Nazarene Space

Anti-Semitism Unmasqued: The Truth about "Christianity Unmasqued"

Anti-Semitism Unmasqued:
The Truth about "Christianity Unmasqued"
By
James Scott Trimm


CHRISTIANITY UNMASQUED
Chapter 12 "The Judeo-Christian Faith"
by Dan "Israel" and distributed by Dan Chaput

Chapter 12 of the book Christianity Unmasqued is filled with the most vile of anti-Semitic propaganda.

The chapter begins by implying that Jews are the Synagogue of Satan:

Who are the Jews? What is their faith?
Are the Jews the chosen people of Scripture?
Who are those "that are called Jews, but are
of the 'Synagogue of Satan,'" as identified
in Revelation 2:9; 3:9?
(p. 224)

 

What is the "Synagogue of Satan" mentioned in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Both passage identify this group as "those who say they are Jews but lie".

The book Christianity Unmasqued interprets these texts to refer to the Jews who do not accept Yeshua as the
Messiah. But an honest look at the Scriptures will show that it is not possible to identify the "Synagogue of Satan" in this way.

To begin with it is important to recognize that the same "Yochanan" ("John") wrote both Revelation and the Gospel of Yochanan. Not only is this the traditional understanding, but there are a number of common elements that point to the common authorship of these two books. Both books identify the Messiah as the "lamb" (Jn. 1:29; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12; 14:1) and as the incarnate "word" (Jn. 1:1-3, 14; Rev. 19:13) and both refer to the "living waters" (Jn. 4:10; 7:38; Rev. 22:1)*.

Now we must look at how Yochanan uses the word "Jew" in his own writings. Yochanan himself frequently invokes the term "Jews" to refer to Jewish people who rejected Yeshua as the Messiah. For example:

"therefore did the Jews persecute Yeshua" (Jn. 5:16)
"the Jews sought more to kill him" (Jn. 5:18)
"the Jews then murmured at him" (Jn. 6:41)
"the Jews sought to kill him" (Jn. 7:1)
etc. etc. etc.

CLEARLY Yochanan has absolutely no objection whatsoever to using the term "Jews" to refer either to Jews who accepted Messiah or those that rejected him. Therefore the statement in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 cannot be criticizing this usage of the word "Jews". Otherwise Yochanan would here be criticizing his own inspired writing in the Gospel of John in which he does just that himself frequently!

So what does Yochanan refer to here? I believe he refers to the newly hatched apostate teaching of "replacement theology".
However the book Christianity Unmasqued does not beat around the bush about its rhetorical questuion as to who the Synagogue of Satan is. Dan answers his own rhetorical question:

Many people today calling themselves Jews
are not at all descendants of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. Most are not even Israelites.
(p. 247)

...most modern "Jews" are in fact, NOT Israelites.
(p. 250)

If they are not truly Israelites then who are they? Dan has an answer. After saying that those called "Jews" today have replaced the "true Israelites" like the story of the prince and the pauper (p. 226) he goes on to say:

The prince and the pauper, the battle between the seed
of the flesh and the seed of the Spirit continues to this
day.

In Genesis, right at the very beginning of the Book,
after Satan beguiled Eve, we find Yahweh speaking
to the serpent, stating "I will put enmity between thee
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Genesis 3:15

Two different seeds are identified here; two different
seeds that would be at enmity with each other and
would never bond, the seed of the Adversary and the
seed of the Woman, or the seed of the flesh and the
seed of the Promise, (the seed of the Spirit).
(p. 229)

Clearly Dan identifies "Jews" as the seed of Satan. Dan makes no bones about meaning this very literally:

...Cain, who is generally considered to be a son
of Adam is nowhere to be found in Adam's genealogy;
hence possibly the suggestion of a totally different
seedline and lineage existing on this planet? For reference
to this issue see 1Chronicles Ch 1; Gen Ch 4 and 5;
and Gen. 10. Israelites are not Canaanites and the
distinction must be made between these people.
When the land of promise was given to the Israelites,
it was already occupied by Canaanites. The mandate
was for the Israelites to occupy the land and spoil
Yahweh's enemy, the Canaanites.

