox & Follett Company in 1945 defines gentilis: “of the same clan or race”, surely a word consistent with all of Scripture (Amos 3:2, Matt. 15:24 etc.).

Following Jerome’s example, the later English translators chose the Latin gentilis, “gentile”, for their translations in place the original Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos) because Jerome, when he made the Latin Vulgate, used the word gentilis to translate the Greek ἔθνος into Latin. In other words, Paul was sent to the people of his own ethnicity. How, where or when the term “gentile” first took on the corrupted meaning of “non-Jew” cannot be definitely determined, but that was NOT the original meaning in Latin! Nor is the word “gentile” found in any of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek manuscripts! Paul never uttered or wrote the word “gentiles”! Rather, Paul used only the Greek word τὰ ἔθνη “the nations”, and knew that he was going to those same nations found at Genesis 17:6 and 35:11. To use the term “gentile” in an improper manner only exposes that person’s lack of intelligence!

Universalism or Racism: A Critical Review of James Bruggeman’s “History of the Doctrine of Universalism”

Category: 

We are about to do a critical review on a two tape series (audio cassette tapes) made by James Bruggeman entitled “The History of the Doctrine of Universalism.” It will be somewhat like a debate in nature with James Bruggeman presenting his views and I will break in from time to time to show where he is in error. This doctrine of “Universalism” is a very dangerous and unscriptural doctrine and it is time for it to be exposed for what it is. Now I believe that that eventually all Israel will be brought back under the Covenant (maybe not in this life, but in the life to come). I believe that Yahshua paid the “ransom” price for every Israelite and He is not going to lose even one (Matthew 18:12-13). Now some may call what I believe “Universalism”, but I do not. Now James Bruggeman and Stephen E. Jones are going to bring everybody regardless of race, creed or color into the Kingdom, even the fallen angels and the Jews of all things. I believe that today Yahweh is choosing only a remnant for the restoration of Israel as a Kingdom. It is a proving ground for those who will be leaders and teachers in the Kingdom. For anyone teaching error, they will find no place of leadership in that Kingdom! Two major errors of today, or any other day, are “One Seed-line” and “Universalism.” Now if you want to teach one of both of these errors, go right ahead and see where it gets you! Don’t get me wrong, I am not out to convert people like James Bruggeman or Stephen E. Jones as I could care less what they teach or do. It is my responsibility only to point out their errors so Israel will know who their enemy is, and if any of Israel’s blood is spilled, it will not be because I didn’t give a warning signal loud and clear. My warning therefore is: these false teachers can be dangerous to your well-being!

 

Now in this debate, I am going to keep a running code so you will know who is speaking in every paragraph. When I am speaking there will be straight lines on each side like this:

Yahweh, The God of Segregation, vs. Satan, the god of Integration

Category: 

As the title suggests, we are going to address today’s greatest source of dismay causing untold strife and heartache. I was seeking a way to impress on the reader’s mind just how debauched our society has become. I also thought to describe Satan as a “demagogue”, but it is stated at 2 Cor. 4:4: “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of Yahweh, should shine unto them.” Thus, we have two gods here; a True One and a would-be counterfeit. As the above title indicates, these two gods have two opposing agendas. And from the title, one need not be left in doubt which god one is following. By-and-large, today, churchianity is following Satan, the god of integration. Not only that, but better than 90% of the pastors in Israel Identity teach universalism, catering to the non-white races. Oh, churchianity gives lip service to a god with no name, while at the same time supporting missionary endeavors to alien enosh. Ted R. Weiland even admitted to sending some Bibles to Nigeria. Such endeavors are Satan’s agenda, not Yahweh’s!

I don’t want to leave the impression that all churchgoers are intentionally promoting Satan’s agenda of multiculturalism, but rather many are doing it ignorantly. Nevertheless, wittingly or unwittingly, the results are just as evil. I have to admit that, before I learned the truth of the Israel Message, at the solicitation of a church member whose daughter had gone to seminary and was stationed in Africa, my late wife and I bought several boxes of prepared cake mix to send there to help the mission Christianize the natives. This we came to regret for we did it in total ignorance.

