Exclusiveness Part 2

Copied from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore

June 19, 2016

Scripture Reading: Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye all one in Christ Jesus.”

In Part 1, we commented on the death of Muhammad Ali, the famous boxer who changed both his name and his religion.  He traded his slave name for a Muslim name…because he hated slavery?  Muslims have been the largest group of slave traders in the world, and still are. 

Early last Sunday (June 6), Piers Morgan tweeted that Muhammad Ali made more controversial comments than Donald Trump.  Ali’s fans were quick to come to the former heavyweight boxing champion’s defense.   But the statement made by Piers is true.  I will give you one statement that Ali made during a BBC interview.  Ali said:

“And I’m sure no intelligent white person watching this show and no intelligent white man in his or her right white mind want black boys and black girls marrying their white sons and daughters, and in return introducing their grandchildren as half-brown kinky-headed black people.”  

I’m sure that was reasonably true when he said it, but it is not true anymore.  The vast majority of white people now, no matter what their intellect, have no problem with their sons and daughters marrying anyone of any race.  That is the problem.  It is a spiritual problem, not an intellectual problem.  Ali said that he wanted his children to look like him.  He argued with his interviewer that he was against races intermarrying.  The races now are intermarrying at the rate of almost 20%.

I noticed that one of the speakers for Ali’s eulogy was former President, Bill Clinton.  Bill’s past is a mystery.  He wasn’t born with the name Bill Clinton, for his father died in a car crash while he was still in his mother’s womb.  When he was four years old, his mother married a man whose name was Clinton and he adopted her young son and gave the name of Clinton to Bill.

When Bill grew up, he was a race mixer.  He disagreed with Ali’s statement on segregation of the races, for Bill had sexual relations with several black hookers and even one former black Miss Arkansas.  I am sure that Bill, as well as the other speakers at his eulogy, will not mention this part of Ali’s beliefs.

At the end of our first lesson, we saw from one of the recent former United States Presidents to the savages in the jungles of the islands in the Pacific, all are following the doctrines of demons. Miscegenation, sexual misconduct, race mixing, and worshipping demons are common chords of practice and it is getting more and more common. 

The vast majority of the world, including the Christian world, believes that the words “Jew” and “Greek” in Galatians 3:28 means Jews and then all the races who are not Jewish.  In other words, the entire world.

As the Creation Ministries International (CMI) answered the letter from a person who seemed to understand some of the Christian Identity doctrine:

“Leviticus 19:19 was no doubt prohibiting the crossing of horses with donkeys, but given that this law was intended to represent the spiritual separation of Jews from Gentiles, and that in Christ ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ (Galatians 3:28), such a prohibition is not binding on Christians today any more than we are prohibited from wearing shirts made of a cotton/polyester blend.

The problem was clearly that the Moabite and Midianite women were causing the Israelites to worship and sacrifice to idols, not the issue of race.”

That is 100% heresy.  The problem is race.  For no one outside of the covenant people of God were His people.  Once individuals from the race of Adam intermarried with the Canaanites or other races, their offspring were no longer God’s people.  

All people of other races are not Christians and that is one reason why interracial marriages are wrong.  This is true even today.  There cannot be a Christian black person or a Christian Asian person or a Christian Polynesian or a Christian mixed-blooded offspring.  True Christians are the New Testament pure-blooded sons of Jacob/Israel: 

“Ye are the sons 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” (Acts 3:25).  

CMI continues:

“More importantly, there is never any prohibition in the Bible about mixing human ‘races’.  See The Bible and interracial marriage. In the case of Phinehas in Numbers 25, the problem was clearly that the Moabite and Midianite women were causing the Israelites to worship and sacrifice to idols, not the issue of race.

The same is true throughout the Old Testament, including Ezra 9, which emphasizes the great spiritual wickedness of Israel’s neighbors as the reason they were not to intermarry. By the way, the Moabites were actually close relatives of Israel, both nations having descended from Terah, Abraham’s father (cf. Genesis 11:27; 19:37), and the Midianites were even closer relatives, tracing their ancestry to Abraham (Genesis 25:1–2). So these were different nations, but to call them different races imposes an idea not in the text.