"In this the children of Yahweh are manifest,
and the children of the adversary: whosoever
does not righteousness is not of Yahweh,
neither he that loveth not his brother (understanding
of kinship). For this is the message that ye heard
from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one..." 1John 3:10-12

Of that wicked one?... Another study worthy of your
investigation!
(pp. 249-250)

Dan leaves very little unsaid to require further "investigation." Dan clearly is teaching that the "Jews" of today are the offspring of Satan himself rather than being offspring of Adam. As such he identifies them as the "Synagogue of Satan" who are called Jews when they are not. He further identifies the two seeds as the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13). In
this parable God sows good seed in the world and the Devil sows bad seed. Thje good seed are wheat and the bad seed are tares. Dan takes this idea to an extreme arguing not only at the "Jews" are the tares but that being Satan's literal seed they cannot be saved:

The wheat will bear its fruit while the tares will not
and can not.
(p. 236)

This is the most obscene type of anti-Semitism. This type of reasoning can even be used to excuse the wholesale murder of Jews... after all they are not real people, they are literal children of the Devil himself!

Dan falls back on the traditional accusation that Jews are "Christ-Killers"

Would Yahshua be supportive of the very element
that desired to see him eliminated? Would the
Scriptures instruct us to give to, or support those
who want to destroy our Saviour and our intended
way of life?
(p. 223)

...the intended purpose of Judaism was to kill
the Saviour, denying you access to the truth
He espoused...
(p. 234)

Dan falls back on the traditional accusation that Jews control the world. According to Dan's book Jews:

...exert great control and influence in the media,
television programing and Hollywood, with all
its perversions based on the teachings of Talmud.
They also control an unscriptural economic system...
(p. 232)


Chapter 12 of this book is his anti-semitic slam on the "Jewishness of Yashua" movement. The book indicates that this movement is a "manipulation and deception" and that todays Jews are the synagogue of Satan claiming to be Jews when we are not. the chapter is filled with the most vile of anti-semitic propaganda rehashed including a Talmud passage taken out of context so as to imply that Jews advocate sodomizing young children under the age of nine.

Below is the Talmud passage which Dan Chaput/"Israel" takes out of context in Chapter 12 of his book.

Talmud is a very complex document to study. It can take years just to learn how to read it. Here we have a discusion which revolves around two Torah commands: One against Sodomites in general and another against a man lying with a man as he would with a woman. The Rabbis break this down into two basic kinds of Sodomy: asctive sodomy and passive sodomy. Active sodomy is to sodomize someone else, while passive sodomy is to subject oneself to
being sodomized. The argument goes into great detail to point out that while he who sodomizes a child below the age of nine is obviously guilty of active sodomy he cannot be guilty of passive sodomy because the child is not capable of actively sodomizing him. The issue is a technical issue of whether he is guilty of one sin or two. The passage simply means that the man who sodomizes a child under the age of nine is only guilty of active sodomy but not guilty of passive sodomy (allowing the child to sodomize him) which is actually a no-brainer which we would all agree with. If the
Sodmite had committed the act with a consenting adult he would be guilty both of active sodomy in that he had sodomized another man and passive sodomy in allowing himself to be sodomized.

This is just one example of how anti-semites take Talmud passages out of context. This passage is often quoted out of context by anti-semites to falsely make people think that Jews advocate sodomizing children below the age of nine. The goal is to cause people to hate Jews. The Nazis of Germany quoted the same passage out of context with the same goal, to cause people to hate Jews and in this case to think that Jews sodmize young children.

This is just sick and propagated by sick hateful anti semites like Dan Chaput/"Israel"

There is no place for such sick propaganda.