When all of this happened back in the mid-1950’s, money was rather scarce, and had I the opportunity to do it all over again, my wife and I would have had several cakes on our own table! At that time, we belonged to the Bethel Evangelical Church in Fostoria, Ohio at the corner of Union and Liberty streets. About this same time, the United Brethren merged with the Evangelical and adopted the name Evangelical United Brethren. A short time later, the Evangelical United Brethren united with the Methodist, calling the affiliation the United Methodist church, dropping entirely the name Evangelical.

What Scripture Teaches About The “Unclean”

Category: 

The subject of what is “clean” or “unclean” is of the utmost importance in Scripture, and cannot be overemphasized! Many times when the subject of the “clean” and “unclean” is brought to the fore, the full meaning is not fully comprehended by the reader.

Most well-intending but misinformed, Christians point to Acts 10:10-16 to support their insistence upon the consumption of unclean foods such as swine, where Peter had a vision, which says: “10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Master; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”

Was Christ Politically Incorrect? Matt. 13:47-50

Category: 

Many today will be offended by the answer to this question! The truth is, Yahshua-Christ was not politically correct in His day, nor are His teachings today! Sadly, His true message of the Kingdom of Heaven is so distorted entirely out of shape today that it is no longer recognizable. We are now living at a time in history when undoubtedly there are more religious charlatans concocting various devious heretical brews of poisonous dogma that would make even Frankenstein blush and cringe with envy.

This subject was brought to the fore during the year 2002 when my friend Tony Gonyer took exception to some of Ted R. Weiland’s remarks on one of Weiland’s audiocassette tapes entitled Some Basics, where Weiland apologizes for the other races by saying:

“... but that doesn’t mean that a non-Israelite cannot join himself to Yahweh, and partake – and why wouldn’t we want them to? Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?, and under His Laws? – so we could have commerce with those nations .... not only for my race but for their race as well? ... I have come to appreciate the other races and their individuality more since understanding this [Identity] message than before I understood it. God created everything to be good ... have you ever noticed the media always say we call the other races ‘mud people’? I have never in my life ever heard the term except in the media. Not amongst the people I preach to ... so why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message? ... If anything, we should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves because of our past reputation and our past history as a people and what we have squandered because of who we are. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our forefathers more than the rest of the races. They are wallowing in their sin because of our sin. Let’s just face it ...”

Unforgivable Sin, Step By Step Explanation

Category: 

It is simply amazing the concocted ideas that some dream up for which they theorize to be the unpardonable sin! After listening to a professed teacher on television on this subject, I decided that I needed to write him a letter concerning his error. Then the thought came to me, while I was at it, that I should write an article explaining it to everyone at the same time, killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to start at ground-zero, assuming that all who read this are unenlightened novices in this area of Biblical theology.

To start with, this television rancher-teacher has several faulty premises on which he bases his flawed conclusions, a problem which the reader of this paper might also have. Among the many inaccurate and unBiblical positions this man holds, a few should be pointed out. (1) he uses the terms “jew” and “Israelite” synonymously supposing they are one and the same entity; (2) he also reduces everyone to a category of either being a “jew” or “gentile”, falsely believing – as well as teaching – that the definition of the Latin term “gentile” means “non-jew”, a definition the original Latin never had, nor did any of the writers of the New or Old Testaments ever use, and (3) he holds to the false doctrine of a trinity of three gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and that somehow the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the latter one. In addition to these three flawed premises, he is totally oblivious of the fact that at Jer. ch. 24, Jeremiah separates the citizens of Judaea into two classes, (1) “good-fig-Judahites”, and (2) “bad-fig-jews”. And once the reader becomes aware of who the “bad-fig-jews” are, he is getting closer to the appropriate meaning of our subject.