Plus, there was clearly no problem with a Jewish man marrying a foreign woman as long as she adopted Israel’s spiritual practices and abandoned those of her people. The Bible celebrates the marriages of:

• Rahab (a Canaanite) and
• Ruth (a Moabite) to Israelite men, and both were ancestors of Jesus (Matthew 1:5).
• Moses even married a Cushite (presumably a dark-skinned African) with God’s approval (Numbers 12:1 ff.).”

There is a major problem with the statement that was made in the previous paragraph: 

“There was clearly no problem with a Jewish man marrying a foreign woman as long as she adopted Israel’s spiritual practices and abandoned those of her people.” 

They then give three examples of women who supposedly did this:  Rahab (a Canaanite), Ruth (a Moabite) and Moses’ wife (a black African).

Notice that they interchanged the words “Jewish” and “Israel’s” once again.  They are of the opinion that the two are the same people;  but they are not.  Jew, House of Judah and House of Israel are three separate and different entities.  Both the House of Judah and the House of Israel are Israelites, the descendants of Jacob/Israel; the Jew is not.  The Jew is descended from Jacob’s miscegenating twin brother, Esau.

They are trying to prove that all races are now equal.  One way, is to show that there were a couple of exceptions to God’s covenant people.  This writer says that there were at least three of these foreign women who became converts and adopted Israel’s spiritual practices. 

But they were not foreigners, as they claim.  We will do a study of this three women and see if they were a foreigner to Israel or not.  First let’s look at why Rahab was not a Canaanite.

RAHAB WAS AN ISRAELITE

Most commenters, scholars, and everyday Christians believe that Rahab was a Canaanite, not giving it a thought that she could be an Israelite.  If she were a Canaanite, Rahab would:

• Be the only Canaanite who served the God of Israel in the entire Old Testament as well as the New 
• Be a blasphemy to the line of Christ as in order to be a Kinsman-Redeemer He needed to have a pure bloodline 
• Bar Christ Himself from the House of the Lord, for no Canaanite was to enter the House of the LORD (Zechariah 14:21)
• Be a distant descendant of the first murderer, Cain.  As a descendant she would be cursed, and would be a wanderer and would not be able to farm
• NOT be of the seed line of Jacob/Israel.  Cain married into another race after he was expelled from paradise.  Canaanites were mixed-race mongrels

But Rahab lived in Jericho.  And since she was a resident of that city, they say that she had to be a non-Israelite.  But was she? 

Not all the descendants of Jacob/Israel were with the majority group that were part of the miraculous exodus from Egypt.  While they were in Egypt for 215 years, some of them went to Greece, some went to Italy and some to Ireland.  Some went to other places in the world. 

All descendants of Israel were not limited to living in the Promised Land.  For example:

• Jeremiah is buried in Ireland
• Jesus Christ, along with His uncle, travelled to Great Britain
• Lazarus, who Jesus raised from the dead, and his two sisters are buried in Marseille, France
• Ruth and Naomi lived much of their lives in the former land of Moab
• Daniel lived most of his life in the land of Babylon and Persia

Israelites did not live 100% of the time in the land of Palestine—the Promised Land.

Not every single inhabitant of the city of Jericho was a Canaanite.  It is similar to Lot’s situation--not every person who lived in Sodom was a Canaanite.  While Rahab refers to herself in association with the inhabitants of Jericho as “we” and “our”, this is certainly no proof that she was a Canaanite. 

Rahab was not a harlot, either.  She was an inn-keeper.  Consider this argument given by a Christian Identity writer, Robert Alan Balaicius:

“Why would the spies go to a house of ill repute?  It was a private home on the top of the wall of the city.  Obviously, if it was a brothel, there was not a sign hanging over the door saying ‘whorehouse.’ 

In order to find such a place they would have to search for it.  The longer they wandered through this small town asking questions, the more they would stick out and the more their lives would be jeopardized.

On the other hand, if they came in with other travellers on the road, all they had to do was follow them where they went and they would find the inn.  Going to an inn seems more reasonable. Going to a whorehouse would cause them to rub shoulders with the least savoury element of the town and possibly lead to their exposure… 

The majority of people frequenting a whorehouse are probably locals; while strangers may eventually learn of the place and go there, strangers would stick out.  Going to an inn, where strangers were expected, would raise the least suspicion and give them a chance to gather information” (Sacred Truth Expository Commentary on The Epistle of James, Chapter 2, page 76).