The Talmud section in its entirety:

Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? -
>From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an
abomination.1 From this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies
[with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who
permits himself thus to be abused? - Scripture saith: There shall be no
sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, And there were also
sodomites in the land: and they did according to the abominations of the
nations which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel:3 this is
R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: This is unnecessary, the Writ saith, thou
shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: read, 'thou shalt not be lain
with.'4 Whence do we learn a formal prohibition against bestiality? - Our
Rabbis taught : [and if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to
death: and ye shall slay the beast].5 A man excludes a minor; [that] lieth
with a beast - whether it be young or old; he shall surely be put to death -
by stoning. You, by stoning; but perhaps one of the other deaths decreed in
the Torah is meant? - It is here said, [and] ye shall kill [the beast]; and
it is stated elsewhere, But thou shalt surely kill him. [. . . And thou
shalt stone in him with stones]:6 just as there, stoning is meant, so here
too.

We have learnt from this the punishment for him who commits bestiality;
whence do we derive punishment for him who allows himself to be thus
abused? - The Writ saith: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put
to death.7 Since this is redundant in respect of the person committing
bestiality,8 you must regard it as applying to the person permitting himself
to be thus abused.9 From the Writ we know that there is punishment both for
him who commits bestiality and for him who permits himself to be thus
abused; whence do we know the formal prohibition? - Scripture saith, neither
shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.10 From this verse
we learn the formal prohibition for him who commits bestiality, whence do we
derive the formal prohibition for him who allows himself to be thus abused?
Scripture saith: There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel; and it is
elsewhere said, And there were also sodomites in the land, etc.11 R. Akiba
said: This is unnecessary. The Writ saith, Thou shalt not lie [with any
beast], which means, thou shalt not permit thy lying [with any beast,
whether actively or passively].

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits
himself to be thus abused - R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is
liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt
not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There
shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he
incurs only one penalty, since thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not be lain
with is but one statement.12

He who commits bestiality, and also causes himself to be thus abused -
R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, one for the
injunction, thou shalt not lie with any beast, and one for the prohibition,
there shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he
incurs but one penalty, since thy lying [actively] and thy lying [passively]
is but one injunction. Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael's view he incurs one
penalty only, for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with
mankind.13 If so, whence does R. Ishmael derive a formal prohibition against
permitting oneself to be bestially abused? - From the verse, Whosoever lieth
with a beast shall surely be put to death.14 Now, this being redundant in
respect of him who [actively] lies with a beast,15 apply it to him who
[passively] permits himself to be abused this; and the Divine Law designates
the passive offender as the active offender:16 this teaches that the
punishment for, and the formal prohibition against, active bestiality17
apply to passive submission too.18

He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality - R. Abbahu said: On
R. Akiba's view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with
mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R.
Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived
from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 Abaye said: Even on R.
Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, because it is written, Whosoever
lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.20 This being redundant in
respect of active bestiality, it must be applied to passive submission, and
the Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an active offence: just
as for the active offence there is punishment and prohibitions so for the
passive offence too.21 But he who commits pederasty and causes himself to be
abused thus; and also commits bestiality and causes himself to be abused
too - both R. Abbahu and Abaye maintain that on R. Ishmael's view he is
trebly guilty, and on R. Akiba's view he is doubly guilty.22

Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not
regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old
one.23 What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine
years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel
said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a
child above that.24 What is the basis of their dispute? - Rab maintains that
only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive
subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who
is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of
pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And
thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26

It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine
years and a day;
____________________
(1) Ibid. XVIII, 22.
(2) Deut. XXIII, 18.
(3) I Kings XIV, 24. Just as abomination applies to sodomy in the latter
verse, so it applies to it in the former too: thus it is as though the
former verse read, There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel: it is
an abomination. And just as the abomination implicit here applies to both
parties, so the abomination explicitly stated in Lev. XIII, 22 refers to
both.
(4) I. e., the niph'al, the letters being the same, cfa, and cfa,.
(5) Ibid. XX, 15.
(6) Deut. XIII, 10, referring to a mesith, one who incites to idolatry.
(7) Ex. XXII, 18.
(8) As it is taught elsewhere, viz., in Lev. XX, 15.
(9) One of the methods of Talmudic hermenueutics is to apply a Biblical
statement, superfluous in respect of its own law, to some other subject.
(10) Lev. XVIII, 23.
(11) Ibid. v. p. 368. n. 1: the same reasoning applying to bestiality as to
pederasty.
(12) I.e., though differently vocalized in order to deduce two injunctions,
it is nevertheless one statement only, so that a person transgressing these
two injunctions violates one Biblical prohibition only.
(13) Not to bestiality at all, in spite of the fact that this was cited
above in this connection.
(14) Ex. XXII, 18.
(15) Since it is stated in Lev. XVIII.
(16) I.e., though as shewn, this verse applies to a passive offender, yet
its grammatical construction speaks of active bestiality.
(17) The reference having been given above.
(18) So that all is deduced from one verse, involving only one penalty.
(19) Since R. Akiba maintains that the prohibition of passive sodomy is
included in active sodomy, it follows that passive pederasty and bestiality
are two distinct offences, for there are two distinct injunctions. But as R.
Ishmael maintains that the injunction against active sodomy does not include
passive submission, and that the latter, whether in pederasty or bestiality,
is derived from the single injunction, There shall be no sodomite, the
double offence incurs one penalty only.
(20) Ex. XXII, 18.
(21) Thus, this applies to passive bestiality, whilst there shall be no
sodomite applies to passive pederasty. Hence, there being two separate
injunctions for the two offences, a double punishment is incurred.
(22) Thus: R. Abbahu maintains that on R. Ishmael's view: (i) active
pederasty is forbidden by Thou shalt not lie with mankind; (ii) active
bestiality by Thou shalt not lie with any beast; (iii) passive pederasty and
bestiality by There shall be no sodomite. Whilst Abaye maintains that on R.
Ishmael's view, (i) active pederasty is derived from Thou shalt not lie with
mankind; (ii) submission thereto from There shall be no sodomite; and (iii)
active and passive bestiality from Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to
defile thyself therewith. (Lev. XVIII, 23) Hence, according to R. Abbabu and
Abaye there are three injunctions for the four offences. Further, R. Abbahu
and Abaye both teach R. Akiba's view to be that (i) active and passive
bestiality are derived from Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with
womankind; and (ii) active and passive bestiality from Neither shalt thou
lie with any beast. Hence there are two injunctions for the four offences.
(23) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra 54a,
guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor,
i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within
this age a distinction is drawn.
(24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy
with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the
minimum.
(25) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(26) Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness
of woman, which is reached at the age of three

 

 

Views: 243

Comment by Darrell Vidas on June 26, 2013 at 10:53am

James,  I got your email Yesterday about this Post about Dan's Book and thought I would share it with the Author Dan Israel. Since I am currently reading his book and I am only in Chapter 9 (awesome book by the way)  

I was a Christian for 20 plus years, and recently about 2 years ago being led by the spirit, came out of the Pagan Cult of Christianity.  What started my Learning process was your Davar Bible School, that I printed, put in a binder, and have read more than twice, and I Love it. It has truly helped me since the beginning of my new walk. Also Nazarite.net has a lot of information for those coming to the truth....So, with that being said, I thought I would share with you his reply to your post.

Here are his comments:

Hi Darell Thanks for your comment and note that you are enjoying the book. As to James Trimm he less than honorable. Since you have the book, I would like you to read his comments about specific quotes in the book and then go to Chapter 12 in the book and read it there. Now in the book I have identified the source of those noted quotations and they are not mine. Those quotes are actually from other Jews or Jewish sources. To state that some how I am an anti semite by quoting what other Jews have said and cited the sources so others may validate the facts is not only less than honorable but morally, academically dishonest. This is an example of the quality of research James Trimm does. Furthermore it is impossible for me to be an anti semite as I am an Israelite. Check Ch 12 in the book, read and see for yourself the facts tell the truth. Someone should tell Trimm not to lie. Be blessed, hope you enjoy the rest of the book and find it beneficial in your studies.

Comment by James Trimm on June 26, 2013 at 4:03pm

You must understand that few anti-Semites identify themselves as such, and most, like Dan, try to play word games.

By Dan's definition today's "Jews" are not really Semites at all, so anti-Semitism has nothing to do with them/us. 

By the same token Dan claims to be an Israelite himself.

Also Dan redefines the English word "Anti-Semite" by confusing the word with its etymology.

The word Semite has many meanings, one of which is that it is used as a synonymy for a "Jew".

The English word Anti-Semite is built upon the root word Semite in its meaning of "Jew"  and no other meaning (look up Anti-Semite in Webster's Dictionary).

So an Anti-Semite is defined as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." Notice it does not refer to any other kind of Semite other than a Jew.  

Dan will argue that HE is a Semite so he cannot be an anti-Semite (which wrongly uses the word) and that today's Jews are not true Semites.  

By Dan's definition Adolf Hitler was not an anti-Semite!

The rest of what he says is just plain bunk... his alleged quotes from the Talmud are not from any Jewish source, but mis-quotes taken by anti-Semitic literature previously printed by the Nazis.

Comment by Darrell Vidas on June 30, 2013 at 3:40pm

Dan's Response to yours:

Such a nice fellow. Yes he is bitter and very in accurate in what he says.

He may choose to use Websters dictionary to define Semite but I am willing to bet that the definition is different in an older dictionary. In contrast I prefer to use Scripture which identifies semites or shemites as descendants of Shem. This includes the twelve tribes of Israel of which Judah is only a small part, it also includes the descendants of Abraham not only Issac but also Ishmael as well and the twelve princes that developed from his progeny. That basically is the Arab nations.

Now let us take a close look at the tribe of Judah, who are they? Who did Judah marry? What was the ancestry of his wife? She was a Cannanite wasn't she? How does Yahweh feel about the Cannanites? Esau had no respect for his birthright or his ancestry and fell victim to the same situation. Yahweh states in Scripture Jacob I have loved Esau I have hated.

Here is the text As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with Yahweh? Elohim forbid. (Rom 9:13-14)

The Jews which emanate from the mixed seed of an Israelite and a Canaanite are hybrid and scripture would call them "mamzers" the English word is translated as "bastard"

Here are the appropriate texts

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of Yahweh. (Deu 23:2)

here is the same text with Strongs numbers:

Deu 23:2 A bastard H4464 shall not H3808 enter H935 into the congregation H6951 of Yahweh;H3068 even H1571 to his tenth H6224 generation H1755 shall he not H3808 enter H935 into the congregation H6951 of Yahweh.H3068

Lets look at "Bastard" in Strongs

H4464
ממזר
mamzêr
mam-zare'
From an unused root mian. to alienate; a mongrel, that is, born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother: - bastard.

Now you know why Jews trace their Maternal lineage to identify their "Jewishness" but Israelites (not Israelies) trace their lineage paternally through the Father. That in itself is about as far apart as East is from West.

Are you starting to see the truth of the matter?

Here is another text which identifies the curse Jews are under, Yahweh took His name away from them.

Therefore hear ye the word of Yahweh, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith Yahweh, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Yahweh Elohim liveth. (Jer 44:26)

James Trimm could have also suffered from a botched circumcision as many of them do.

Metzitzah b'peh Fellatio after circumscion 
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Metzitzah_b%27peh

Metzitzah b'peh is a homosexual-paedophile practice carried out in Talmudic Judaism, within which a mohel; that is to say a rabbi who carries out genital-mutilation; puts the freshly circumcised penis of the infant boy into his mouth and sucks it until the blood stops flowing from the wound on the child's penis.[1] This "oral tradition" is different to the circumcision practiced in the Old Testament, rather the fellatio bris milah of the Talmudists is based on the halacha and custom (minhag).[2] It is the only major religion which demands fellatio with children. 


Generally they manage to keep knowledge of the act out of the media spotlight, but modern cases in New York City, where diseases such as herpes have been passed onto the babies, causing the death of an infant in one cases, put the practice under scrutiny.[1][3] While Jewish journalists energetically wax-lyrical about a minority of deviant liberal-homosexuals who have infiltrated Christianity, carrying out perversions contrary to their religion, their silence is deafening when it comes to the rabbis sucking boy's penises as a matter of basic practice.

