Alphabetical Listing of Papers

Irish and Scottish Genealogy

Category: 

(INFORMATION OF RELATED PEOPLES) 

Many have heard, and are very familiar with, the terms “Irish” and “Scottish”, and really don’t know the difference between the two. The Irish and Scots are really the same people except they arrived in Britain two thousand years apart. The ancestors of the Irish arrived in Britain about 1600 B.C., while the Scots arrived about 501 A.D. It is simply amazing that two groups of the same people would wander through the earth and end up locating within a few miles from each other two thousand years later in Britain. Because there are two different groups of the same peoples concerned here, we will have to treat them separately even though they came from the same family. We will first investigate the background of the Irish.

The Irish are a very ancient people, and their history covers a large span of time. If we will take the time to do a little arithmetic, we will soon see we are talking about approximately 3,500 years or better. With the United States being 223 years old (1999), you can see the Irish history is about 18 times as old as we are. When one considers all the things that have happened since 1776, it is staggering to imagine what has happened to the Irish people over a period of 3,500 years.

It is Biblical to be Caucasian, Song. chs. 4-7, (#1)

Category: 

We will start this essay by quoting Brenton’s Septuagint at Song of Solomon 5:9-12:

9 What is thy kinsman more than another kinsman, O thou beautiful among women? what is thy kinsman more than another kinsman, that thou hast so charged us? 10 My kinsman is white and ruddy, chosen out from myriads. 11 His head is as very fine gold, his locks are flowing, black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as doves, by the pools of [blue] waters, washed with [white] milk, sitting by the pools.” [brackets mine]

The KJV renders this same passage thusly:

9 What is thy beloved [kinsman] more than another beloved [kinsman], O thou fairest3303 among women? what is thy beloved [kinsman] more than another beloved [kinsman], that thou dost so charge us? 10 My beloved [kinsman] is white and ruddy122, the chiefest among ten thousand. 11 His head is as the most fine [white] gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the [blue] rivers of waters, washed with [white] milk, and fitly set.” [brackets mine]

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?

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, (#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.”

It’ll Be More Blessed to Be “Left Behind”!

Category: 

Many are disillusioned today, believing that it would be a tragedy if one were to be “left behind” at the Second Advent of Yahweh Christ. Actually, just the opposite is true, as he who is “left behind” will be preserved. We will start this discussion by citing Matt. 24:36-42 thusly:

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Adam be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Master doth come.”

It’s Insane to Claim a 3rd Temple at Jerusalem Will Be Built!

Category: 

Not only is it the height of insanity to promote this supposition, but it borders on blasphemy! Many mediocre Bible students are aware of the original Temple built by Solomon and the 2nd more humble Temple rebuilt by Zerubbabel after the seventy years of Judah’s captivity in Babylon. But they are entirely oblivious to the Temple which Herod built after tearing down Zerubbabel’s Temple to, and including, its foundations (Josephus’ Antiq. 15:11:3).

Testimony is found at The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. R-Z, p.p. 550-551, under subtitle “Temple, Jerusalem”:

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD:As was pointed out above, this temple lasted a much shorter time than the other two. Begun ca. 20 B.C.,the basic structure was completed in about a year and a half, but subsidiary construction was still in process a half-century later (John 2:20),and may not have been entirely finished when the destruction came in A.D. 70. Although on the same site as the two preceding temples, this one involved an almost complete rebuilding according to the new and then prevailing style of architecture, the Hellenistic-Roman, but with retention of the Solomonic arrangement of rooms within the sanctuary itself. It is logically absurd, therefore, to confuse Herod’s and Zerubbabel’s temples under the name of ‘second temple.’ Herod’s was definitely the third temple, no matter what tradition may say.[Note: Herod’s temple was satanically inspired. C.A.E]

Jews Are Neither Israel Nor Judah!

Category: 

That the “Jews” are neither Israel nor Judah may be difficult for some to grasp. With this paper it will be shown that there is an appropriate usage for each of these three terms. Therefore, to use them synonymously (as if all three had the same identical meaning) exhibits gross ignorance on the part of the one speaking or writing with such an inference. It will be demonstrated that the house of Judah is not the house of Israel, nor is the house of Israel the house of Judah in a national sense! It was after the death of Solomon, under King Rehoboam, that the house of Israel and the house of Judah became two separate entities. Now one might properly call all twelve and/or thirteen tribes of Israel “Israelites”, but it would be improper to call any one or all of the ten northern tribes by the term “Judah”. It is also urgently imperative that we do not use the term Judah to mean “Jew”, nor the term “Jew” to mean Judah! (“ ” around Jew = disowning the term.)