When the two messengers were sent by Joshua to Rahab in the city of Jericho, she hid them on the roof of her house.  When the King of Jericho sent his men to ask her where the two men of Israel were, she lied to them and told them that they had just left before they came and were traveling outside the city returning to their camp.  The king’s men quickly took off looking for them.  But after the men sent by the king of Jericho left, Rahab went up on the roof and told the two men of Israel something very strange that she already knew: 

“…I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you” (Joshua 2:9). 

Now, how did Rahab know this if she were a Canaanite?  Think about this for a second.  How did she know that the God of the Israelites, not the gods of the Canaanites, had given them the land?  She would know of the terror that had fallen on them and that the inhabitants were about to faint because of the Israelites, but how did she know that the LORD had given the Israelites the land—the Promised Land.  That was part of the covenant that He had made with their fathers.  She would probably only know this if she were an Israelite.

The Israelites had not sent notice to the people of Jericho that they were going to attack and force them to surrender.  There had been none of that at all.  But if she were an Israelite, she would have been taught her heritage and God’s Promises and Covenants by her father. 

After telling the men this statement that she knew, she then said that she would let them go down on the red cord through the window in her home that was on the wall, and then they would hide three days in the mountains until the men who were looking for them returned. Then they could continue back to their camp.  (This red cord could have been the symbol of her heritage:  the red cord of Zerah).

She then asked them to swear unto her by the LORD.   Since she had shown kindness unto them, she was asking for a kindness in return. 

“…Save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death” (Joshua 2:13). 

What?  A Canaanite would know and do all this!  For her father, mother, brothers and sisters were living in Jericho too, and Rahab asked that their lives be spared in the coming attack. That would be a minimum of seven to a maximum of about a dozen people.   So, it wasn’t just Rahab who was saved, but it was her entire family:  mother, father, sisters and brothers.  On the seventh day of Israel’s march around the city, Rahab’s family had to go to Rahab’s house that was situated on the wall of the city. And when the wall collapsed in mangled heaps after the Israelites march around it, the only part of the wall that did not collapse was Rahab’s house!

Rahab’s father, mother, brothers and sisters …hmm, that is a genetic family seed.  All of these people had to be converts too.  Not just Rahab.  They had to go to her house on the day when the walls would tumble down, and they had to be silent about what Rahab had said in her conversation with the two messengers for several weeks.  The only good explanation is that they were Israelites.  No Canaanite ever served the LORD. 

If Rahab and her family were Canaanites, they would never have been given a place to dwell within Israel after the Israelites relished in their victory. 

“That would have been a violation of the very command of God at the very beginning of the time in which He commanded them to utterly destroy them all…. 

It they had been Canaanites, all that Joshua could have promised was that they would not be killed and they would be given safe passage out of Canaan.  God said that if Israel did not utterly destroy the Canaanites, they would be thorns in their flesh and pricks in their eyes all their days….God would have ordered Rahab and her family to be perpetual slaves, or thanked [them] for their help and sent [them] far, far away.  But nothing like that is mentioned in the narrative.” (Ibid, pages 99, 100).

In Hebrews, chapter 11, the heroes of faith are mentioned.  Every single one mentioned was of the chosen line of God’s people, from Abel to Abraham to Moses to King David.  If Rahab was a Canaanite, and not a Hebrew, she would be out of place!  For the Canaanites were and are enemies of Israel, not heroes of faith.

If Rahab’s later marriage to an Israelite was in the lineage of Jesus Christ, she had to be a pure-blooded Israelite.  If any pure-blooded four-legged dog has a relation with any dog that is not pure-blooded, then the offspring from that relationship is forever ruined.  The same is true in Israel’s relationships. 

Only a pure-blooded Israelite can marry another pure-blooded Israelite to produce a pure-blooded offspring.  Look what happened when Esau married two Canaanites?  Their offspring became enemies of God.  The same thing would have happened to the offspring of Rahab, if she were a Canaanite.  Jesus Christ would have had to be born in a different seed line!  The same is true today.

That is what Muhammad Ali implied in his interview that is quoted in the above pages, isn’t it?  Muhammad Ali married four black women and had black children.  He was not a race-mixer and taught against it. 

