'I do not believe in waiting for the heaven of the future'

I DO NOT BELIEVE in waiting for the heaven of the future. If we imitate the life of Christ as nearly as possible, heaven will come about more and more right here on earth.

--Booker T. Washington

The Bible on wine

NOW THAT I'M letting you peek at my emails to other folks ....

This is something I wrote several years ago to a minister who taught that imbibing alcohol is sinful.

Dear Sirs (and Madames),

[Y]our position on wine confuses me--frankly, because you seem to have arrived at your position by ignoring many scriptures which encourage the wise and moderate use of wine and other alcoholic drink.

In your article on Biblical health principles you say:

There is one word 'wine,' which either means the unfermented juice of the grape (non-alcoholic) or it means the fermented juice (alcoholic)."

Question: Accepting for the sake of argument that the above might be true, how does one determine which kind of juice is being referred to in a given scripture? Do you simply assume that all the positive references must be about unfermented juice, while all of the negative references are to fermented wine? On what would you base such an assumption?

But the Bible is clear; it says to drink the wine, the unfermented juice of the grape, when it's fresh in the cluster: "As the new wine is found in the cluster, And one says, 'Do not destroy it, For a blessing is in it'" (Isaiah 65:8). And concerning fermented juice: "Look not upon the wine..." (the fermented juice) "...when it is red "(Proverbs 23:31).

Is. 65:8 contains no command or even recommendation to drink only fresh grape juice and avoid wine. It simply says that men do not destroy a cluster of grapes because there is yet a "blessing" (or source of blessing, benefit, gift) in the "new wine" they produce. NIV says:

This is what the Lord says: "As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes and men say, 'Don't destroy it, there is yet some good in it,' so will I do in behalf of my servants; I will not destroy them all.

In context, this would seem to indicate a cluster of grapes that remained unpressed after a wine pressing. Don't throw them out; there is still juice (i.e. "new wine") in them!

As for Proverbs 23:31, we must remember two things. First of all, the Proverbs are proverbs of a wise man, not commandments from the Eternal. Secondly, many of these proverbs utilize the literary device of hyperbole. For example:

Pr 23:1- When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:
And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.

Thirdly, other verses from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, written perhaps by the very same author, clearly portray wine in a positive light. In fact, wine and other fermented "strong drink" are mentioned from Genesis to Revelation--sometimes in a negative context, other times neutral or positive.

Wine was involved in the Temple worship (Lev. 23:13) and Yahweh even demanded "the best of the wine" (Num. 18:12); "plenty of corn and wine" was seen as a delightful blessing (Gen. 27:28).

Contrary to commanding abstinence, Yahweh recommends that His people buy "strong drink" on certain occasions--notably, during the Feast of Tabernacles! (Deut 14:26)

Too much wine is indeed a "mocker," but you ignore the scriptures that say that the right use of wine "maketh merry" (Ecc. 10:19). Again in Ecclesiastes, we are told: "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepts thy works" (Ecc.9:7). And very revealingly, the Psalmist compares Yahweh himself to a "mighty man who shouteth by reason of wine!"

Grape juice does not make one "merry"--at least not any more so than does water or milk. And, while it may make children smile, I defy you to show me how it might cause mighty men to shout! The very idea is absurd.

Messiah's water-to-wine miracle: It stretches the bounds of credulity to imagine that the wedding guests were excited to get a new supply of grape juice. It also stretches the bounds of credulity to imagine that people present at the wedding would remark:

Every man at the beginning doth set forth good grape juice; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good grape juice until now. (Joh 2:10).

Furthermore, Messiah tells us:

And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish (Lu 5:37).

Commentaries note that it is the process of fermentation which causes the old wineskin to burst when new wine is put into it. Messiah was clearly referring to real, fermented wine, and he assumed that his audience was very familiar with this product. For indeed, as he noted:

Lu 5:39
No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Here, also, without even the slightest hint of condemnation, we find Messiah confirming that "old wine" is more enjoyable than new.

If anything is obvious in scripture, it is that wine enjoys an honored place as a blessing from our Creator, and that the Bible recommends total abstinence only in rare cases. (Biblical recommendations to abstain, or refererences to men who abstained such as John the Baptist, are the "exceptions that prove the rule" that alcohol was not only broadly permitted, but encouraged--within moderation.)

It is also obvious that when the Bible refers to wine, it is always, or nearly always, referring to wine, not raw grape juice--and when it refers to strong drink, it is *not* referring to milk!

While it is true that the abuse of alcohol destroys families, health, and lives, so does the abuse of food. In fact, the Bible condemns gluttony as soundly it condemns drunkenness. Should we take that as a command to abstain from eating?

Since you undoubtedly used a concordance to find the negative scriptures on drunkenness, the neutral and positive references to wine and "strong drink" cannot have escaped your attention. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to the Eternal and yourselves, you chose to emphasize the negative and ignore the neutral and positive. That sort of arbitrary interpretation of the Word of God does not inspire confidence in your exegetical skill or your intellectual honesty.

I hope you will revise your official doctrine to accurately reflect scripture. It is never righteous to distort scripture--not even in support of a seemingly noble cause. It is never acceptable to try to "improve upon" the commandments of the Eternal by concocting our own, the sin of the Pharisees (Mt 15:9, Mr 7:7, Col 2:22, Tit 1:14). For "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Pr 14:12).

God the torturer?

J.P. HOLDING RUNS an impressively huge Christian apologetics site called Tektonics. (Christ was a tekton -- an architect.) He has saved my bacon in many an online debate with atheists, skeptics or Eastern mysticalists challenging the truth or authority of the Bible. However, he's not immune from error. Here's my recent email to him.


I have had occasion to visit your site several times in the last several years and I consider it pretty impressive! My latest visit (via a link from CRI) led me, somehow, to your article "The Crucifixion, the Nature of Hell, and Shame." was hoping to find a different answer from the standard defense of the "eternal torment" idea which dissatisfies skeptics, and increasingly, believers such as myself. I'm wondering why you seem not to have considered the unequivocal OT view that human life ends -- i.e., actually ends completely and totally -- at death? And the concomitant emphasis on our total dependence upon future resurrection -- as opposed to the notion that we are inherently "immortal souls" that are somehow entitled to live on forever?

I looked in vain for an indication that you considered the original meanings of the words such as nephesh (often rendered "soul") and sheol and hades (often rendered "hell"). As you know, nephesh does not denote or even connote anything that lives on after death, nor necessarily anything spiritual: it is applied to animals as well as to human and translated variously as "life," "breath," or "being." You also must be aware that sheol and hades denote the grave, where life ceases; not some underworldly or otherworldly place of eternal life in conscious torment! Whereas gehenna was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where refuse was tossed -- and completely burned up, as opposed to surviving forever in flaming torment.

Not only the terms, but the scriptures in their context, and OT and NT eschatology, point overwhelmingly to the sequence: individual death; "sleep" in the grave; return of Christ; then (and only then), collective resurrection of the dead from their graves. This leaves no possibility of anyone being either in heaven or hell at present. Note, this sequence is given in apocalyptic passages as well as non-apocalyptic (such as I Cor 15).

God says he will "remember" the work of his hands (us), and quite literally -- from his infinite memory he can reconstitute the mind and personality of each and every one of us, and place them inside new bodies. Therefore, there is no need for "souls" to survive death: our Creator is 100% capable of re-creating us when the time comes.

Seeing that human life is mortal and dependent upon God's sustaining will, if God should withdraw his presence, then life must cease to be altogether. This is precisely what is portrayed as the ultimate fate of the wicked: "the second death." This is the wages of sin: death -- not eternal life in unhappiness. (Eternal life, rather, is a gift from God -- not an inherent quality of being.)

This is my view since it is the plain teaching of scripture, rather than an esoteric and difficult reading based on mistranslations and imported Platonic ideas. Also, it happily allows God to be what he tells us he is: a God of love rather than a cruel torturer. The one who said of his own murder at the hands of hateful schemers, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do," could never consign someone to infinite, never-ending torture (whether physical flame or psychological anguish) for the few finite sins committed in just a flash of time passed here on earth. Rather, those whom he cannot save (and I truly doubt that at the end there will be many -- if any at all), he will mercifully put out of their misery or simply leave them as they are -- dead and buried.

I urge you to consider this as it is evident that it has escaped your attention.

Let my people go

SOMETHING I POSTED today in response to a Dallas Observer blog entry about a demonic, sexually abusive pastor.

David says:

I'm the Johnny-come-latest, I guess -- I wonder if my comment will even be read. I was "led" to this story and this site, via a strangely winding path. What's more, it just so happens that earlier in the day, I was re-reading a book I received 12 years ago which talks about the very same sort of mind control/occultism/hypnotics/sex slavery going on (only in much more sophisticated form) in very high-ranking circles of business, government, the military, and the CIA. It appears that Allen is an amateur in using these techniques, but very powerful people in this country and worldwide do the same stuff and get away with it. Google "Franklin Cover-Up" if you have a strong stomach. (The book I'm reading, "Operation Mind Control," is out of print, but Google that too and see what information comes up.)

At one time, I was a member of a church with a sexually-abusive-yet-virtually-bulletproof leader. Surely all you folks down there in Dallas have heard of Garner Ted Armstrong? While Armstrong was never alleged to have gone to the sick and sadistic lengths as Allen, the shape of his story is similar.

His own dad tossed him out of the "family" church for sexual indiscretions, but Ted went on to found his own splinter group, attracting a whole new crop of followers who'd never heard of his prior problems. (And some old followers who were well aware of them.) Years later, more revelations surfaced. When his own handpicked church board of trustees refused to properly discipline him, I left, as did about half the membership. Some people continued to make the same excuses for Armstrong that I've seen made for Allen on this blog. Some of them quoted the same scriptures.

Sadly, these things happen all the time in any setting where the powerful have regular contact with the powerless. But especially in religious groups.