This rancher-teacher first went to Matt. 12:31-32 and read the passage and said that anyone who would commit the unpardonable sin is doomed forever to the lake of fire. (You will need to read all these scriptures as we go along.) He next implied that the condemning unpardonable sin was unbelief. In order to find support for his untenable position, he next read Heb. 3:15-19, applying it to jews only, and again claiming it was the sin of unbelief. He next commented that many people go through life afraid they have committed the unpardonable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the vilest sin of all, and again asserts that it is the sin of unbelief. He then reads Eph. 2:11-13 trying to gain further support, but those three verses mention absolutely nothing about unbelief. His incorrect premise is a result of not truly understanding verse 12 of Eph. 2. He falsely applies verse 12 to what he terms “gentiles”, but rather verse 12 is directed to the lost tribes of Israel. Thus, he incorrectly assumes that the Gospel is being offered to the gentiles (as he puts it) because of the jews’ unbelief. He cites a parable of Christ at Matt. 21:33-40, 45. This rancher-teacher concludes correctly that Yahshua’s words were directed toward the jews, and that at verse 45, the jews understood He was speaking of them. All of these conclusions are based upon this rancher-teacher’s belief that the jews are God’s chosen people, and also in a trinity. In so many words he says that the jews rejected the overture of the Father by killing the prophets; they rejected the overture of the Son by killing the Christ; and that they also rejected the overture of the Holy Spirit at Acts chapters 6 & 7. He finally points out that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, and in the stoning of Stephen the jews rejected the overture of the Holy Spirit in unbelief at Acts 7:54-60. Such teachings change the context into a pretext!

They’re Your Children, Do You Really Care?

Category: 

What you are about to read may come as a shock to you, for the lives of your family and children are at stake. Your family’s enemy is very cunning, inasmuch as he is a silent killer. He does his damage under a deceptive disguise. He goes as far as to put the label of “Christian” on his evil philosophy. He sugarcoats his evil in such a way as to make it appear respectable. This deceiver presents himself as your very best friend. He manipulates the masses into thinking they are doing “God” a favor, when actually they are committing the greatest of all evil. He pretends to be “God’s” favorite. However, this presentation is designed to break his spell over the people. Once all the facts are cited, you’ll wonder why you didn’t understand it before. Oddly enough, only about one in a thousand can distinguish his wicked, pernicious maneuverings. We have been deceived into thinking that everything in the world is normal while the powers of hell are undermining everything we hold dear. We are misled by these deceivers into believing bitter is sweet, darkness is light, and evil is good.

This discourse is about your children, and, unless something is done expeditiously, your children don’t stand the slightest chance of that famous snowball in hell. In fact, by this time, it is almost “after the fact.” When going shopping in the various stores and eating out in sundry restaurants, we can observe the products of mixed-marriages. While many can behold all this before their very eyes, only a few are aware of why all this is happening, who is behind it, and what their motive is! And, while there are thousands of agencies working in concert, there is only one common source. While many can discern the various criminal effects which are taking place, they are totally blind to the perpetrators behind the evil. In fact, most want to give these evil perpetrators an elevated place in “society.” We will now consider the maneuverings of those who want to destroy our families and children:

At a “Jewish” conference, January 12, 1952, in Budapest, a “Jew”, Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich, spoke before the Emergency Council of European Rabbis. The following is part of that speech which can be found in William Guy Carr’s book, Pawns In The Game on pages 105-106:

The Words Mestizo and Ladino

Category: 

We are living in a day when it is important to understand the definitions of two words, and they are “Mestizo” and “Ladino”. I don’t mean a quick once-over scan, but an in-depth study and research inspecting every minute detail. Once we make a comprehensive survey of the topic, it will lead us to consider other related terms of urgent concern. I will now show the meanings of these two words from five different dictionaries, starting with Mestizo:

Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary:

mestee (mes•tē´) n. A mustee. [<Sp. mestizo hybrid]”

mestizo (mes•tē´zo) n. pl. zos or •zoes. Any one of mixed blood; in Mexico and the western United States, a person of Spanish and Indian blood: also called Ladino (def. 2). Also mes•te´so, mes•ti´no (-nō). [<Sp. <LL misticius <L mixtus, pp. Of miscere to mix]. — mes•ti´za (-zə) n. fem.