White people are unique.  They are the only people with red, brown, black, and blond hair with eyes that vary in different colors:  hazel, green, blue, etc.  Rahab was an Israelite.

Why were Rahab and her family spared from the destruction in Jericho?  There are two main choices:

•  Because they were the only (about a dozen) Canaanites, out of hundreds of millions, that have ever served the LORD or
•  Because they were Israelites

But if they were a family of Israelites doesn’t this show that God is the “respecter of persons.”  Yes He is.  He saved one family from Sodom and one family on the Ark during the flood.  That shows what love God has for His children.

“Rahab represents the firstfruits of God’s deliverance and God’s faithfulness in leading the two Israelite spies directly to her, a woman who would choose allegiance to Israel rather than the people of Jericho, though it was her home” (Ibid, page 94).

Rahab was an Israelite.

RUTH WAS AN ISRAELITE

Ruth was not a racial Moabitess.  She was a displaced Israelite who had been raised in [the former land of] Moab.   When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, after their 40 years wandering in the Exodus, the land of Moab was the first territory they conquered. God had commanded them to totally exterminate the former occupants of the lands they were to settle: and in Moab, they did so.

At that time Sihon, King of the Amorites, had conquered and occupied the kingdom of Moab, and was its ruler when the Israelites came in. Scripture confirms this, in Numbers 21:26, 29, 31, we read:

26)  “For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, King of the Amorites, who had fought against the former King of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.

29) Woe unto thee, Moab! Thou art undone, 0 people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, King of the Amorites.

31) Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites.”

It is quite plain therefore, that no racial Moabites were left in this area.  The Moabites were slaughtered by the Amorites who were slaughtered by the Israelites.  The Israelites then conquered the land of Moab, killing all the people they found therein. We read in Deuteronomy 2:32-34:

32)  “Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

33) And the Lord our God delivered him before us; we smote him and his sons and all his people.

34) And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones of every city, we left NONE to remain.”

It is also quite plain that the Israelites then drove out the Amorites who had previously occupied the area where the Moabites had once lived.

So Ruth and Naomi lived in the land which used to be the land where the Moabites lived. And after the Moabites were conquered by the Amorites, the Amorites used to have lived there.  They were both Israelites living in the former land of Moab.

In addition, in Judges 11:12, 13, 26, we find evidence that the Israelite occupation of the lands of Moab and Ammon was still unbroken after three hundred years.

12) “And Jephthah sent messengers unto the King of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?

13) And the King of the Children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan:  Now therefore restore these lands again peaceably.

26) While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years, why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?'

From these facts, confirmed by Scripture, it is obvious that the Israelites had held unbroken possession of the land of Moab and Ammon all that time. The area occupied by the Israelites can leave no one in any doubt as to which people lived in which area, from the time of the occupation of the Promised Land right up to the time of the Captivities.

Right in the middle of this period, or about 130 years after the Israelites of the Tribes of Reuben and Gad had occupied the land of Moab. Elimelech, a man of Judah, with his wife Naomi and his two sons was driven by famine from their home west of the Jordan. Ruth 1:1 says that: “…he went to sojourn in the country, of Moab.” Please note the accuracy of that expression: NOT AMONG the people of Moab, BUT IN the country of Moab, which was, as we have already shown, occupied by Israelites exclusively.

Most commentators again blaspheme Christ when they claim that a Moabite was in His genealogy.  Though they were not Canaanites, the Moabites eventually intermarried with the Canaanites.

The Moabites (and Ammonites) were born of incest (after Lot’s own daughters got him drunk and lay with him, probably pretending to be his wife who had died, having been turned to a pillar of salt for having turned around and looked back at the destruction of Sodom) and God forever cursed them and declared that they could never come into the congregation (i.e. could never intermarry with) Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3).

“Ruth is not mentioned because she was a Moabitess, which she was not.  Ruth is mentioned because of her dedication to her people and family, and though she, being younger, could have gone on her way to meet someone closer to her own age and remarry and start a new life, she chose to be loyal to Naomi, her widowed mother-in-law, and Ruth chose to honor the memory of her own deceased husband (Ruth 2:11).  She followed Naomi back to Israel and married a much older Boaz, who fulfilled the law of the Kinsman Redeemer…

When Ruth told Naomi, ‘thy people shall be my people…’ (Ruth 1:16), she was not implying that she herself was a ‘nonIsraelite’ (which nearly every commentator, Bible teacher, minister in blindness claims)…” (Ibid, page 91, 92).