DATJ is right about the fundamental problem being the way the church is structured. It's not only Church of God in Christ, but COGIC is an extreme example. The "pyramid" form of church government -- where the leaders rule from the top down -- is unbiblical and imported from the false church (which in turn imported it from paganism). It leads to bondage to men rather than service to God.

The original church established at Pentecost did not have such a system. The early assemblies, like little villages, or perhaps more to the point, families, were conducted by a group of elders. The overseeing elders (presbuteros) could also be referred to as ministers (which means merely a servant -- Greek diakonos, waiter or manservant), "overseers" (episkopos), or "pastors" (poimen). These elders were not high-and-mighty, but humble and down to earth. Even Jesus himself humbled himself by washing his disciples' feet. Show me one man who is greater than Jesus? Yet many men calling themselves pastors, elders or bishops today men strut around like they were kings. Some even sit on thrones in their churches.

Those who put ministers on pedestals are in danger of idolatry. "Touch not mine anointed" refers to the whole people of Israel, not just its leaders. That verse would be more accurately applied as a warning to wicked false ministers not to touch God's previous saints -- the opposite of how these false ministers use it, as a shield for their own wickedness.

Through 23 years of study, I believe DATJ is also on to something when he speaks of the problem of the hierarchical pyramid structure of so many churches, and the resulting "scramble for position and power" (in Bible Girl's words) that inevitably results. To put "position and power" in front of men is like putting cheese in front of a mouse.

The truth is that the Reformation still is not complete. The Body of Christ at large is still in bondage to false ideas and systems which came out of Babylon, not out of the Bible. Because these systems are contrary to the will of God, they will continue to produced ungodly fruit.

"Where were the overseers of the overseers?" Cherrie Mackey wrote. Apparently, turning their heads -- or perhaps immersed in the same kind of behavior themselves. That is the problem with hierarchies, which allows a few men to wield power over many, without commensurate accountability. This in itself is an evil which cannot fail to lead to more evil.

Mackey asked rhetorically, "On the other hand ... how can you completely disregard and discount an institution with such an auspicious beginning and rich spiritual history?"

She is confusing the move of God with the institution -- two different things. God may move at a particular time and place, through particular men. That does not necessarily mean that God's sanction is forever upon any organization that those men create. The spirit and the gifts are of God. The organizational shell is created by men. The BIble nowhere tells us to build organizations. It tells us to gather together to worship him.

Mackey realized this truth. "I simply became sick of the whole patriarchal, bullying bunch of 'em and at that point started writing my own book of "Exodus." After many tears, much praying and not a little anxiety, I unceremoniously left the Church of God In Christ."

More of God's people -- not just in the COGIC but in other manmade institutions everywhere -- need to start coming out of Egypt. "Let my people go!"

Escaping the "Work"

A RECOVERING EX-CULT MEMBER recalled his years of bondage to a worldwide church organization in these words:

All of us could write hundreds of pages about our own experiences. ... [T]hey repeated to us so many things in “The Work” ... that we came to believe were true. ... [W]e went through the streets with our heads up high thinking that we were the only ones who had clear ideas and that the rest were ignorant and didn’t know what they were talking about. Now when I look back, I realize how arrogant I was. Always teaching the “true interpretation of the Gospel,” pontificating as if the only true interpretation of Christian doctrine is that which I had learned in “The Work.”
What a hard shock reality was when I left “The Work!” ... How they lied to me!

I had lived for ten years with people as ignorant as I was, so that I never
noticed my lack of culture in such an obvious way. Even though I had a university career, I didn’t realize how ignorant I was. ...

I never read essential books because they were prohibited. ... I never had the opportunity to appreciate the theater, the opera and concerts because I could not attend public spectacles. And there were hundreds of movies and documentaries that I never had access to.

I could not begin conversations with anyone because I didn’t have anything to talk about.

As you can imagine, my first years out of “The Work” were marvelous. It was like I was being reborn, a Renaissance of my personality. I could not stop reading books; I learned to enjoy the theatre, opera and concerts. The movies opened my mind to new cultures and religions.

The best was that I learned to respect and treat people in another manner. This petulant arrogance and that yearning to be the owner of truth remained forgotten.

Now, I only know that I don’t know anything. Now when I am talking with someone I enjoy the conversation and I am happy to learn something new that I didn’t already know.

Do you recognize the religious organization he is referring to?

No, it's not the Worldwide Church of God. It's the Papist organization Opus Dei.

But the fact that the above very well could have been a description of the old WCG, not to mention other breakaway organizations, is very telling.

Actually, the above anecdote would probably apply, with few changes, to most cultic organizations -- and by "cultic" I am not limiting the field to overtly religious organizations. The same techniques of cultic thought control are applied in some political organizations, criminal organizations, and very notably, in military organizations. These organizations are every bit as cultic as Opus Dei, as the WCG, as Jim Jones' People's Temple.

Here's another example, taken from an anti-authoritarian Buddhist site:

The realization that spiritual organizations are a trap, not a vehicle to transcendence, is not a happy discovery. Most students discover the problem after what may seem like a waste of the most vital years of one's life. Worse, after disillusionment with one's religion, it's not like everything suddenly sparks up beautiful and fresh. For a while, the world seems more barren than before, and confronting the world without dogmatic armor may feel like a painful bore. Disillusioned belief-addicts feel utterly bereft without a devotional anchor. Disillusioned meditators still want to find the peace they sought in meditation. Fearful of throwing away their only connection to spiritual reality, ex-students remain suspended between tarnished beliefs and a dawning skepticism.

Don't remain long in this place of uncertainty. Read something like Thinley Norbu's Words For The West, who makes it very clear that Tibetans want you to shut up, do as you're told, and leave your offering with everybody else's. Or read The Anti-Gurus, John Horgan's review of The Guru Papers. Dispel your delusions and realize that authoritarian dogmatists are not friendly to your freedom.

When people talk about the "commonalities in all religions," they don't know just how true that phrase is.

Reasons to "X" out Xmas

I have written volumes about this subject that has never yet seen the light. But while I deal with all that, let me give you the short version.

Reasons to not celebrate Xmas

1. It's not when Christ (Yahshuah of Nazareth) was born. Everyone who's even a little bit informed knows this. Biblical evidence places the birth of Jesus in the fall. An early tradition, in fact, puts his birth in mid-September or early October; some say, on the first day of Sukkot. What is the point in celebrating someone's birth on the wrong date?

2. He never instructed or asked anyone to celebrate his birthday anyway. Neither did any of his apostles. This stands in stark contrast to the real divinely instituted holy days prescribed in the Old Testament, which Yahshuah and his followers actually kept.

If Christmas had been observed in the apostolic church, the celebration as well as the date would have been recorded in the New Testament. None of us can claim to be closer to Yahshuah, or clearer about his will, than those who were witnesses of his life, death, and resurrection!

Even Origen, who lived in the second and third centuries, warned against attempts to celebrate Messiah's birth with these interesting words:

In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal Day")

Of course, Yahshuah is never recorded to have said it was wrong to celebrate his birthday. It is doubtful the issue ever came up: why would disciples of a Jewish rabbi even think of celebrating his birthday? Being a purely pagan tradition, this would have been an insult.

Certainly it is not wrong to read of Messiah's birth, since it is recorded in the Bible. But the absence of birthdays in general, with the absence of Messiah's particular birthdate or any hint that he desired any kind of birthday celebration, should give us very serious pause. Every indication is that he wanted us to remember his death, not his birth.



3. It's only done because it's a tradition. Any tradition that's gleefully accepted and practiced by the world should be suspect to anyone who follows Messiah, who tells us to beware the traditions of men. He prayed that his followers would remain "in the world, but not of it." His most prominent disciple warned believers to "be not conformed to the world."

4. It's only a tradition because the Roman Catholic religion made it one. Christmas is the "Mass of Christ." The "Mass" is a distinctly Roman Catholic ritual, the center of which is the so-called eucharist, which biblical Christianity rejects on very good theological grounds. There is no reason whatsoever for a Bible-believing disciple to observe the holiday of another religion.

5. Yet Rome did not even originate most of the traditions: Most of our secular Xmas trappings, and even a few that most regard as part of the "religious" or "Christ-centered" iconography, originate in idol and sun worship.

6. The Mighty One of the Bible does not want that kind of worship! He makes it very clear He does not wish to be "honored" with borrowed pagan customs. Rather, he wishes to be worshipped in the way he specifies. Is he entitled to his prerogative -- or would you like to tell him he's all wrong?

Besides just being right, his commands are for our benefit, not his. So it behooves us to take heed.

Traditional Christians are deeply confused when it comes to the authority for their beliefs and practices. (Let's not even talk Roman Catholicism, which for all intents and purposes is its own religion; let's just talk Protestantism, which in contrast to Catholicism claims a biblical basis.)

Ask a Protestant minister or theologian why people should observe holidays from Roman Catholicism -- which itself borrowed them in large part from anti-Christian religions -- and you'll probably be told that it doesn't matter what holidays a Christian keeps. God automatically approves our invented traditions, laws, and doctrines as long as we loudly proclaim them to be "in his honor." After all, we have to have some holidays, and if not Xmas and Ishtar, then what?

Then what? The obvious answer is the holy days set down in the very Bible; the ones which, according to that Bible, are divinely created and approved; the only holy days ever to enjoy such a distinction. But mention this to some traditional Christians (or newly "liberated" WCG types) and a defensive shield shoots up. "Oh no," goes the objection, "Those are merely Jewish, and to observe them is legalistic bondage! For here Paul says" -- they flip to Galatians -- "Let no man judge you in respect to days ..." See, holy days don't matter!"

But if they don't matter, then why would you not at least give the benefit of the doubt to the observances that at least are mentioned in the scriptures which you profess to follow?

And of course, holy days matter deeply to traditionists -- a fact obvious to all of us who choose to stand apart from the crowd. If you reject Xmas, you are called the weird one -- even though no record exists of any celebration of Messiah's birth before the fourth century!

