|
| |
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2353060
Your account has been disabled for the following reason: Malicious slander on his
website regarding a Stormfront Moderator
Date your account will be reenabled: Never
 10-16-2005, 11:11 AM |
#11 |
|
 Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by Israelite
Israelites are not Adamites. Israelites were a
new race created when "the LORD" impregnated Rebekah
|
Poppycock!!!!!!!
It should be noted, that John Knight is not representative of Christian Identity. In fact,
his cup runneth over of one crackpot idea after another. I've maintained that anyone can
make the Bible say whatever they want and this latest absurd notion proves it. This sort
of drivel does not even warrant a dignified discussion, because it devolves into the realm
of the lunatic fringe, which constantly harrasses Christian Identity with disinformation
and a diaherea of argumentation. John Knight's 'wordism' and scripture twisting should not
be confused with scholarship and common sense.
Adamites = the White race
Israelites = the White race
| ps--who
saves Adam? Who cares? God wants us to destroy them, not save them. |
Thank you John Knight for admitting how you really feel about the White race. Now
I don't have to accuse you of being an enemy.
PS. Don't bother replying. This post is just a warning notice for those who may not be
familiar with you and that you should be considered persona non grata and certainly no
friend to the Christian Identity community.
|
Originally
Posted by kludd
Well, there are certainly elements in CI that
twist things around and do the same thing as judaization. The word spirit operates on
several levels. On a physical level it is air moving in and out of your nose and thus
bringing life. On a mental level it is the motivation(s) from God that animates our
Christian character. The Holy Spirit or Spirit of God is the exclusive agency and property
of God and means the purity or divine perfection of His will. Our DNA in contradistinction
to other races has a predisposition to receive life and to have it more abundantly. Pastor
Mark Downey
|
When Jesus said in John 3:6, the red letter part of the Holy Bible [read: that which is a
direct quotation from Jesus] "That which is begotten of the flesh is a flesh; and
that which is begotten of the Spirit is a spirit", was He referring to "air
moving in and out of your nose" or "motivation(s) from God"?
iow, did Jesus say that an Israelite IS a "motivation(s) from God", or IS
"air moving in and out of your nose"?
It's very important to get the article "a" in the right place. Note that Jesus
did not say that an Israelite was "of" the spirit, or can "become" the
spirit, or can "gain" spirit [or can be "born again" as Nicodemus
misunderstood Jesus to say].
Whatever "a spirit" is is what jesus said an Israelite IS.
John Knight
ps--and holy, while the church has added all kinds of baggage to the word, was derived
from the Hebrew word "khodesh" which has a very simple meaning--set apart, or
segregated.
__________________
The life sized statue of the "goddess" Athena just found in a 5,000 year old
Greek city proved that "she" was a WHITE MALE http://jacobisrael.us/athena.htm
|
  |
|
| 10-23-2005, 02:49 PM |
#32 |
|
Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by Israelite
When Jesus said in John 3:6, the red letter part
of the Holy Bible [read: that which is a direct quotation from Jesus] "That which is
begotten of the flesh is a flesh; and that which is begotten of the Spirit is a
spirit", was He referring to "air moving in and out of your nose" or
"motivation(s) from God"?
|
What part of your own poppycock don't you understand Nicodemus? I know it may be
difficult for an arbitrary 'wordist' to conceive between literal and figurative speech,
but a literal rendition of John 3:6 and the words of Jesus is taken to absurd depths of
confusion with such license. When one does not rightly divide the word of truth, one can
be so sexually or carnally minded that they are of no spiritual good. Let me help you get
your head out of the gutter and paraphrase John 3:6 so that even a third grader can
conceive what Jesus was saying to a Pharisee, who also thought about going back into his
mother's womb. That which is conceived or understood as a concept of the flesh or physical
nature of mankind is just that... on a carnal level, as animals; and that which is
conceived or can grasp the idea of the Spirit or Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit or the
perfect motivations of God is spirit or receptive of these divine motivations. In verse 7,
Jesus said you shouldn't be surprised or in awe of this process because verse 8 explains
the air moving around, symbolic of spirit, is the new life given by God to those He wishes
it to. Nicodemus just didn't get it. "As thou knowest not what is the way of the
spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou
knowest not the works of God who maketh all" Eccl. 11:5.