Do you think this practice follows after the Covenant of Abraham?

I guess if I had all this hanging on my head I would be bitter too.

There is much more I could add but The above notes should help you understand.

Be Blessed

Dan

Comment by James Trimm on June 30, 2013 at 5:10pm

Wow... sad that he is actually trying to use my bad review to sell the book... but I guess you have to use whatever you have.

Comment by James Trimm on June 30, 2013 at 5:13pm

Dan's response is false.

It is so full of lies it is not funny.

There is no such Orthodox Jewish practice, that is a lie invented by anti-Semites. 

In fact blood is regarded as ritually impure in Judaism and no Orthodox Jew would ever suck blood into his mouth unless it was to save a life (for example a snake bite victim).

Comment by James Trimm on June 30, 2013 at 11:33pm

1 September 1999

A STATEMENT FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR SCRIPTURE RESEARCH AS A RESULT OF AN ISR MEETING HELD ON 29 August 1999:

The ISR wishes to issue the following statement regarding the recent rebuttal on the Internet regarding the book "Christianity Unmasqued", by Dan Israel / Chaput, and the involvement of Dan Chaput with the ISR.

Dan Chaput has served the ISR for many years as a loyal administrator and representative in the USA. He offered his service to the ISR without receiving any remuneration in any respect.

The ISR has maintained a non-doctrinal viewpoint through the years as far as possible, and do not wish to become involved in rebuttals pertaining to doctrines. Our mission is to do research into the Scriptures and to publish our finding by means of THE SCRIPTURES translation and other publications.

With the recent publication of the above book by Dan Chaput, and his involvement in the distribution of our publications, we feel that we can no longer allow any individual to compromise our mission due to their own beliefs, publications or doctrines. For this reason we decided to divorce the distribution of our publications from all individuals in an official capacity. In the future we will therefore appoint an independent company to do the distribution of our publications on our behalf. Orders for our publications can then be sent directly to such a company.

Any person or religious organisation who wishes to distribute our publications will be more than welcome to do so, but it will be in their own and private capacity. It will not be on behalf of the ISR. Such persons or organisations will have to purchase our publications in bulk, and can then resell them at the recommended retail prices set forth by the ISR. Bulk purchases will therefore still be made available at discounted prices.

Anyone who wishes to nominate such an organisation to the ISR is more than welcome to do so. We will very much appreciate this.

With regards to Dan Chaput's recent book, we felt compelled to issue the following statement in respect to his controversial Chapter 12.


We, in our belief and conduct, are opposed to racism in all its forms, or any intimation that salvation is determined genetically or genealogically.

We wish to state that we are unequivocally opposed to anti-Semitism and / or anti-Jewishness; and for the purpose of this statement the term Jew / Jewish shall be understood to include:

(i) The tribe of Judah / Yehudah
(ii) The House of Judah / Yehudah
(iii) "He who calls himself a Jew, is Jewish", as stated by David ben Gurion

Due to administrative delays we ask our readers to be patient with the transformation we will undergo in the next few weeks. It will take us time to set up an organisation to do the distribution on our behalf in the USA. As soon as we have set up this arrangement, we will inform all our readers of the change of address and ordering details.

On behalf of the Institute for Scripture Research


Wilhelm Wolfaardt
Chairman

Comment by James Trimm on July 1, 2013 at 2:19pm
I deleted three replies and banned Peter for violating our rule against posting antisemitic material and for posting pictures that violate the laws in the USA regarding child porn. My wife is the grandaughter of a holocaust survivor so I deal with antisemitism pretty harshly. If you want a site that tolerates antisemitism you are in tbe wrong place.
Comment by Brock on September 17, 2013 at 11:04am

Sadly this is becoming a rather common teaching. I have burned more than a few bridges over this doctrine.

Comment

You need to be a member of Nazarene Space to add comments!

Join Nazarene Space

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service