Christmas has nothing to do with loving Messiah, unless one will claim his own disciples did not love him. Protestants keep the tradition because .... it is a tradition. Where did they get the tradition? From Rome. By keeping Xmas, Protestants pay unwitting homage to Rome's claimed infallible spiritual authority -- authority to literally invent truth, to issue and change the word of God, to stand in for God on this earth.

They also pay homage to the other institutions, such as the commercial interests which helped create the modern American Xmas from the ground up. Xmas, indeed, was dead in Protestant America for most of the New World's history. The Puritans -- who were serious about their faith, who knew their scriptures, and who knew the difference between the biblical Way and popery -- banned Christmas in their colonies. During the first session of the United States Congress, for example, Xmas was simply another work day. it was largely unknown in America until the mid-19th century, and still not an official holiday in some parts until decades later. It took a huge influx of Roman Catholic immigrants, plus a campaign by a few highly placed intellectuals and then the merchants who soon swooped in, to make Xmas "part of America."

None of this should surprise anyone who is familiar with the prophecy of Revelation 17. It portrays the rise of a system called "Babylon the Great" or the "Harlot." The system is great and worldwide, and identified with a counterfeit religion, with immense bloodshed, with persecution, and with massive commercialism and wealth. The system originated in Babylon and has moved from place to place, but in its final incarnation is identified with Rome.

For me, upon learning of the difference between the two cities, the two systems -- the manmade commercialism and tradition of the Whore, vs. the divine wisdom of the Most High -- presented a stark choice. Which would I serve? To me, the choice was not even a contest! Sooner or later, especially in these last days, the lines will be drawn unmistakably clear to everyone. The choice will be presented to everyone claming the name of Messiah -- indeed, to every human being. Which way will you go?

The leaven of the Pharisees

It's everywhere. It exerts its malign effects wherever men have replaced or augmented true divine law with their own tradition; wherever they falsely accuse others based on those traditions. Its result is not only to puff the Pharisees up with hypocritical pride, but to cause in their victims a false sense of shame, and ultimately, spiritual shipwreck.

The Pharisees sinned in one way by violating the real law, while professing to be its most zealous adherents. They sinned in another way by setting up spurious commandments . Such non-laws based on tradition form the basis of human societies, governments, and of course, most churches. They obscure the true commandments and encourage obedience to men rather than the Eternal. They enable the Pharisees to falsely accuse others, which in turn creates false guilt, a favorite weapon of the Accuser. False guilt often drives an individual away from the Eternal rather than toward him; in shame and fear of damnation, or in fear that his prayers simply will not be answered, he runs and hides. This leads eventually to a downward spiral of resignation, and then, defiance – for why wouldn’t the burdensome laws and false accusations of Satan make one feel defiant? But since these laws of Satan are falsely represented as of divine origin, the individual blames the Eternal for the burden and the the guilt, rather than the Accuser.

Such beleaguered individuals may turn away from prayer, Bible reading, and church altogether, convinced that it is the Eternal who has bound them with such a heavy burden, with laws impossible to follow, the inevitable result of which is hypocritical deception or outright apostasy. Thus Pharisee tradition has done its job, and the Pharisees' proselyte become twofold more the son of hell than he was before!

Better to be found picking an ear of grain on the Sabbath than to be found puffed up with this leaven.

Now is happening right now

In fact you just missed it.

Uh-oh -- there it goes!

You missed it again.

See the problem? Much of the time, we are MISSING NOW.

We're living in the past: hating, resenting, regretting, trying to cause others regret. Or we're off in the future: wishing, hoping, dreaming, planning -- but not doing.

Usually it's some combination of the two.

With all that time spent in yesterday and tomorrow, when do we actually do today? How many of us are living, right now, as much as we could?

Even thinking -- neutral or beneficial though it may be in the immediate sense -- can get in the way of living. I know: I'm a lifelong thinkaholic.

The writer of Ecclesiastes warned us to "be not overwise." He warned us not to become caught up in the "vanity and vexation of the spirit" that comes with learning too much: "of the making of many books there is no end." (He ought to come back to life now and see a modern bookstore or library -- not to mention the Internet!) "The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing..." but " ... [I]n much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

Rather than the endless paper chase of pursuing learning, Proverbs (traditionally held to have also been written by Solomon) admonishes us to "get wisdom," which begins with the fear of YHWH and knowledge of his law.

Rather than encouraging us to embark on the road of "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth," the scriptures were really given us to lighten our learning load -- to make things easier for us by revealing to us all the things we'd otherwise spend our lifetimes learning the hard way, or would never discover at all. So in that sense, thinking is very worthwhile.

But even then, too much thinking is mistake. You spend time and energy that might have been spent doing stuff. Not only does the excess time spent in thought rob you of now; it also leads to regret of the things you haven't done, as well as lending itself to worry about the future because of the pickles you can get yourself into when you don't act -- which leaves you with even less now to live.

The Bible tells us that if we are in Messiah, our sins are not only forgiven but forgotten: there's no need to return to the past in guilt or regret.

And it tells us to "take no thought for the morrow," but to trust the Eternal to supply our every need.

So what do we do? We worry, worry, and then worry some more, about those very things, plus a great many other things that are less important.

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might." Reflectively, thoughtfully, wisely, yes. But you have to do it.

Bad F.O.T. pick-up lines

http://www.saviodsilva.net


Those of us who are truly spiritual come to the Feast with only one thought on our minds: spiritual edification. However, some few reprobate souls see Feast time as "mating season." So you won't fall victim to these predators, we list here some of the most common lines they use:

"Come over to my condo and we can ... [cough] er, study the Bible."

"Wow! Did anyone ever tell you your hair is like a flock of goats?"

"Want me to show you 'The Missing Dimension in Sex'? . . . the Herbert Armstrong book, I mean."

"No--no--you don't understand . . . I was staring at the spiritual glow AROUND your body."

"Oh dear . . . suddenly I'm feeling so faint . . . Would you please lay hands on me?"

"Forget the elders, baby -- you can lay hands on me any time."

"So is it true what they say about men with big Bibles?"

The anarchist Bible

HE ANARCHIST BIBLE

(From Messianic Troublemakers: The Past and Present Jewish Anarchism
Jesse Cohn, in Zeek April 05 http://www.zeek.net/politics_0504.shtml)

Indeed, Lazare believed, “anarchy” was implicit in the First Commandment: if we are to have no other master before God, “What authority can, then, prevail by the side of the divine authority? All government, whatever it be, is evil since it tends to take the place of the government of God; it must be fought against."
--19th-c. anarchist journalist Bernard Lazare

Consequently, from 1894 on, anarchists emphasized positive, constructive activism, organizing clubs, neighborhoods, workers’ cooperatives, experimental schools, collective farms, mutual-aid societies, and anarcho-syndicalist labor unions. Far from being allergic to organization, anarchists advocated a kind of organization “from below,” in the words of Voline. They sought to replace coercive institutions with cooperative ones, to find ways of building a working society in a democratic, egalitarian, and decentralized fashion, using frequent face-to-face meetings of small groups to make decisions – rather like a kibbutz.

Jewish anarchists “They carried a very Jewish sense of righteousness, and rejected the idea of a life organized in pyramids of power and status, with a few Pharoahs on the top and masses of slaves underneath.”

Landauer spoke for many when he wrote in 1907:

One can throw away a chair and destroy a pane of glass; but . . . [only] idle talkers . . . regard the state as such a thing or as a fetish that one can smash in order to destroy it. The state is a condition, a certain relationship among human beings, a mode of behavior between men; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another . . . We are the state, and we shall continue to be the state until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men. We are the state. We do it to ourselves, all of us, all the time, by obeying much and resisting little, by settling for a piece of the pie in exchange for our dignity, by accepting subordination in exchange for domination over the even less fortunate. If this ugly tangle of social relationships is “the state,” then all the gaudy regicides in the world can’t buy us our freedom. Revolution, these anarchists argued, begins in our hearts and in the space between us. Among the anarchist books translated into Hebrew and circulated in Jewish Palestine by the 1920s was Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, which argued that the dominant concept of Western politics, Thomas Hobbes’s vision of the “state of nature” as a “war of all against all,” was a scarecrow designed to justify the existence of the authoritarian state. Just as “natural” as competition for survival, Kropotkin argued, was cooperation for survival. Anarchism, in Goldman’s words, it is “the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.”

What Landauer calls “spirit” is not a supernatural force, but as the shared feelings, ideals, values, language, and beliefs that unify individuals into a community. The State only exists, he says, because the spirit that creates community has weakened: the community has fractured and turned against itself.

If Ram Dass can pray for his enemies, why can't the "Christian" Right?

The following appears on the site of Dr. Robert Svoboda, ayurvedic doctor, dated September 17, 2005. (Note: To those who don't know, "Ram Dass" (Richard Alpert) is a famous psychologist who he1lped popularize LSD in the '60s, then turned Eastern spiritual guru.

VISITING RAM DASS at his Maui home I noticed that (as had been rumored) he does keep a photo of George W. Bush on his altar. That photo reminded me, as it does him, that it is essential for all of us to pray that the current "world's most powerful man" will be guided to make the best decisions possible. In fact, it behooves all of us to strive mightily to entreat the Celestial Powers-that-Be to render astute our head of state.

Perhaps it would be too much to request Providence to encourage those of our "leaders" who actively identify themselves as Christians to actively follow the path that Christ laid out for his disciples, e.g. to sell all that they have and give the proceeds to the poor, to turn the other cheek at every slight, and the like. Jesus advised us not to judge, lest we be judged, and being myself no paragon of Christ-like virtues I have no business judging
anyone (even W). Of course, I also try to keep my personal beliefs private, rather than trying to drag Jesus into politics the way many of these "leaders" do; and this current politicization of Christ (a problem which has dogged Christianity almost since its inception) does I believe warrant comment.