| Whatever
"a spirit" is is what jesus said an Israelite IS. |
Please don't put your words into the mouth of Christ.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
 |
|
| 10-23-2005, 09:43 PM |
#33 |
Forum Member
Posts: 144 
|
Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by kludd
What part of your own poppycock don't you
understand Nicodemus? I know it may be difficult for an arbitrary 'wordist' to conceive
between literal and figurative speech, but a literal rendition of John 3:6 and the words
of Jesus is taken to absurd depths of confusion with such license. When one does not
rightly divide the word of truth, one can be so sexually or carnally minded that they are
of no spiritual good. Let me help you get your head out of the gutter and paraphrase John
3:6 so that even a third grader can conceive what Jesus was saying to a Pharisee, who also
thought about going back into his mother's womb. That which is conceived or understood as
a concept of the flesh or physical nature of mankind is just that... on a carnal level, as
animals; and that which is conceived or can grasp the idea of the Spirit or Spirit of God
or the Holy Spirit or the perfect motivations of God is spirit or receptive of these
divine motivations. In verse 7, Jesus said you shouldn't be surprised or in awe of this
process because verse 8 explains the air moving around, symbolic of spirit, is the new
life given by God to those He wishes it to. Nicodemus just didn't get it. "As thou
knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her
that is with child; even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all" Eccl.
11:5.
Please don't put your words into the mouth of Christ.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
Are you so SURE that what Jesus said is so much different from what Paul said in his
allegory in Galatians 4?
See http://jacobisrael.us/allegory.htm
John Knight
ps--here's an excerpt:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Paul uses the following allegory to clarify what is meant by "flesh" and
"spirit":
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a
bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
The bondmaid is Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian slave, her son is Ishmael whose descendants are
the Arabs. The freewoman is Sarah, her son was Isaac, and the everlasting covenant God
made with Abraham was through all the descendants of Isaac's son Jacob.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was begotten after the flesh; but he of
the freewoman was by promise.
Ishmael's descendants the Arabs were "born after the flesh" but Jacob's
descendants the Israelites were "by promise".
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the
one from the mount Sinai, which engendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
The everlasting covenant God made with Abraham through Jacob preceded the covenant at
Mount Sinai. Paul is equating the everlasting covenant to Jerusalem [read: Israelites] and
the covenant at Mount Sinai to Arabs.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us
all.
"Us all" is a reference only to genetic descendants of Jacob, and in this
instance only to the "house of Israel" which is the ten northern tribes.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry,
thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a
husband.
There were more descendants of Ishmael whose mother Hagar was "desolate" than
there were of Jacob whose grandmother Sarah "hath a husband", Abraham.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
"The children of promise" is the phrase used to refer to genetic descendants of
Isaac (and specifically to genetic descendants of Isaac through Jacob, as God hated Esau
and excluded his descendants the Edomites from the covenant).
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was begotten after the flesh persecuted him that was begotten
after the Spirit, even so it is now.
The Arabs who were "begotten after the flesh" persecuted the Israelites [read:
"the children of promise" who are now equated to "begotten after the
Spirit"].
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for
the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
While God blessed Hagar and promised Abraham that her that her son Ishmael would
"twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation", her
descendants were not heirs to the evelasting covenant God made with Abraham through Jacob.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
This is proof that Paul is addressing Israelites here, not Arabs who were "born after
the flesh", nor jews who were descendants of Esau who God hated, nor mamzers who
cannot ever enter the congregation of the LORD, nor nokriy who God commanded the
Israelites to "save alive nothing that breatheth".
His point is that, just because Arabs and Edomites are descendants of
Abraham by "flesh" [through Ishmael or Esau] doesn't mean they're "by
promise" or "spirit". If you're not a descendant of Abraham through Jacob
[read: an Israelite], then you're not "by promise", "children of
promise", or "born after the spirit".
The jews claimed to be genetic descendants of Abraham. Jesus agreed, but
said they were not "Abraham's children". This reference to "children"
means
"children of promise". This can only mean that Jesus knew that the jews
were Edomites who were descendants of Abraham through Esau, and thus were
not "children of promise".