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:

mestiza (me stē´zə, mi-), n. a woman of racially mixed ancestry, esp., in Latin America, of mixed American Indian and European ancestry or, in the Philippines, of mixed native and foreign ancestry. [< Sp]”

mestizo (me stē´zō, mi-), n., pl. -zos, zoes. a person of racially mixed ancestry, esp., in Latin America, of mixed American Indian and European, usually Spanish or Portuguese, ancestry, or, in the Philippines, of mixed native and foreign ancestry. [1580-90; <Sp, n. use of adj. mestizo <VL *mixticius mixed]”

The Unpardonable Sin

Category: 

Over the years there has been a lot of speculation to just what constitutes the sin unto death. The Scripture we are referring to is Matthew 12:31-33: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.”

The context of this passage refers to the race-mixed Pharisees claiming that Yahshua was casting out devils by the prince of devils, Beelzebub. Because they constituted an “adulterous generation” brings the process of miscegenation into play which is our subject. One must read from verses 25 to 36 of this passage to get the gist of it.

What does it mean here “make the tree good” in verse 33? What does that have anything to do with blaspheming the “Holy Ghost”? As we continue, you will begin to see that “making the tree good” has everything in the world to do with not “blaspheming the Holy Ghost.” The reason we don’t understand the sin unto death, among many other things, is because many times we inaugurate a flawed premise.

Notice the naked contradiction that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” It is evident by the very nature of this statement, that the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost has to be something that once committed cannot be reversed – that not even Yahweh can do anything about it. Therefore, what other sin or blasphemy could it be other than the product of race-mixing? Once a bastard, always a bastard! No other sin in itself is eternal, an example of nature so far gone in depravity that repentance is impossible, and recovery hopeless. The word “blasphemy” in the Greek is Strong’s #988 blasphemia, and is sometimes used especially in a sense including the resistance against the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. When one commits miscegenation, one rebels against that convicting power. Sometimes actions speak louder than words! But the greatest blasphemy of all is to promote race-mixing by deceitful words! The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, page 226, defines blasphemy as: “... Profane or contemptuous speech or writing (or action toward) God. In a general sense, ‘blasphemy’ can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being.” So it is evident that “blasphemy” can be in either the form of speech or action. The language at Mark 3:28-29 is even stronger:

The Lie Of Universalism, #1

Category: 

With this paper, we are going to scrutinize a spurious, non-Biblical doctrine called, “universalism.” The idea of “universalism” actually started with the “Jews” and, therefore, falls under the category of “the leaven of the Pharisees.” Later, this doctrine was adopted by the “universal” Catholic Church. Today, “universalism” is taught generally throughout all the mainstream churches of all denominations. One surely would think that such a doctrine would not be found in Israel Identity, for upon discovering our heritage as Israelites, we would understand we are the only people of the Book. Unfortunately, there are those who have dragged this “mainstream” Pharisaical doctrine into the Israel Identity Message. Foremost among these are Stephen E. Jones and Jory S. Brooks. Not surprisingly, those two are also against the teaching of the two seeds of Genesis 3:15, and fall into the category of antichrist, anti-seedliners. Ironically, the doctrines of “universalism” and “anti-seedline” are co-companion teachings, for when one is adopted, the other soon follows on its heels.

