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 ....”

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 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]

 

All Kinds of Flesh Not the Same, 1 Corinthians 15:39, Part 1

 

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:

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.”

 

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!

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:

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

“mes•ti•zo (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:

“mes•ti•za (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]”

“mes•ti•zo (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]”

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.”

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.