For example, how can one simultaneously claim to follow the Golden Rule
("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and also actively promote
the doctrine of "preemptive war" ("do unto others BEFORE they do unto you")?

Or, consider the words of Jesus as reported in Matthew 5:43-44:

"Ye have heard that it has been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and
hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

I freely admit that, as of yet, I have been unable to love all my enemies, and to do good to each of those who mean to do ill to me. I have however found it immensely worthwhile to set these principles as my goals, and try to live up to these high standards that Jesus instructed us to attempt to meet-norms that make it injudicious for anyone (even W) to condemn anyone else (even W).

Which forces me to ask the question of why, when we have been thus unmistakably directed to love our enemies, is so much hate being so publicly directed toward those who are currently our enemies? (Setting aside for the moment the issue of, if Osama & Saddam were so clearly evil, what caused us to support them as "allies" for so long.) If we pray for our foes, why have we not yet had a national day of prayer with an Osama focus? Why before Saddam was overthrown was he routinely demonized, rather than "loved" and "blessed"? Why is the "do good to them that hate you" option never even hinted at by the "Beltway born-again" in the context of fundamentalist Islam? Shouldn't
such a clear directive receive at least a public hearing among "public Christians," if only to offer counterpoints to the Muslim-baiting agitprop that has become so popular? Couldn't this option also present a positive Christian perspective that would be as comprehensive in its compassion as the ultra-sectarian Muslim world-view is comprehensive in its detestation of all non-Muslims?

How ironic that it's these non-Christians who, at least publicly, are embodying the message of Christ -- while those loudly claiming to speak and act for Christ are pursuing such anti-Christ policies.

The art of worship

YAHSHUA OF NAZARETH hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. I hang out with a similarly disreputable group known as artists. In addition to making the more interesting gallery openings around town, I always enjoy parties in wackily decorated lofts or warehouses-turned-studios.

I love artist dwellings because they are typically so un-"adult"-like; they make me feel right at home. One can imagine the artists' moms being present nagging them about cleaning their rooms -- and what exactly are they going to do with all that junk, all those half-completed paintings or sculptures?

This makes me realize I'm not really a packrat, I'm just a maker of "found art." I collect and save stuff other people throw away. For one, something within me simply rebels at the stupidity of our society's habit of trashing things -- such as containers -- which are still perfectly good. I prefer to try to reuse them or to attempt to make them into something else useful. And by hanging out with other creative types I've realized some people just put a little more time, space, and decorative pizzazz into their collecting/recycling than I do, and then they call it art, and sometimes, they even manage to sell it to someone. (As I remarked to my friend Annabelle Echo, if have a house full of junk and you live in the country, you're white trash; if you live in the city in a refurbished warehouse loft, you're an artist.)

Since I'm a journalist as well as man-about-town, I've been trying to come up with an angle that I can write about for some local publication, preferably for the Tribune. Last week I got the idea to examine how much of the local arts scene is about making art and how much is about making excuses to party.

So, at the party on Saturday night, I turned to friend Vito for his opinion. (Vito is a middle-aged poet and teacher who's been around the scene a long time. He also knows where all the interesting parties are.) Sounding slightly wistful, Vito related how the collective behind this particular party, the Surrealist Ever-So-Secret Order of the Lamprey, used to be a somewhat serious group that got together and made and critiqued each other's art. Their house, an old white two-story with a basement workshop, a courtyard in back and a rooftop deck, is indeed a living museum of "junk" art. But now, Vito says, they mostly just throw parties.

Another local arts and media collective, Lumpen Media, has never been shy about the fact that it exists to throw parties and produce and publicize fringe art -- perhaps in that order.

But the thought is not so scandalous when you realize that art and celebration (or if you prefer, revelry) naturally go together.

First of all, artists -- despite what you've heard about angst and depression -- like to have a good time. They are playful people (many would seem to fit the classic "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" profile). You can't produce much art of a truly creative kind without having a youthful spirit of playfulness, of curiosity, of let's-throw-this-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks experimentalism. You have to be willing and able to let go. These qualities make for unbridled creativity, and for better and for worse, also make for an insatiable hunger for stimulation of all kinds .

Second, when work does get really intense -- such as right before your show opens and you're feverishly working to finish, transport, install and show your pieces (or your band's gig or your play or whatever it may be), then you need to be able to let your hair down.

Third, galleries and other venues probably realize they'll sell more art when free wine, cheese, and beautiful people are present: it creates a certain atmosphere, and of course, the wine helps cloud the judgment and greases the way for the buyer to plunk down perhaps more than he should on a piece of art.

Fourth, it's likely that a lot of the artist personalities. being "ADD" and feeling slightly out of whack when sober, are drawn to alcohol and other drugs as a form of self-medication.

Lastly, partying is a time-honored tradition. Artists do have a reputation to uphold.

HANGING OUT AT SUCH events always gets me thinking -- particularly when they're all over and I'm heading home -- of my other life in that other world known as the world of church. The thing about that world is, I like a lot of the people in it, but its design and aesthetics leave much to be desired. The interaction between the two worlds makes me wonder why the church world isn't more like the world I hang out in for fun: full of color and life and vibrancy and ferment and creativity and wackiness for its own sake and invention. And art! And real music. And slightly cracked people like myself. Well, okay, there are plenty of cracked people in the church world too.

But the world of religion (or "churchianity") that I've inhabited since childhood -- and that includes church-of-god-ianity -- is as far from the art world as possible: a world of stultifying squareness, of primness and propriety and pretension, of tidiness, of everything having its place, of everything happening on time, of the human spirit struggling to burst out of that box of religion, and religion's attempts to force it and vacuum-pack it tightly back in.

Instead of cutting-edge art and music, it's a world of stained-glass sanctuaries and musty pews, or drab rented motel rooms and lineoleum-tiled school buildings where folks' idea of a good time is singing hymns written in 1908. It is a world of uniformity, at relentless attempts to make everyone the same, of the fear of art and creativity and innovation and deviation. It is a world of corporate business values imposed upon worship, and of the desiccated, lifeless result which is sold to people as "the faith once delivered," when it could hardly be further from that faith.

For me, participating in other communal rituals and other forms of fellowship with a whole different crowd makes me question and re-examine the need and importance of some of the cherished traditions and conventions of churchianity. For instance, the convention of "dressing up": Is it really about looking good for God (who tells us repeatedly that he looks not upon the outward appearance but on the heart), or is it about impressing men? Or perhaps also, about looking uniform, looking the same as everyone else, which is conducive to sameness of outlook and feeling and opinion? Does the attire favored in the church world have the same purpose in church as it does in business or the military -- to impose uniformity of thought?

When church convention frowns upon creative or whimsical or individualistic styles of dress, is it not also frowning upon creativity, whimsy, and individualism?

It's a shame to have to say so, but "the church" could stand to learn a lot from the world. In fact, I've come to the conviction that a lot of the artistic people I hang out with also are in the ekklesia: they just don't know it yet.

By its fruit

Churchianity
Christ-insanity
Organized religion
Institutionalized division
Lukewarm friendship
Ice-cold worship
Personality cults
Idolatry results
Doctrinal squabbles
As Truth hobbles
Corporate orgs
Assimilating like the Borg
Men in business suits
Doing biz, splitting loot--

Evil tree,
Evil fruit.

More synchronicity: meeting Chicago's most infamous pro-life queer vegan Catholic anarchist

I have way too many of these stories, and some might say this one would go better under "premonitions" than "synchronicities"; but then, some folks include the former as a subset of the latter. Anyway, here goes a most amusing story.

One day in February of this year: I'm in downtown Chicago on business. I do a job interview at a particular company, then go to my alma mater to crank out some more cover letters and resumes in their computer lab, and see my friend Anita, who works there. When her shift ends we go across the street to have some Thai food. After that, I plan to go to a North Side bar to catch a free showing of 24 Hour Party People and a documentary on The Clash. (Anita, unfortunately, has to go home.)

But as I count my money -- which is very low -- I'm not even sure I'll have enough for both train fare up to Wrigleyville and a beer. And it kind of ruins the fun of everything when everybody around you is enjoying themselves throwin' back brewskis and you have nothing, plus the bartender's looking at you like you're a cheapskate.

For a second, I waver about going. Then I decide to go over to the subway station and see if I still have a few bucks on my CTA card. If I do, then I'll go to the Smart Bar.

I stick my card in the machine and -- hallelujah! -- I've got $3.10 left, which nearly covers my trainfare both ways.

So I descend the steps to the subway. Down at the bottom, the first thing I see, standing to the left side of the platform, back turned to me, is a pretty, waifish, delicate-as-a-daffodil black girl wearing headband and bracelets both made of rainbow-colored beads. She's surrounded by luggage: four pieces, if my memory serves me well. One of them is a huge wheeled suitcase, festooned with rows and rows of buttons and stickers advocating just about every protest movement since the French Revolution. I mean, there was "FREE MUMIA" (I think that was one of them), there was "VEGAN," there was "ANIMAL RIGHTS," and of course, "ANARCHY." I believe there was one that said "QUEER." And--some might think, incongruently--a big white-on-black sticker that read, "PRO-LIFE."

Ah! I think. I know exactly who this is.

"Excuse me," I say to her. "Are you Maya?"

Yes. She's Maya.

The reason I know she is Maya is because I knew Maya from the Internet -- sort of. Maya has a blog, which I had been reading every now and then since last fall -- when, in fact, anyone who was paying attention to politics was checking it out. Because you see, Maya, the self-avowed "queer"/vegan/Green/animal liberationist/pacifist/anarchist/pro-life daughter of our favorite black, ultraconservative, Opus-Dei Roman Catholic, Republican Illinois senatorial contender from Maryland. You know, the one who was soundly trounced last fall by liberal Democrat Barack Obama.

