Refuting Universalism

The definition in my new Webster’s for “bonkers” is “mentally unbalanced, mad, crazy.” A very fitting description I would say! In order for you to see what I mean, I will quote a passage from Jones’ Foundation For Intercession for December 2002. In that publication, Stephen E. Jones, the man who has done more damage in the Israel Identity Message than any other I’m aware of, masquerades himself as an expert on the book of Revelation. On the first two and one half pages of four, he says little of nothing, and fails to identify the little horn of Daniel 7:21, which he so authoritatively mentions. He speaks of the Roman Catholic church as “the church”, unaware that the original church at Rome was actually a branch of the British Celtic church. The early church at Rome had no connection with the Roman Catholic church. It is apparent, then, he’s talking when he should be listening, for it is obvious he has never done his homework! So he starts at the bottom of the ladder and works himself downward.

To show you documentation of the true church in Rome, I will cite The Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett: “The church still stands and can be seen in what was once the palatial grounds of the Palatium Britannicum, a memorial to the Christianizing endeavors of St. Paul and the expatriate (exiled) royal British family at Rome with Rufus Pudens. The church is recorded in Roman history under four different names: 1. Palatium Britannicum; 2. Titulus; 3. Hospitium Apostolorum; 4. Lastly, as St. Pudentiana in honour and memory of the martyred daughter of Claudia Pudens, by which name it is known to this day.”

The primary object of this paper is to bring to the fore the word “kind” as used of a race of people, and secondly, as that benevolent nature found inherent with a single lineage of people. You will notice I have used the word “kind” in both of these senses in the above title. The word kind is the root for the word kindred or kind-red.

As I finished up part one I was saying: All this should prove that even some of the liberal universalists who write these hard to understand lexicons, when it gets right down to the nitty-gritty of original language, cannot avoid the truth of “kindreds” being a family line.

All those things [presented in part one] may not fit our description of “kindreds” at Acts 3:25, but we should now have a better general idea of its meaning, and it doesn’t include non-Adamites.

“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”

This story can be found at Matt. 15: 21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, and they read as follows:

“21 Then Yahshua went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Master, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Master, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Master: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Yahshua answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” ...

I am aware that this is very strong language, but sometimes a very strong antidote is needed to neutralize a very dangerous poison! Let’s examine the picture for a moment to see if Ted R. Weiland fits this title’s description. A serpent will usually catch the eye of its victim in order to hypnotize its prey before making its deadly strike. A serpent will coil and hold its motionless pose with its mouth wide open, with fangs extended and forked-tongue appearing. Then suddenly the serpent strikes out burying his fangs in the flesh of its victim and injecting its deadly poison. And if the proverbial shoe fits, then let Weiland wear it!

Let’s now examine the nature of the poison. To do this I will quote from Ted R. Weiland’s remarks on one of his 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 ...”

(Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus 12:5)

This passage reads:“Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him, lest he overmaster thee thereby: for [else] thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him.” It would be advisable to read the entire chapter. It would also be advisable to check out the Book of Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach as it is sometimes called), for the author leaves his signature, and his message is directed toward Israelites. The word “ungodly” can only be referring to non-Adamites, for the other races have no true god as we have.

All this was brought to the fore (July 2005) when Tony Gonyer wrote Ted R. Weiland and took exception to one of Weiland’s statements on an audio CD where Weiland said in part: “... And if you don’t want to believe me on that, then you might want to possibly take the word of hundreds – and who knows how many more – maybe more than that. You might want to take the word of hundreds of black Nigerians and others to whom this ministry has sent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of free Bibles and tapes since its very inception ... ”

In a reply letter dated July 14, 2005 from Weiland to Tony Gonyer, Weiland stated in part:

“... It would be one thing, Tony, if I were neglecting the children and only ministering to non-Israelites, but you know that is not the case. If someone over in Africa wrote and requested a Bible from you, would you not send it to them? Probably not – but if you wouldn’t, why wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you like to have the rest of the world – that we will inevitably have dealings of some kind with – wouldn’t you like them living by laws of Yahweh? If not, why not? ...”

Let’s See How He Does It

Though this is not the exact phraseology which Ted R. Weiland used in his July 14, 2005 letter to Tony Gonyer, this was the sum and substance of his pronouncement. One can be quite sure, had Ted R. Weiland been as skilled in the Word of Yahweh as he pretends he is, he would never have made such a ridiculous statement! Weiland’s words to Tony were: “I’m a racialist, not a racist. By racism, I am referring to white-supremacists and those who hate the other races simply because they are not white. Is that what you are? If that is what you are, I’m sorry, I denounce it.” One might describe it as unwittingly or unknowingly, but the results of Weiland’s words remain the same, for one must first comprehend that Christ Himself is a racist. Therefore, in denouncing racists, Weiland was denouncing Yahshua-Christ Himself as He also is a RACIST. Proofs of this are unquestionable being in Christ’s own Words and always spoken in hidden “parables.” Thus, in not knowing the true meanings of Christ’s Words and being unskilled in them, Ted R. Weiland denounces our Redeemer and takes upon himself an antichrist position.

Most Christians familiar only with Scripture would reply, upon a request to define these terms, that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham by Hagar (which a few of them can partially claim). In addition, these same unenlightened people believe that all Arabs today are pure Shemites and are somehow cousins to the true Israelites. Both of these assumptions are dangerously flawed, and the terms “arabia” and “arab” are almost impossible to define, and therefore hardly deserve to be capitalized. This paper will be an attempt to set the record straight.

As the term “arabia” is ambiguous as to a land area, so too is the term “arab” as to a people. Ambiguous is an accurate expression, as one of its synonyms is “dusky”, meaning shadowy, a condition of not being entirely light nor entirely dark. I will now endeavor to address the term “arabia” as a land mass. My first source for doing so will be gleaned from the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by James Hastings, vol. 1, p. 88. I will not quote from it directly, but tailor it in my own words:

This is a subject that I have been needing to address, and address it I will. For about the last two months I have been pondering how I might go about this, and a letter from William Finck to myself he laid it all out very appropriately. Bill has written this same thing to several others, and here is the general outline of those letters (except that the names of those promoting the moslem arabs as our friends are withheld, unless those persons become obnoxious). I will dispense with the usual quotation marks as Bill writes the following: