Introduction to Christian Identity
True Bible Teaching
Someone has truly said: “You can learn more about a man from his enemies, than from his friends.” So what we are going to do in this chapter is examine some of the ideas which have been implanted in Christian minds concerning Biblical Israel.
In a recent letter received from a fundamental Baptist pastor I have known for some time, he said: “While I share many of your views on the conspiracy, I do not do so for the same reasons. The doctrinal position you have taken, while new to you (Anglo-Israel Identity), has been around for a long time and is vulnerable on many points.
“At the onset, let me agree with many of your generalizations about the people we call Jews. They are a very powerful, generally agnostic, unsaved and godless people. Modern Israeli, as a nation, by no means fulfills Bible prophecy. In my judgment, Begin was a cut-throat in the same class as Mao and Stalin, and because the people are under the judgment of God, like wandering Cain -marked but somehow immune to destruction (Gen. 4:14-16), they are involved in most of the troubles of the world through their control of much of the world’s money.
“The special experience and background you bring to this book is particularly important, as I see it, so you should consider all its pitfalls. Because there is a ‘troublesome’ people who are so unsuitably called ‘the Chosen’, the Anglo-Israel position ultimately resorts to an argument for ‘oughtness.’ That is, anybody as bad as the Jews ought not to be the chosen of God and therefore cannot be. Setting out to prove that Anglo-Saxons and related peoples are the ten lost tribes of Israel, is flying in the face of science, logic, and linguistics, and those who do this, invariably accept the fact first and then try and find evidence to justify their position; one cannot follow evidence in the Bible and arrive there without presuming (to go between what is right and proper) the guilt of the Jews and building a case ‘ad homenim’ (appealing to a person’s feelings or prejudices, rather than his intellect.)
“I appreciate your challenge IN KNOW YOUR ENEMIES, page 18, to check all things by the Bible. As I play ‘devil’s advocate’ for you, check my Scripture references . . . and when I challenge a point, show me where I am wrong.
“I believe this new doctrine you have embraced is vulnerable historically. There is no evidence for the ten lost tribes in the Bible. The doctrine that there is a ‘doctrine of the remnant,’ which teaches that when God’s ancient people moved from obedience to apostasy, God would cause great trouble to come upon them, plagues, diseases, wars, deportations, greatly reducing their numbers and leaving them only a remnant – a tiny portion of the original nation. The Minor Prophets major on this theme.
“So representatives of all the twelve tribes survived the captivity and returned to the land. (Here he lists 2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:3, 5; 2:70; 7:7; 13, 28; 8:24, 25, 35; Nehemiah 9:2; 11:20 and 12:47 as proof of his statement.)
“In the New Testament, the Jews were called “all of Israel.” Compare Acts 2:5, 36; 13:24; with Matthew 3:5, 6; Romans 11:26; Luke 1:80; Acts 4:10; 5:21; 4:8. The Jews are called Israel. (Note that in Acts 2:5, these men were not listed as “followers of Judaism,” but as Judeans, godly men living in Jerusalem.
Quite a difference. Acts 13:26 rather than proving that JEWS AND ISRAELITES are one and the same people, shows that Christ came to the stock (seed) of Abraham and “whosoever among you that feareth the Lord.” Vs. 27 indicates that those who dwelt in Jerusalem, the “psuedo-Jews” knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets.” (Notice that the writer is careful not to say “their prophets”, which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them (the Scriptures) in condemning Him. (My purpose in this book is not to refute this pastor, merely to show what he believed.)
“There is no respectable evidence of Israelites migrating from Babylon and ASSRYIA to England. Our people (Anglo-Saxon) have no true Sabbath, have had no circumcision, and our language is not similar and certainly not related to Hebrew, (please note Isaiah 28:11 – “For with stammering lips, and ANOTHER TONGUE, will I speak to this people [EphraimManasseh], God’s people in their new land were not to speak Hebrew-Editor.)
“Exodus 31:16, 17 and Ezekiel 20:12 show how important the Sabbath is to the identity of Israel. Finding English words which sound like Hebrew BRITISH – ‘BRITH’ (Covenant) ‘ISH’ (man), etc., can be done in any language.
“Secondly, I believe you will not be able to justify your position linguistically. You argue on pps. 9-11, the difference between the word JEW and ISRAELITE, HEBREW, etc. You deny they are synonomous. That JEW is something alien to God’s People. It only confuses the issue to point out that HEBREWS were not JEWS, that ISRAELITES were not JEWS early in the Old Testament. Of course HEBREW was a term used before Jacob; Jacob was called ISRAEL and later his offspring were called ISRAELITES. Only one tribe of twelve became JEWS, the tribe of JUDAR. But this does not refute the fact that the word is used synonomously during some periods and certainly in the New Testament, when they meant the same thing. The words developed in their meaning over the years.