During his Senate race her dad had drawn much publicity for lashing out at homosexuals as "selfish hedonists." Not long thereafter, it leaked out that his daughter had a blog in which she declared herself proudly queer. (She rarely if every used the word "lesbian," and I understand there is a subtle difference; more of a "this is who I am" statement rather than "this is the lifestyle I practice.") Photos of her allegedly making out with a girl were circulated on the Net.

So after hearing all the hubbub, I got online and found her blog. I quickly grew fascinated with this young girl, because 1) she was in many ways a slightly younger, brasher, female version of me (minus the mixed-up sexuality), and 2) she was so obviously hurting, and wearing that hurt, quite literally, on her sleeve.

Upon checking out her blog and seeing the array of links to radical causes she was involved with -- including the pro-life cause -- I said to myself: One of these days I'm going to meet this girl. I figured I'd drop her an e-mail or comment publicly on her blog. Needless to say, I wasn't interested in her in a romantic sense (which would have been futile anyway, considering). So I had no idea how or when I would meet her. But I was sure that I would.

And -- what do you know? -- here I am, a few months later, in February, standing in the subway tunnel in this city of 3 1/2 million, meeting her.

When I tell her how I know her, she's surprised. "This is like the first time I've ever had anyone say they recognized me just from my blog," she says. (Okay, I had had a little help--I'd seen a picture too -- but it was really the loud rainbow jewelry, the luggage, and the militant collection of buttons and stickers that really clued me in.)

We talk about a recent episode she related on her blog: her fending off an attacker with a karate flip (this is a 90# girl) and a butterfly knife. I tell her that for such a little bitty girl, she could sure kick some butt. Also, I tell her that she seems a lot wiser than her years. I'm sure it sounds patronizing, although that's not my intention.

The northbound train soon comes and we both board and sit together. Having been kicked out by her dad, Maya says she's going to stay with a friend who lives up around Granville. Despite her shy demeanor, she is talkative enough. I tell her I identify with a lot of the causes she espouses, appreciate her courage, and have said some prayers for her simply because of reading about her various struggles. (I do not get around to saying I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle/ideology--but this is hardly the time or place.)

Of course, she is quite a spectacle and you can bet she's attracting a lot of attention from other riders in the pretty-full car--especially when we start talking about her being thrown out of her dad's apartment, and I mention that I had voted for her dad. But, I had sort of grown in my ideology, more towards anarchism, I told her.

We also talk about ADHD (which she has been suspected of having--no surprise to me from reading her blog) and how that can be just a label that gets stuck on those who are more creative and independent thinkers. As Addison comes up and I prepare to get off, I tell her, "I had a feeling I was going to meet you!" and then promise to write some comments to her blog in the future.

There was more to the convo, but as I didn't write it down soon thereafter, I've forgotten. But she struck me as very nice and gentle, not at all as some kind of militant, loud, defiant activist. I find myself wondering how much of her stance on the gay thing is 1) normal rebellion against her parents' very public politics and religion (especially a no doubt ultraconservative Opus Dei schooling); 2) a way to empathize with the outcasts and the downtrodden; and 3) maybe a reaction to unfortunate and ugly incidents in her past to which she alludes on her blog.

It's been quite some time since we met, and Maya has since moved on to Rhode Island, where she's a student at Brown. I would have liked to have hung out with her -- as friends, of course -- but both our lives were a bit too unstable for that (she being homeless and me, at that time, being jobless and carless in the suburbs; it was too hard to get around.) I did later meet other folks who knew her: for instance, after a punk rock show in May, I crashed overnight with an anarchist couple in their early 20s who told me that a few weeks ago, Maya had spent some nights there, in the same bed I was in. Not that shocking, considering that Chicago's anarchist community can't be that big. But it's still fascinating how people's paths cross, or in that case, almost cross.

Will we ever meet again in person? I have no way of knowing. We have exchanged a few emails, and she has seen my other blog where I make it very clear that I oppose homosexual behavior but love everyone regardless. Has that made any kind of impact upon her? I can only hope so. At least she's aware that there are some people here who can distinguish between sin and sinner; that adhering to biblical standards doesn't equate with hatred. If that's the only good that may come of our meeting, it's good enough for me.

Give and get

For a believer, the greatest blessing is to realize that everything is a blessing.

* * *

If you feel a need to pray for someone or some situation, stop what you're doing and pray.

If you feel a need to drop to your knees -- or even fall on your face -- and pray, then if at all possible, do it right then and there.

If you feel a desire to praise the Most High, then go ahead and do it. That is sometimes how the Spirit works. Learn to hear it and respond to it.

* * *
"I Surrender All" is one of those mawkish, sappy church hymns I really don't care for.

But the principle of surrendering all should also express the life of every saint.

The problem is, nobody likes the idea of "surrendering all." It just doesn't sound very enjoyable, does it? At least, that's the opinion of the devil and the flesh.

"If you give it all up to him, then he'll take it away," Satan whispers.

"If you give it all up to him, then we'll never have fun again!" whines the flesh.

The truth is this: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. ..."

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Give, and you get more back -- more than you can even handle.

That's the divine principle, the divine promise, that we have in Messiah.

British Israelism (and Zionism): a serpent's tale?

(Part I of a three-part series in which I assemble a small fraction of my thoughts and research on British-Israelism.)












Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
--Galatians 4:16

AS HERBERT ARMSTRONG OFTEN SAID, people hate to admit when they're wrong. I probably hate it as much as anyone. But what I hate even more is the thought of continuing in my wrongness!

That unwillingness to continue in error has led me to reject one of Armstrong's signature doctrines: that Britain, the United States and northwestern Europe are Israel, and are therefore the true heirs to the Abrahamic promises.
After The Plain Truth, the first Worldwide Church of God publication I ever read was The United States and Britain in Prophecy. I read it between the ages of 10 and 11. Some of its arguments just didn't make sense to me, but since I had already learned many fascinating biblical truths via the WCG, I just chalked my confusion up to my young age. I ignored the mental red flags and placed my belief in the overall scheme of British Israelism. I came to trust Armstrong's claim that British Israelism was, in his words, the "all-important master key" to understanding the Bible and world events. (Note that both British Israelism and its sister doctrine, Jewish Zionism, rest on the same key arguments.)

In more recent years, events have prompted me to review the evidence for the doctrine. I went to the key sources: not only Armstrong's US & BP, but also Allen’s Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright, upon which Armstrong relied heavily. (In fact, one could call Armstrong’s book a rewriting of Allen’s; some have called it a plagiarism.) I also reviewed Garner Ted Armstrong’s Europe and America in Prophecy, which restates much of his father's work. And of course, I compared all against The Book.



THE VERSION OF BRITISH ISRAELISM I address here, of course, is that set forth by Allen and Armstrong. It can be summed up as follows: Almighty Yahweh made promises to Abraham and his descendants, particularly to Isaac and Jacob. He promised them national prosperity and power, among other blessings. And those promises were absolutely unconditional. Those modern-day descendants are the white British Commonwealth and Northwestern European nations. The military, economic and financial dominance of these nations -- no matter how history shows they may have obtained them -- is cited in part as proof of the theory.
The more "comprehensive" version of the theory, as promulgated by Allen and Armstrong, makes the following arguments:
* Yahweh Elohim made a covenant with Abraham which included several promises:

a) Abraham’s seed would become a great nation and a “company” of nations
b) This seed would bless the world, and
c) The seed would possess the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.

* BI proponents also fold other later blessings into what they call the Abrahamic “birthright”:

a) prophetic blessings from Isaac and Jacob to their respective children
b) Yahweh's promises to the Israelites at Sinai, over 400 years later, and
c) the still later covenant between Yahweh and King David.

* Crucial to the claims of BI are two assertions about the nature of these promises:

a) The promises were absolutely unconditional and inalienable; under no circumstance could they be forfeited, revoked or even voluntarily renounced by the people of Israel. To put it another way, these promises rendered Israel permanently "bulletproof" and required that they be blessed -- even against their will!
b) The promises were never fulfilled in ancient times. The Bible never records the Israelites blessing the world; becoming a great nation or a company of nations, growing to number as the stars of the sky or the sands of the sea, or fulfilling the many other subsidiary prophecies or promises made regarding them

c) Nor have the promises been fulfilled by the Jews, by Messiah, or by the church.

* The Abrahamic promises eventually were divided into those dealing with "race" and others concerning "grace." This occured when Abraham's grandson Jacob blessed his twelve sons. In so doing, he conferred upon Judah the "sceptre." The sceptre is interpreted as including a future royal lineage, a promised Savior, and personal salvation --hence the term "grace." These promises went to Jews or the tribes of Judah (and also Benjamin, by virtue of their alliance with Judah). Joseph, on the other hand, received the "birthright," characterized in BI theory as national, material blessings which may only be inherited by blood descent ("race"). Primarily, it is with these promises of national greatness that British Israelism concerns itself. (The other ten sons received lesser blessings.)

* BI also holds that the sceptre itself was later split in a so-called "breach" between the twin sons of Judah, Perez and Zerah. Perez gave rise to David and his lineage, which culminated in the birth of Yahshua the Messiah in Bethlehem, Judea.

Descendants of Zerah, however, allegedly found their way to Ireland in the days of King David. Later, in the eighth century B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and taken captive by Assyria. Eventually they ten northern tribes began their wandering, which brought them to northwestern Europe.

Somewhat confusingly, BI also asserts that the tribe of Dan and the “birthright” tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (i.e., Joseph), also ended up the British Isles.

* Later, still, in the seventh century B.C., Babylon took the southern kingdom of Judah. At this time the prophet Jeremiah allegedly spirited a princess of the Judah/Perez line to Ireland to marry a prince of Judah/Zerah, thus "healing" the “mysterious breach" between the two lineages. More importantly, this removed the sceptre from the land of Judah to the British Isles, to preside over Ephraim/Manasseh. This throne or seat of power was later removed to Scotland and then finally to England.

* Eventually, beginning in the 16th century AD, the tribe of Manasseh ended up migrating en masse to North America, leaving their Ephraimite brethren in Britain.