Let’s look at a similar Scripture:

2 Chronicles 18:3: “And Ahab, king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Wilt thou go with me to Ramothgilead?  And he answered him, I am as thou art, and my people as thy people and we will be with them in the war.” 

“Here we have the Israelite king of the Southern House of Judah, while speaking to the Israelite king of the Northern House of Israel—using the very same words that Ruth used.  Would any sane Bible ‘expert’ claim that Jehoshaphat was of a different race than Ahab…?”  (Ibid, page 92).

When Ruth returned to Bethlehem with Naomi to live, she fell in love with Boaz.  There came the question of the redemption of her ex-husband’s land.  Boaz, was second in line for the Kinsman Redemption. 

The first redeemer took off his shoe and said that for him to redeem the land would mar his inheritance.  For he had a wife already, and taking on another wife would cause trouble at home. So Boaz became the Kinsman-Redeemer and wife of Ruth.

Their child was Obed, whose child was Jesse, whose child was David, king of Israel.  Ruth’s great-grandchild was David.

The Moabites had inter-married with the Canaanites.  So, most commentators say that Ruth was a Moabite/Canaanite who is in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.  If that is true, Mary would not have been Jesus Christ’s mother.  For she would not have been a pure-blooded Israelite.

God's Law plainly states that ONLY THE KINSMAN REDEEMER IS ABLE TO REDEEM--that is, only within the Kinsman’s own race. People may not like this aspect of God's Law but it is there for all to see in Scripture.

“Ruth represents God’s faithfulness in seeing His people through famine, death, poverty, and exile from the Promised Land and regathering them.  Ruth does not represent God bringing foreigners into the family” (Ibid, page 94).

Ruth was an Israelite.

MOSES’ “BLACK” WIFE

CMI stated: “Moses married even a Cushite (presumably a black-skinned African) with God’s approval.” Here is another case of mistaken identity.  At least the C. M. I. writer said, “presumably.”  But the writer presumed wrong.

The land of Midian in Arabia was the “land of Cush” as well as in Ethiopia because one branch of Cush settled there in ancient times and another branch settled in the other area.  Midian was a son of Abraham through Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4).  Therefore, Moses didn’t marry a black, as this writer was trying to say, but he married one of the descendants of the son of Abraham. 

Zipporah was considered a Cushite because of her dwelling in the land of Cush.  In the same sense that a German can be called an American because of American citizenship and living in the United States.  Just as being an American does not identify one as to his race, so being a Cushite did not identify Zipporah in this way either.

As long as their seed had not been ruined by race mixing, they were permitted to marry an Israelite.  They were the same Adamic race.

Moses was a great leader of Israel.  Do these commentators think that God would give His blessing to Moses if he married outside of his race?  And if Moses married a black, his children would be mixed-raced mongrels and forbidden by God’s law to enter the congregation of His kingdom.  This did not happen because Moses did not marry a black. He married a person that was of his own race.

Even Muhammad Ali criticized marriage unions such as the one Moses supposedly had.  The same with Rahab and Ruth.  For all three of these outstanding Israelite individuals would have had mongrel offspring.  Ali would have agreed with us, that inter-racial marriages is dreadfully wrong.

CONCLUSION

CMI's statement:

“So, while the Bible doesn’t use terms like ‘races’ or ‘species’, it does clearly indicate that all humans are part of the same family, descended from Adam and made in the image of God. We would do well to remember that ‘the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart’ (1 Samuel 16:7). Terry, I strongly encourage you to read the articles I’ve linked to above, and I also highly recommend the book One Human Family: The Bible, Science, Race, and Culture for an in-depth, careful treatment of these issues.

I hope this response has challenged you to divest yourself of these mistaken ideas about the Bible prohibiting hybridization and interracial marriage, because bad theology leads to bad consequences. Racism is an ugly, sinful phenomenon, but God’s Word is the best antidote! May we all be more faithful to Scripture?”