 

180° DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW & JUDAH

 

To grasp the extreme contrast between “Jew” and Judah, one must comprehend some of the activity involved in the worship of Baal among both the northern kingdom of Israel as well as the southern kingdom of Judah. Baal is a term that designates several gods, but in particular the god Hadad, a popular fertility-god of Canaan. Another Baal-god of note is Dagon. There was also the Amorite Baal representing the god of rain and storm. Israel and Judah had been warned by Yahweh not to get involved in the gods of Canaan, but to drive all the Canaanites out of the land, and their gods with them, which they failed to do. Because most of the Bible dictionaries and commentaries use veiled language to describe Baal worship, many do not realize the danger it imposed to Israel and Judah. For instance, the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says this in vol. 1, p. 433 under “Baal”: “... It was attended by the appropriate response from the worshipers, culminating in grossly sensuous rites accompanying the sacred marriage, in which ritual prostitution of both sexes was a prominent feature.” Had this source described these rites as sexual orgies practiced with reckless abandon, the reader might absorb what is being said. To make a long story short, some of the women of Judah and Israel were becoming pregnant, giving birth to half-breed Canaanite children. Not only that, but by the same sexual rites, Canaanite women were also giving birth to half-breed Judahite children.

I will now borrow a passage from William Finck’s Broken Cisterns, #2: “In the first tract of this title, the sexual nature of certain ancient pagan cult religions was investigated, namely those of Baal (Bel or Belus) and Ashtaroth (Astartê or Aphroditê). Hopefully the realization was made – from the historians’ descriptions of these cults and from the utterances of the Hebrew prophets – that by following the so-called ‘religious’ cults of the alien peoples, it was necessary to have sexual relations with those peoples: for sex was at the core of those pagan cults!

John 3:16, What It Says And What It Doesn't

Category: 

We have been told by many throughout the years that John 3:16 is the “golden text” of the Bible. But labeling it as such seems to imply it holds priority over all the other verses found in Scripture. Therefore, we must ask, why is this passage elevated above all others, and what is the motivation in support of such a position? In considering such a claim, one must admit that such a stance places all other Biblical passages in a subordinate role. This paper is not an argument that there are not cardinal Biblical passages that stand above others, but do all Biblical passages stand or fall on John 3:16? Or is it possible John 3:16 supports a cardinal passage of greater importance than itself? We must further question whether or not we even understand John 3:16 as it was originally written in the Greek. Did the translators do the Greek justice?

There are some that go so far as to make the claim that John 3:16 was never in the original manuscripts. On October 4, 1996, I went to Louden, Tennessee, at the Piney Ruritain Community Center for the Feast Of Tabernacles. There were four speakers scheduled to speak: James P. Wickstrom, Richard Hoskins, Paul Burnham, and a fellow by the name of Scott Vaught. Wickstrom got so upset with Scott Vaught that he packed his things and left, whereupon another speaker was invited to take the pulpit in Jim’s place. His name was Jeremias Faulkner and lived near there at the time. In one of his presentations he said the following about John 3:16, which I have on audio tape:

“Let me try to explain some things to you that you might not know about this book. Like my friend, brother Wickstrom, I don’t like to call it the Bible. It’s a collection of Scriptures, okay. And the Bible’s oldest complete manuscript that we have in existence today only dates back to the 700s, which are in St. Peter’s Cathedral at Rome. And older than that are the Scriptures in Aramaic that we have that are [from the] 300s, and they rest right now in Kurdistan. We have broken copies of the Scriptures from the Dead Sea Scrolls. But when you hear somebody get up and say that they are now going to quote from the original; original what? And it’s about as original as we can get. You know, 700 A.D. in St. Peter’s Rome. I have a friend, he has two doctorates, one including a Ph.D. Once a year it is his privilege by authorization of the Pope to fly into Rome and examine the earliest manuscripts in existence, okay? Then he takes the plane on to Kurdistan because he is a professor in Aramaic, and gets a chance to see the Scriptures in the Aramaic language. Do you know how much these are guarded? He has to wear a mask just like a doctor. I mean ... you’re not allowed to ... suppose you sneeze or cough or spit on one of these things? And just like a doctor he goes in robes and has a mask on, and he goes all the way across the ocean ... the last time ... he told me ... gets a plane fare to Rome ... to Kurdistan and on home to do four verses ... four verses! Do you think it would be worth it all? And yet we being so prolific ... and we get up and do chapters and verses ... and go on and on and on. But sometimes I think we’d be better doing three or four words even in one verse, and try to get some kind of understanding of it.

Pages