* For over 2,500 years the birthright promises of these two Israelite nations had lay dormant as punishment for their great sins.

* However, beginning around 1800, the punishment expired and the promises kicked in, catapulting Britain and later the U.S. into national greatness, as promised to Abraham some 3,800 years earlier. Virtually every aspect of British and American power (economic, military, cultural) is thus attributed to divine promises and implicitly carries the seal of divine approval.



AGAINST THE ULTIMATE standard of truth, the Allen & Armstrong British-Israelist manifestos failed miserably. Twenty years after my initial encounter with the doctrine, I now know that the arguments for British-Israelism didn't make sense because --

They were false.

The arguments flatly contradict the Bible. They ignore crucial history set forth in scripture and they turn biblical theology upside down. In this article I will attempt to set forth, as clearly and cogently as I can, why I have come to this conclusion.


The cover of Allen's Judah’s Sceptre lauds it as “more thrilling than Western fiction.” Sadly, the comparison is fitting. A careful study of his book suggests that – to borrow Allen's own words -- he possessed a rather “vivid imagination” which he let “run unchecked through the verdant and fruitful fields of speculation ...”

In fact, it gets worse than simple speculation. An honest study of Allen and Armstrong quickly becomes infuriating. One of the first things one learns is: never take the statements of the authors at face value, and always double-check their scripture references!

This is because Allen, as well as his disciples, Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong, all shared a strange habit of selectively quoting Bible verses carefully and surgically excised from their context. Sometimes the verses are even cut off halfway through; the effect is to mislead -- in some cases, to make the verse seem to say the exact opposite of what it actually says! It is a surreal example of putting "bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (Isa. 5:20). Meanwhile, these promoters of B-I tend to ignore the many scriptures which jeopardize or altogether refute their theory.
When attempting to catalogue Allen's many errors, it's easy to get bogged down in the extreme complexity and deviousness of his arguments. In their respective books, the two Armstrongs follow suit -- lurching willy-nilly between topics and lines of argumentation, deftly avoiding the obvious questions that arise in the mind of the careful reader. Since they rely so heavily on Allen they inevitably repeat many of his errors, distortions, and omissions. The resulting Gordian knot of error requires a Herculean effort to unravel and refute exhaustively and coherently -- that is, if one intends to refute each assertion or assumption thrown out. This morning, after wading through the first couple of chapters of Judah's Sceptre for the third or fourth time and filling the margins with notes, I simply threw up my hands. No wonder the book’s so damn long, I thought, in exasperation. I guess it takes 300 pages to twist a handful of scriptures into saying something they don’t say!

This made me recall my first reading of US & BP at age 10; how I was thoroughly confused by large segments of it, yet assumed that HWA was smarter than me and had it all figured out. I began to trust the reasonings of a man more than the word of the Eternal.
Later in the day, I randomly picked up a sermon tape lying on my dresser. The sermon, by Jeff Osborne of Terre Haute, Indiana, carried the title “The Traditions of Men.” Since I had never listened to it, I decided to put it on. A few seconds in, Osborn said:

The bottom line is, Jesus Christ is not complicated ... a good litmus test with regard to doctrinal arguments is that if it takes more pages of somebody explaining their point than there are simple scriptures to back those pages up, then chances are somebody’s headed off the deep end. Usually these persuasive arguments become complicated very fast. And then when you can’t fully follow them and understand them you just assume somebody else is smarter than you and has figured this out, and you begin to trust the reasonings of man.

While I do not know what doctrine or doctrines Osborn had in mind when he said the above, I do know that his words applied directly to the British Israelism study in which I was engaged at that very moment.


FORTUNATELY, DESPITE THE confused and complicated "reasonings of men" that comprise BI, refuting it does not require that one refute every single assertion made by Allen or Armstrong. The purported scriptural evidence they cite is actually quite simple, and boils down to two main assertions: one about physical-historical lineage, the other about what exactly Yahweh promised, and to whom. the following assertions:
1) The promises made to Israel were unconditional, inalienable and applicable only to bloodline descendants of Jacob.
2) The U.S., Britain, et al. are, in fact, those fleshly descendants.

Note that pro-BI authors usually tend to focus on proving 2), while neglecting 1). Truckloads of ink have been committed to attempts to find historical, geneaological and even genetic clues to trace the Lost Tribes throughout the centuries of slavery, the rise and fall of empires, and many waves of migration, and to connect them to the Northwestern Europeans. (Curiously ignored is the strong evidence that certain of the Tribes actually found their way not to Europe, but to Africa and India!)

Yet even if we granted that 2) were actually true -- that the genealogical-historical connection between Israel and the Anglo-Saxons et al. were proven -- that does nothing to answer the more important Question 1).
If we accept the key BI contention that the promises were 1) unconditional, 2) strictly fleshly and 3) were never fulfilled anciently, then we are virtually forced to accept BI.
However, if the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not actually unconditional -- or if they were not exclusive to physical blood descendants, but might find fulfillment in other children (such as adopted children) -- then all the speculation about where the Lost Tribes did or didn't go; all the attempts to trace clues through names of places, tribes, rivers or towns, while historically interesting, are not relevant at all to the question of who has inherited the Abrahamic promises today.
The real questions in this matter are:
1) How did YHWH fulfill his promises to Abraham's people anciently?
2) Who are Abraham's seed today?
3) Who will comprise Abraham's seed in the future?
If we base our conclusions on the Old Testament alone, on a narrowest possible definition of "Abraham's seed," BI certainly can appear to have a point. It appears as though Yahweh did not keep his promises in the ancient nation of Israel. For those ancient nations indeed did not possess the land of Canaan forever, but were "cut off" -- driven out of the land in the sixth and seventh centuries B.C., their kingdoms destroyed. Therefore, say British-Israel proponents, "either our theory is correct -- that is, the kingdom and national blessings of Israel must have been transferred to Britain and Europe -- or God is a liar! God's word has failed!" On the surface, it certainly seems a powerful argument.

However, to refute these suppositions and answer the question "is the Eternal a liar, or does he keep his promises?" we only need to go to a section of the Bible which British Israelism carefully avoids.
That would be the New Testament.
On to part two

PHOTOS BORROWED FROM Silver Bear Cafe, HISTORICWINGS.COM

British Israelism:A serpent's tale?

(Part II)
WHO IS THE TRUE ISRAEL?

British-Israel theorists largely avoid the New Testament, because these scriptures provide an answer rather at odds with their theory.

The apostle Paul, John the Baptist and the Messiah himself are the star witnesses who testify where Israel is today. They also tell us when and how Israel was to receive those promises of Abraham that were not fulfilled in ancient times.

In Matthew 3 we find John the Baptist preaching to the Jewish religious elite. His words here must sound just as jarring to modern British Israelists as it did to the ancient Pharisees:

Mt3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

These Jews, as far as can be determined, were actual physical children of Abraham, and proud of it -- as proud as today's British Israelists are of their supposed lineage from the patriarch. John certainly did not deny their pedigree; rather, he denied that it mattered. Their elite bloodline, he said, was no better than a pile of stones on the dusty ground.

This absolutely contradicts the notion in race-obsessed British Israelism that Yahweh is limited to flesh and blood in fulfilling the Abrahamic promises. John's statement proves the contrary: Yahweh is not limited by flesh and blood.


Messiah, in one of his many confrontations with the religionists, again pierces their pride over their racial identity:

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8:39)

The clear implication is that not all of "Abraham's children" are Abraham's children. 

Paul echoes this truth repeatedly in his epistles to the churches. Clearly and definitively, he answers the conundrum posed rhetorically by British Israelists: "If God is true and faithful, how come he never fulfilled all the Abrahamic promises anciently?"

But the answer is very different than that supplied by British Israelists who say, "why, of course, the promises must have been delayed 2,520 years and then fulfilled in Britain and America."

As if he were directly addressing British Israelists -- who claims that unless their theory is true, the word of Yahweh is of no effect -- Paul says in Romans 9:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.

For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel;

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children, but, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called."

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.(Rom 9:6-8)

Don't complain to me -- I didn't write it!

Paul wrote it. the Almighty One inspired it. You have to deal with it!

Membership in Abraham's family is not about fleshly bloodline. For, as Paul pointed out, even Esau was of Abraham's blood -- the firstborn, at that! -- yet was not counted as the seed to inherit the promises.

What makes one a genuine heir? We read this in chapter 4 of Romans:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many
nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. (Rom. 4:13, 16-18)

Paul says the promises of Abraham -- both of blessing many nations and fathering many nations -- are for those who are "of the faith of Abraham" -- not those merely of the blood of Abraham!


Paul directly equates the "father of many nations" promise not to some modern British empire, not to America, not to any physical tribe or grouping of tribes, but to the status of Abraham as the father of all believers.
 
Paul does not exclude those bloodline Israelites who are faithful, but more significantly, he includes all gentile nations who would come to faith in Messiah and thereby, to sonship to Abraham.
Abraham is "the father of us all" through Messiah. Abraham is the "father of many nations" through Messiah.
Note also that when Paul discusses the Abrahamic promises he treats them as scripture treats them: as one package. He does not artificially bifurcate them into "spiritual stuff" for one group and "fun stuff" -- material riches, rulership and glory -- for the other! Not a single scripture indicates any such subdivision of the promises to Abraham. Not a single scripture indicates that there are two families of Abraham who receive different types of blessings.


In an earlier chapter Paul writes:

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of
God ...

[but] if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ...

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God. (Rom. 2:17, 28-29)

True Jews -- and by extension, true Israelites -- are circumcised in the heart.

Paul confirms this in several other writings:

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations [Heb. goy, "heathens"] be blessed.

So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. ...

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:6-9, 14) ...
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed [literally, "sperm,"] and heirs according to the promise.

REALLY, THAT SAYS IT ALL.

It's all you need to know!

The Pharisees, who had Abraham's blood, thought they were real children of Abraham by virtue of blood ties. So do the British Israelists. Scripture says this is not true.