While I am at work, I constantly pickup newspapers and magazines to look at during my break and dinner.  I picked up Monday’s, [June 6, 2016] Wall Street Journal.  I usually don’t read this business newspaper, but there was nothing else for me to read.  So as I was methodically going through this paper, I was shocked at what I saw on pages A8 and A9.  A large two page advertisement.

The headline:  “U.S., EUROPEAN MAYORS UNITE TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.”

Then in the left hand column it said:

“As U.S. and European leaders have acknowledged, anti-Semitism is on the rise.  In response, AJC [American Jewish Committee] reached out to mayors across Europe and the U.S., urging them to publicly condemn and take concrete actions against this pathology.  These 188 European mayors from 31 countries, representing over 67 million people and 319 U.S. mayors and municipal leaders from 50 states and the District of Columbia, representing over 82 million people, have signed the Mayors United Against Anti-Semitism statement.

‘Anti-Semitism is not compatible with fundamental democratic values,’ asserts the Mayors United Against Anti-Semitism statement.

‘As Mayors and municipal leaders, we have a special responsibility to speak out against the growing menace of anti-Semitism.’  The statement affirms that:

‘We, the undersigned,

• Condemn anti-Jewish hatred, in all its forms;
• Reject the notion that anti-Semitic acts, while sometimes carried out in the name of a political cause may ever be justified or excused by one’s opinions about the action or existence of the State of Israel.
• Declare that prejudices against Jews or others due to differences in religious faith are inconsistent with our core values.
•  Support government efforts directed at eradicating anti-Semitism and preventing extremist indoctrination and recruitment; and support expanded education programs, including Holocaust programs, that increase awareness and counter intolerance and discrimination.
• Recognize the ever-present need to be vigilant about efforts to prevent and report acts of anti-Semitism and other hate crimes and
• Believe that communities that promote a climate of mutual understanding and respect among all citizens are essential to good governance and democratic life.’

If your mayor is listed, please take a moment to thank him or her for standing up against anti-Semitism.  Otherwise, mayors can join this global effort by contacting mayorsunited@ajc.org.  If not now, when?”

Are you interested to see if your mayor signed this petition?  In Ohio the signees were: the mayors of:  Akron, Amberley Village, Beachwood, Blue Ash, Cincinnati, Cleveland Heights, Columbus, Cuyahoga county, Dayton, Harrison, Lima, Loveland, Lyndhurst, Parma, Pepper Pike, Reading, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, Toledo, and Youngstown.

The closest mayor to us who signed this petition is John Cranley, the mayor of Cincinnati.  The mayors of the two largest cities, Lexington and Louisville, were the only signers in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

Now, who is the biggest hater of the descendants of Shem, which the Jews call anti-Semitism?  The Skin-heads?  The Palestinians? Christian Identity?  No.  It is the Jew.  The Jew?

Why?  The chart to the right shows you the genetic line of the Semites.

Who are the true Semitic people in the world today? 

•  The Jews?  No.  They are mixed-racial seed
•  The Arabs?  No.  They are mixed-racial seed
•  The Israelites: Yes. The pure Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Caucasian, Germanic and kindred people are holy seed             

Every mayor who signed this petition is either Jewish or a traitor to their people.  One of the things that they all agreed to was the following: 

"Declare that prejudices against Jews or others due to difference in religious faith are inconsistent with our core values.” 

First of all, this is a racial statement.  It is putting the Jewish belief system above any objection whether it is true or not.  They are equating Jews with being Semitic, which they are not.

Second, they object to prejudices against Jews due to differences in religious faith.  Well, it wasn’t prejudices it was actual fact that the Christian religion kicked every Jew out of their country, city or state in Europe; not just once, but some kicked them out three times in history.

It seems like the Jew doesn’t want this to happen again.  Remember, the Jew was kicked out of England from 1290 to the 1660’s—when Oliver Cromwell let them back in to charge their usury in the banks to the citizens of England.

There seems to me that there are two major branches of Biblical thinking:

• Racism is an ugly, sinful phenomenon.  Why?  Because it destroys the whole concept that all human beings on this earth came from only two individuals—Adam and Eve.  So, there is really only one race—the human race.  If this were true, communism is correct.  For soon, there would be no original races left at all; for all will be mixed-seed races.
• Racism is the major theme in the Bible.  Only the white race have as their original father and mother, Adam and Eve.  The Bible tells the story of their descendants.

To be continued.

Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.