In a brochure entitled The Hebrew Foundation of Christ’s Church, Jory S. Brooks attempts to bring non-Israelites into the Kingdom. In a diagram in column 4, he tries to show there is a “physical” Israel and an “allegorical” Israel. Then under the subtitle “Israel’s Relation To The Church”, he says the following: “The second illustration above demonstrates the true relationship between Israel and the church. The Bible shows clearly that Israelites were the first converts to the faith, came to knowledge of Christ in great numbers, and formed the core of the Church. Not all Israelites believed in Christ, but a large proportion of them did, and formed the foundation of the New Testament Church. These Israelites then went out and converted others, Hebrews and non-Hebrews; these latter becoming a form of allegorical Israel. In Old Testament times, non-Hebrews could join themselves to the Chosen Nation through faith in Israel’s God. (Isa. 56:3-8) Under the same principal in New Testament times, by faith in Israel’s Savior and God-In-Flesh, Jesus Christ, non-Israelites in a sense inherit some of the blessings given to Israel. We might therefore say that they are ‘EXPERIENTIAL ISRAELITES’, a term coined by Bible teacher and author, Dr. Stephen E. Jones, for those who, while not physically Israelites, come under some of the Israel covenental blessings through faith in Christ. The combination of both groups, Christian physical Israelites and Christian ‘Experiential Israelites’, constitutes Christ’s true Church. The body of Christ is therefore physically and allegorically Israelite throughout. This explains the otherwise inexplicable fact that the New Covenant was made only with Israel (Heb. 8:8-9), a point which has caused untold confusion among those who teach that Christ’s Church is non-Israelite.”

Spiritual Sperm

Category: 

In all likelihood you’re wondering, why such a title? And, no doubt, your first impression is that you’ve never heard of such a harebrained expression, to which I must agree. But, believe it or not, a majority of people insist that such a thing exists. In fact, they will go to extraordinary lengths and through all kinds of verbal contortions to validate their hypothesis. Yet in spite of their strenuous oral gymnastics, they will usually unwittingly disprove their very own argument.

The subject of this composition is about 1 John 3:9 and the scriptural setting in which it is written, especially verses 4 through 15. 1 John 3:9 in the KJV reads:

 

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

 

To come to an understanding of this verse, one must first comprehend what “born of God” means, and it’s not speaking of being “born again” as Nicodemus wrongly understood it. It is not some kind of mysterious “spiritual birth” as many maintain. Yahshua Himself indicated that one must be born both of water and the Spirit, and Yahshua didn’t mean water baptism. Neither did He mean some kind of mysterious “spiritual birth.” Christ was alluding to being “born from above”, or being born of the heavenly race. We do the same thing today when, upon the birth of a White child we send announcement cards by mail to all our relatives and friends showing a stork in flight carrying a baby. The stork is symbolic of a bird that flies in the heavens, and thus, the happy parents consider the child to be a gift from heaven, which it truly is, and this is exactly what Christ was alluding to. Never should a stork symbol be depicted as delivering a non-white child, for such a one is void of the Spirit. Therefore, 1 John 3:9 is not speaking of the false doctrine of being “born again”.

Resurrection Life, How, When, & For Whom?

Category: 

There is probably no other Biblical topic with so many and varied concepts as the Resurrection. Each little splinter-group has its own interpretation, and usually applies it to their own sect. But at 2 Peter 1:20 he says: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” To this we must ask, “Does the Resurrection fall under the category of prophecy?” It would appear that it might be a good idea to see what Scripture has to say on the subject. When studying a topic in Scripture it is always a good idea to use the rule of first mention. The first mention alluding to eternal life is found at Genesis 3:22: “And Yahweh singular Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” The only tree through which we can receive eternal life is Yahshua the Messiah, and Yahshua was no more a physical wooden tree than “... the tree of knowledge of good and evil ...” (Gen. 2:9). This is metaphorical language for living entities (Yahweh and Satan). The Bible uses the metaphor “dry tree” for a eunuch (Isa. 56:3). Yet there are those who demand that every Biblical tree be a wooden tree. They even demand that Eve ate from a wooden tree! Thus, at Genesis 3:22 we have the first allusion to eternal life. (Also cross reference Rev. 2:7; 22:2.)

It is amazing, but there are many who don’t believe in a bodily resurrection, that somehow it will be only spiritual. There is probably no other Biblical doctrine so twisted entirely out-of-shape. Let’s read John 5:28: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice ...” Would not this be similar to when Yahshua Christ called Lazarus from the dead, except he was resurrected only to die again; John 11:43? However, this passage is resurrection to life eternal. And, as we shall see later, the term “all” must be qualified.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Refuting Universalism