The Pharisees, and the British Israelists, say it's the flesh that identifies an Israelite. Scripture says it's the heart.

The Pharisees and the British Israelists say being an Israelite is about having the luck to be born to the right set of parents. Scripture says it's about one's faith and works.

British Israelism says that to find Israel, look for great powerful empires praised of men. Scripture says the praise of true Israelites is "not of men, but of God."

Given these great contrasts, one would have to characterize British-Israelist authors' ignorance of scripture's definitive answer to the question of "Israel Identity" as a studied, willing ignorance.
BI can only exist in a New Testament-free vacuum, since the New Testament radically redefines -- or rather, refines or reveals -- the true definition of who is a son of Abraham: it's those who have the faith of Abraham and do the works of Abraham! The faithful and obedient, and no one else, constitute Abraham’s “many nations.”

Does the Almighty really have the right to declare this?

Does he indeed have the right to "[quicken] the dead, and [call] those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17)?

Does he have the right to "disown" one group of Israelites due to their stubborn wickedness, and create a whole new Israel, as it were, from the stones of the ground -- from the Gentile nations who previously had not been his people?

Scripture says he can.

Scripture says he has already done so!


Read more »

British Israelism:A serpent's tale?

(Part III)


THIS IS THE MESSAGE that scripture, in both testaments, shouts so loudly that one must wonder how so many could have missed it -- or sidestepped it -- for so long.


"TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY."

The condition to be a member of Israel is abiding, obedient faith in Messiah: having the faith of Abraham, and doing the works, bringing forth fruit like that of Abraham.
Both Abraham and David, faithful and obedient men, were given unconditional promises regarding their "seed."
The covenants were made personally and exclusively with these two men (except Abraham's was later reconfirmed to Isaac and Jacob after him) -- not to any future physical descendants of those men, who did not yet exist.
The faithful righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David stands. The promises to them still stand, are still being fulfilled even today, and will yet see ultimate fulfillment in the future Kingdom.
Four hundred years after Abraham, Yahweh formed another separate covenant, with separate terms, with a large body of people who happened to have been of Abraham's physical progeny, whereby that group would become Yahweh's chosen people:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.
(Exodus 19:5,6)

Yet, the majority of those who happened to be physically descended from those men turned against Yahweh and were cut off from these promises. In so doing they proved they were not spiritual children of Abraham.
So they were judged for their sins, not being allowed to ride to glory on the coattails of virtuous ancestors. For as Yahweh says:

The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20)

Except for the small faithful remnant, the Israelites became the "Lo-ammites" (Lo-Ammi: "not my people"). Formerly exalted, they were abased: first the northern ten tribes, then the southern kingdom, then finally, even the remnant thereof under Roman domination.

These unbelievers were plucked up, or broken off, the tree of Abraham's family.

They were disowned, divorced by Yahweh, counted as Gentiles.

They were disinvited from his wedding feast.

They were moved from first to last.

They were stripped of their royal robes and priestly garments, their birthright riches, their sumptuous feast of divine blessings.

Finally, in a national sense, they were miserably destroyed -- down to the last remnant -- and their city burned, and their house left unto them desolate.

Prophesying and overseeing these judgments was the true, not-so-mysterious commission of the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah's commission was not to move the house of David to another location, but to announce Yahweh's intent to "pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to DESTROY, and to afflict" it (Jer. 31:28), and to "overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is" (Ezek. 21:27).

He prophesied -- and in part documented -- the "plucking up" of the old kingdom and order and the "planting" (Jer. 1:10, 18:9, 24:6, 31:28, 42:10) of a new kingdom through a new covenant. He personally helped shepherd and shelter a remnant of the royal house of Judah, not to Ireland to plant a "throne" to one day be occupied by the likes of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Prince William -- but to flourish in Babylon and Judea and one day yield the Messiah!

British Israelists make much of Zedekiah, who they claim was the last king of Judah and whose daughters allegedly were spirited off to Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah to continue the "throne" of Judah. Whatever may have happened to the these young women is irrelevant since the royal lineage was not reckoned through Zedekiah; it was reckoned through th last genuine king, Jehoiakin, who was taken to Babylon! Zedekia was the uncle of the king, appointed "regent" over Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. But it was the lineage of Jehoiakin -- that is, the true royal lineage -- which remained in the Holy Land and produced the Messiah.
To claim otherwise, is in effect, to efface the royal lineage of Messiah. 


Notably, in his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert Armstrong mutilates both verses to make them conform to his theory: when quoting the former verse he omits the word "destroy" (obviously to destroy something is quite different from moving it to Ireland); while in citing the latter, he twists the thrice-repeated word "overturn" (Heb. 'avvah, "ruin") to mean merely "convey to another location" and changes "it shall be no more" to "it shall be overturned no more ..." -- reversing its meaning! There is no excuse for this deliberate, lying, fraudulent scripture twisting, which invokes the punishments described in Deut. 12:32 and Rev. 22:18-19. Frankly, I fear for the eternal lives of these men, in whichever resurrection they manage to appear.

The Jews of Messiah's time understood that "overturned" meant "destroyed"; that's why they were waiting for the throne of rulership to be restored, in Jerusalem, by he "whose right it is." They knew who "he" was -- since they asked him about it directly!

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

If the kingdom of Israel had been packed up and shipped off to the British Isles centuries earlier, it would have had no need of restoration -- and more than anyone, the disciples would have known this! Rather than asking when he would restore the kingdom to Israel, they would have asked, "When shall we travel to Britain to witness your coronation on the stone of Lia-fail?" "Even on the outside chance that they might have been ignorant of the status of the Israelite kingdom, this would have been the perfect opportunity for Messiah to have educated them as to the throne's existence in Britain (and his travel plans to go and be coronated upon it -- or not). Of course, he did not. The throne did not exist. True to the prophesy, it was to be no more until "he come whose right it is" -- and until the time was ripe to restore it!

He whose right it is is the uncorrupted Seed of faithful Abraham and David. It is he, along with those who are in him, who shall fulfill the Abrahamic promises and collectively inherit the throne of David (Rev. 3:21).

This restoration is yet future. Rather than restoring the physical kingdom to Israel then and there, the King preached the existence of a spiritual kingdom now, which would become an earthly kingdom in the world tomorrow. He recruited a bunch of former "nobodies" to be rulers in that future kingdom. According to Peter, we nobodies of unimpressive physical pedigree are, in fact, the fulfillmenet of Exodus 19:5-6:

a chosen generation, a royal priesthood , an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

This is the "royal nation" that would produce the fruits of the Kingdom, which Lo-Ammi failed to produce. These are the poor in spirit, the meek and lowly, the formerly abased yet now exalted in Messiah, the King of Israel!

Scripture foretells that this same nation and company of nations, the true Seed of Abraham, the Israel of Yahweh (which does include a small remnant of physical Israel -- Rom. 9:27), will take part in the future resurrection and salvation of the sinful majority of Lo-ammi, who were cut off. Then will Yahweh put his spirit into those resurrected Lo-ammites, and induct them into a better covenant (Ezekiel 37:12-14, Heb. 8:6). Once again -- or actually for the first time, according to the spiritual reality of things -- they will be Israel!

Yet unless and until they enter into that better covenant through faith in Messiah, those claiming to be of the fold of Israel, but who have not come through the Door (John 10:7) -- who say they are Israelites, but are not -- are called liars (Rev. 2:9, 3:9), no matteer what their geneaology says!


LORD ACTON FAMOUSLY SAID, "few discoveries are more irritating than those that expose the
pedigree of ideas."

People invest a lot of emotion, a lot of ego, into the ideas they believe. When our cherished beliefs are attacked or refuted it feels as if our very being has been attacked. The way to avoid that feeling, of course, is to love the truth more than our own opinions. That way, being corrected is more relieving than painful, since it means you've come closer to your goal of alignment with truth.

But if the pedigree of British Israelism is not biblical, where did it originate? This requires some digging into history and a little speculation.

This article sheds some interesting light on the question. It cites Prof. Stuart Piggot, who wrote that the idea of British origin and inheritance from Israel was promoted by occultists, among them the late 18th/early 19th century poet and artist William Blake.

"‘Your Ancestors,’ [Blake] told his readers, ‘derived their origin from Abraham, Heber, Shem and Noah, who were Druids, as the Druid Temples (which are Patriarchal Pillars and Oak Groves) over the whole Earth to witness to this day.’ And in a single phrase Blake takes us, and the Druids, back to a familiar landscape. ‘The Nature of my Work, ‘ he wrote, ‘is Visionary or Imaginative; it is an endeavour to Restore what the Ancients call’d the Golden Age.’" (Piggot, The Druids)

It seems that for some reason, occult orders identifying themselves as Druidic had an interest in promoting the idea that their ancestors were Israelites. A secret "Order of the Ancient Druids" was founded in 1781 "on lines inspired by Freemasonry";  a split in its ranks yielded "numerous daughter orders" which "also contained its original mystic lines." One of these daughter orders, Albion Lodge of the Ancient Order of Druids of Oxford, initiated into its ranks a young Winston Churchill.(Piggot)


As an aside, note that an Armstrongist idol -- a man constantly lionized by HWA and his followers as a "real leader" -- was himself said to be a “natural psychic” and belonged to Freemasonry, the Order of the Garter (a high-level occult group traditionally presided over by the Prince of Wales), as well as a secret neo-Druidic order. (He also found time to defend a medium being prosecuted under Britiain’s Witchcraft Laws. This opened the way for the recognition of paganism as a religion, followed by the flowering of Wicca and other open forms of neo-paganism.)

None of this should come as no great shock to anyone with the slightest familiarity with the occult, as the upper echelons of British and American society (like ancient Israel) have long been honeycombed by interconnected mystery cults such as Freemasonry, Druidism, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, Death’s Head, the Order of the Golden Dawn, the Hellfire Club(s), the Illuminati, the Jesuits and many others. Druidism is yet one more branch of the ancient Mysteries which ultimately descend from Babylon. The greater story of the ancient mysteries and their modern descendants is a story for another time.