“Jesus was from the tribe of JUDAH and therefore a JEW. The Wise Men called Rim that in Matthew 2:2, (not so, they said: ‘Where is He that is born king of the Jews?’ The word JEWS here is translated from the word “chakmowiny”, which means “Israelites.” So the true translation should have read, “Where is He who is born king of the Israelites,” not JEWS – EDITOR). Was He (Jesus) not king over all the other tribes also? Of course! JEW has become the term used for all 12 tribes of ISRAEL, the same throne as David’s (Luke 1:32-33). (But look closely at this passage, it says he will rule over the House of Jacob [ISRAEL], nothing is said here about a people called JEWS – AUTHOR.)
“Jesus claimed to be the king of the JEWS as clearly as language can convey it. John 18:33-35; also John 19:19-22. I’m sure that you know that in Greek “Thou sayest,” means ‘yes’, like our idiom, ‘You said it brother!’ (But that is not what it means in the Greek. The English phrase “Thou sayest,” means in English: “That’s what you say!” Then Jesus asks Pilate: “Did you say this of yourself, or did others tell it thee of me?” In other words, Jesus most clearly did not admit being king of the Jews, but said to Pilate that this was the claim of the Pharisees -AUTHOR).
“Jesus claimed to be king of the JEWS, and He was heir to the throne of united ISRAEL (True). The Apostle Paul was also a JEW and said so proudly (Acts 21:39; 22:3) of this there is no question. (Here again the Greek word used does not define him as a Jew, but as an Israelite. Why did the translators not use the correct word? Your guess is as good as mine. In 22:3, the same word ISRAELITE is used in the Greek – You see, evidently our Baptist preacher friend has been using arguments which he heard in the seminary, without ever checking them out from the Word itself. Paul was a Benjamite by blood – not of JUDAH. He was a Roman by citizenship, and a JEW by religion, and a PHARISEE, by political party. Just as I am of English-German blood, a citizen of the U.S. and a Christian by religion. Paul was not a JEW by blood and there is no Scriptural evidence to so prove – AUTHOR.)
But back to our Baptist pastor’s letter: “Your position constantly resorts to the use of the generalization fallacy and is therefore indefensible logically. (NOTE – These are all theological terms he learned in seminary – AUTHOR.) Logic is an exact science similar to mathematics. A logical syllogism (a deductive scheme of formal argument consisting of a major and minor premise and conclusion, is built on two statements which eliminate any conclusion but one. It is like drawing two lines which converge on a map. It is like saying: ‘All Chinese are Oriental’; that is a premise. Then you might say, ‘This man is Chinese’, having said that, these two things then give you a logical conclusion that the man must be an Oriental. But suppose the premise (to presuppose) is false . . . The premise must be true to begin with.
“Because JEWS killed Christ does not mean that ALL JEWS are bad. Rules of logic demand that if you have a ‘same’ premise, you cannot have an ‘all’ in the conclusion.
“Yet you (Jack Mohr) have fallen into this false conclusion repeatedly. That is to say, because some or even ‘most’ of the JEWS are bad, therefore ALL JEWS are enemies (p.16, par. 1). (What I actually said was this, quote from p.16 of KNOW YOUR ENEMIES: “Every major evil that the Moral Majority claims to abhor, everything which is helping to destroy America and the Christian church, can be traced back to the ones our pastors call God’s Chosen People. No wonder they are universally hated! Check out the facts for yourself, I dare you! These anti-Christ people have cost the Christian nations of the world untold billions of dollars and uncounted suffering, because of their long-range ideas to destroy us and they are taught these ideas in their synagogues. No wonder our Lord called them the “synagogues of Satan,” fRev. 2:9; 3:9]. Not one word here abdut all JEWS being evil. This is something this pastor has read into my writings intentionally, I believe – AUTHOR).
“You eventually conclude that INTERNATIONAL BANKERS are the culprits and I could not agree with you more. But NON-JEWISH INTERNATIONAL BANKERS are rotten too. (Here he is careful not to tell that these non-Jew bankers are under the complete control of the Zionists – AUTHOR). Some bankers, does not equal all JEWS, just as SOME FUNDAMENTALISTS do not equal all FUNDAMENTALISTS. (AUTHOR)
“Another argument you use is the lengthy point-by-point identification, pp.97-105, of what TRUE ISRAEL MUST be. The Bible does not have such a list, or make such identification.
This identification of yours has been IMPOSED ON SCRIPTURE, not stated in it. (But again, this premise is proven false, for there are well over 200 identifying marks in the Scriptures, which will identify Modern ISRAEL in these last days. Of course they are not given in a concise list, but are scattered around throughout Scripture. The people we know as Jews do not answer to one of them. Since we will speak more about this later on, I will drop this subject now, except to say that my critic evidently has not read His Bible with an open, unprejudiced mind, or he would have discovered at least a few of these identifying marks – AUTHOR).
Again you state that the JEWISH people were in favor of Christ’s death. Obviously not Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Mary and Martha and most of the disciples. (Well, rather than argue with this “brainwashed” brother, I rest my case on Matthew 27:25. Either accept what he says, or what the Bible says. Take your choice! This Scripture says: “Then answered ALL THE PEOPLE, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” The people this pastor mentioned who believed on Jesus, were Israelites from Galilee, THEY WERE NOT JEWS! You see, our fundamentalist preacher has been so thoroughly brainwashed that he cannot tell the difference between JEWS and ISRAELITES – AUTHOR.)