But getting back to the ancient Druids -- the evil, blood-soaked pagan order that ruled the Celts of Gaul and Britain. One striking aspect of this priesthood is its resemblance to the Levitical priesthood -- that is, a perversion thereof. This suggests that some of the Israelites may indeed have made it to the British Isles. E. Raymond Capt writes:

Many other authorities have noted the resemblance between the Druidic religion and that of the Old Testament. To quote Charles Hulbert, a noted British scholar: 'So near is the resemblance between the Druidic religion of Britain and the patriarchial religion of the Hebrews, that we hesitate not to pronounce their origin the same.'" (Stonehenge and Druidism)

As Garner Ted Armstrong himself notes:

British historians have been struck by the amazing similarity between
Druidism and the rituals of the Levitical priesthood of ancient Israel....
Not so strangely, the Druids ... retained some of the practices of the
ancient Levitical priesthood. For example, they constructed altars ... of unhewn stone, because according to Druidic law, no axe could touch a stone intended for an altar of sacrifice ...

Notice, "If thou wilt make an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of
hewn stone ..." (Exodus 20:25, 26)

The best-remembered practice of the Levites was the ritual of sacrificing animals as a picture of the need for the shedding of blood to atone for sin. The Druids practiced the same thing! Remember, the ancient Passover included animal sacrifice, as well as a feast featuring bread and wine. Is it so strange that the Druids of ancient Gaul ... and England practiced nearly identical rituals? (Europe and America in Prophecy)

Let's not forget the Tuatha de Danaan, the legendary ancient forebears of the Irish people, said to possess magical powers. Elizabeth Van Buren writes that they "were said to have possessed a . . .Grail-like vessel. . . These teachers of wisdom . . . were the founders of the Druidic priesthood" (The Sign of the Dove, cited here). British Israel theory, of course, identifies the Tuatha de Danaan with the tribe of Dan.

Could it be that some or all of the Danites did indeed migrate to the British Isles, bringing their false Baal-worshipping priesthood with them? Could their "serpent's trail" have been followed, centuries later, by their similarly idolatrous brethren of Ephraim and the others? The evidence certainly can be interpreted that way, and of course, zealous British-Israelists see this putative historical evidence as proving the covenental claims of British/American divine right to rule under the Abrahamic promises. However, in light of the true history of the ten tribes -- their breaking of their covenant with Yahweh, their continued cleaving to demon-gods, and finally his utter rejection of them as a people -- any such evidence only underscores their continued status as Lo-ammi: "NOT MY PEOPLE"!
Fleshly Israel, subsequently, is no "holy nation" in any way, shape, or form; its history is secular, not sacred history.
No matter how legitimate, genealogical evidence connecting the ten tribes to the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples cannot in itself prove that those peoples therefore inherited the Abrahamic promises. Rather, scripture tells us that in rebelling they became just one more group of pagan tribes mired in corruption, idolatry, even human sacrifice -- albeit a group possessing the faint collective memory of having been somebody important, way back when.

British Israelism has continued to exploit that faint memory, to no small effect. Viewed through the BI prism, acts and policies ranging from morally questionable to outright wicked are justified as righteous means of providential blessing: wars of conquest, massive theft of others' lands and resources, slavery, rape, pillaging, genocide, morally dubious financial juggling (e.g., fractional-reserve banking, usurious lending), global economic racketeering, etc., are transformed into acts of "chosen people" merely claiming the dominion to which they were entitled.

But then, recall that the wicked husbandmen killed the son of the householder to "sieze on his inheritance." Seeing this, it should come as no surprise that the wicked priests and chieftans of Lo-ammi would still be promulgating the notion that they are "The Chosen" (in league with their fellow wicked husbandmen, the leaders of Zionism, also born in London). We should not be surprised to see the husbandmen exploiting this twisted and falsified version of scripture to justify their worldly empire and whatever evils undertaken to establish and maintain it. Nor should we be surprised to see this teaching emanating from 19th-century occult societies claming connection to the Druids, whose origins may very well trace back to the ancient Baalite priesthood of Canaan.But let's not stop at the 19th century. The British-Israelist idea can be traced to occultists of even earlier times, when it may have been put in the service of a different agenda.

An author calling himself The Magician has written a most interesting article in the Zola Times. Noting that the rift between the Vatican and the British monarchy occurred essentially because Henry VIII wished to divorce his wife Catherine, the Magician says:

Henry VIII's seizure of the Church of England had to be justified to English-speaking people in a spiritual sense. And so it was. The British had a spiritual destiny, it was declared. ... the British were to inherit the earth, and in the process foster the spread of True Christianity. That is, not Catholicism.

Also, British Israelism came to serve another important purpose:

The doctrine of British-Israelism and the Lost Ten Tribes was intended to forge a political alliance between the British monarchy and the Jews of Amsterdam, through a merger of the Arthurian Imperial tradition with Cabalistic interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures….

To forge ties between Jewish merchants and British Imperialists, John Dee created the concept of British-Israel, which gave the British and the Jews a common racial identity, and invoked biblical prophecy to show the inevitable triumph of British Imperialism: the British, as Abraham's seed, were to inherit the earth. Dee also introduced the Jewish Cabala to the British ruling class and its interlocking network of European royal dynasties. All this set the stage for the later absorption of European Jewish merchants and bankers into British society…In essence, the dissemination of the British-Israel doctrine was an intelligence coup carried out by the British Monarchy.

Who was John Dee? A royal magician whose claim to fame was his ability to contact demonic spirits.
As students of conspiracy or "deep politics" are well aware, and the Magician writes, "Much of the history of the last several hundred years can be interpreted as the competition for power between the British Monarchy, or 'Perfidious Albion,' and its allies, on one hand; and the Vatican and its allies, on the other."

In this view, British-Israelism was first conceived and utilized to counter the Counter-Reformation -- the overt and covert war of the Vatican against Protestant Europe. Putative political indepdence from the mother church, however, did not completely erase family ties or family resemblances! Britain became a church-state to itself and its king a mini-pope, as might befit a daughter of Rome. (While this fact is beyond the scope of the present article, Rome has continued to exert a powerful influence upon England and her colonies in the New World, as mothers often tend to do in the lives of their grown children!) The monarchy developed the self-serving ideology of British Israelism to further its claim to a divine right to rule first Britain and then the world: like mother, like daughter?

The powerful Jewish international banking cabal figures in this theory as well. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance -- just as in the first century -- the Jews looked down upon non-Jews, calling them "Christian dogs." (Their Talmud -- the ever-growing collection of rabbinical traditions which had come to replace the Torah as the rule of faith -- set the tone with its vile calumnies against Yahshua and his followers.)

And as now, the Jews wielded power far out of proportion to their numbers.

Spain was one of the few Christian countries where they were allowed to reside... England and France had already expelled them (in 1290 and 1306 respectively) and Bohemia would do so in 1542. ...
Although they were far from numerous-- only 25,000 fanilies in all-- their lockhold on trade and money-lending tended to fan the flames of fear and resentment. ...[I]n Cuenca [Spain] during the famine of 1376 they refused to lend for sowing at less than 40%. (Frederick W. Marks, A Brief for Belief)

For these and other reasons Jews were expelled en masse from Spain in 1492 (and from a long line of other European cities and countries throughout the 15th and 16th centuries). A large contingent set up shop in Amsterdam. Subsequently, that city became the center of usury banking, a Jewish specialty. Yet later -- thanks in large part to the British monarchy's overtures, which included the cabalistic interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures to yield British Israelism -- the Jewish financiers moved their base to London. Eventually the twin Jewish strongholds of credit and usury would be perfected in the world's first central bank, the Bank of England, the financial engine which would propel “the empire of the City of London” to world domination. For, as Henry Makow puts it, "the British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests." Since World War II, that Empire has been transported across the Atlantic, to the former British colonies, and now is known as "U.S. hegemony," or increasingly, the American Empire. Yet this empire remains under the domination of an Anglo-American establishment.
Author Barry Chamish sees a third use for British-Israelism. He writes that "In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry." Chamish believes the goal was "to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine," i.e., the present state of "Israel."
It could be that all these theories are correct: that the sweeping breadth of British-Israelism makes it an ideal pretext for just about any goal the claimants happen to be pursuing. From wresting control of a kingdom and church, to wooing the extremely talented and powerful Jewish banker faction, to creating a climate favorable to a state of "Israel," to whatever other grand scheme the Babylonian elite are pushing on a given day, British Israelism has proved supremely useful.


IN EFFECT, BRITISH ISRAELISM denies the "Israel identity" of the true "Israel of God," the Body of the Anointed. It attempts to place the imprimatur of Yahweh upon the self-serving activities of fallen, sinful men and their empires of money and temporal power. Like the false theology of Rome, by which she elevates herself to the Kingdom of God on earth; like its close cousin Zionism, which in its undiluted form elevates Jews to the same status, British-Israelism is a counterfeit of the real Kingdom of Yahweh under the true Messiah and King, Yahshua.

Some key proponents of the theory have been massively deluded ("deceiving and being deceived" -- II Tim. 3:13). A very few, perhaps, are working with conscious evil intent to deceive for the material benefit of degenerate "royalty" and the financial and commercial interests behind them. Other conscious deceivers may utilize the doctrine as a convenient tool with which to build their religious empires.

Is everyone who believes evil? No, because anyone can be deceived who does not fully love the truth and who fails to "search the scriptures," proving the truth and discarding untruth. The majority of believers and teachers of these doctrines are guilty of these failings, which are common enough -- I have been guilty as well, and on some points, probably still am. But it is my sincere hope and prayer that more believers begin to examine in depth, and see for what it is, this unbiblical snare of a theory.


Stay tuned for more information and thoughts on this topic in the future.