Conversely, only those who are pure genetic descendants of Jacob have the
potential to be "children of promise"--but obviously many of them ARE
NOT, and never can be.
Young's Literal Translation eliminates the words the KJV added (which we know they added
because they italicized them), providing the following translation of Galatians 4:29:
"but as then he who was born according to the flesh did persecute him according to
the spirit, so also now"
This might have been a sincere attempt by the KJV translators to make this verse
comprehensible, but by adding these five words "that was born" and "it
is", they headed in the wrong direction. YLT gets us back on the right path--but it's
not a completely comprehensible statement. Our sense of the English phrase "according
to" [kata, #2596] would suggest that those "born according to the flesh"
persecuted "him", in compliance with instructions from "the spirit".
Clearly this is not the message, so we need to put this into context with other verses,
like the following quote from Jesus, to get a better sense of the word "kata":
John 3:6 That which is begotten of the flesh is flesh; and that which is begotten of the
Spirit is spirit.
This does not say that those "born of the spirit" [read: Israelites], are
"according to the spirit", or "of the spirit", or can "become
spirit"--it says they ARE "spirit". Who did the Ishmaelites, who were
"born according to the flesh", persecute? Spirit. Not those "born according
to the spirit". Not "of the spirit". Spirit!
Literal: perfect past tense, what happened in the past still affects today.
"the one beggoten in the past and still feeling the effect today, it is out of the
flesh, it is a flesh, and the one begotten in the past and still feeling the effect today,
it is out of the spirit, it is a spirit".
John Knight
__________________
The life sized statue of the "goddess" Athena just found in a 5,000 year old
Greek city proved that "she" was a WHITE MALE http://jacobisrael.us/athena.htm
|
| |
|
| Yesterday, 03:14 PM |
#34 |
|
Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by Israelite
Are you so SURE that what Jesus said is so much
different from what Paul said in his allegory in Galatians 4?
|
I am perfectly confident in reconciling what Jesus and Paul said than trusting anything
you have to say.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
| |
|
| Yesterday, 03:36 PM |
#35 |
Forum Member
Posts: 144
|
Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by kludd
I am perfectly confident in reconciling what
Jesus and Paul said than trusting anything you have to say.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
This is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, and has utterly nothing to do with anything I
said (or wrote).
When Paul said, or at least wrote, in Galatians 4:29 "But as then he that was
begotten after the flesh persecuted him that was begotten after the Spirit, even so it is
now", who do YOU claim Paul was talking about?
John Knight
__________________
The life sized statue of the "goddess" Athena just found in a 5,000 year old
Greek city proved that "she" was a WHITE MALE http://jacobisrael.us/athena.htm
|
| |
|
| Yesterday, 04:53 PM |
#36 |
|
Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by Israelite
This is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, and has
utterly nothing to do with anything I said (or wrote).
When Paul said, or at least wrote, in Galatians 4:29 "But as then he that was
begotten after the flesh persecuted him that was begotten after the Spirit, even so it is
now", who do YOU claim Paul was talking about?
John Knight
|
The Bible claims itself. "Born after the flesh" in Galatians 4:29 is
talking about the classic conflict between Amalek, symbolic of those according to race or
breed who typify the carnality of legalist and wordist (I would call them a White jew,
being that Amalek was a descendant of Esau; and today we see the emulation of phariseeism
by those who claim to be White, but act like jews) and those "born after the
Spirit" according to White Christians who typify the believer in the grace of God.
That is the context that both Jesus and Paul address, not the religious shell game that
you're playing. Our race is not persecuted by Ishmaelites or Arabs, but by Esau/Edom and
their lackies.
I once knew a preacher that dazzled his audience with a glut of scriptures, thinking
himself wise, but he didn't have a smidgeon of smarts. In fact, the hemorrhage of all
these chapter and verses was quantity without quality and usually irrelevant to the
subject. John Knight is only "a" spirit in his own manipulation of words. Spirit
belongs to God. You're not God and nobody else is, with the exception of those "born
of the flesh" having an obsession to be something that they are not, which only makes
them small 'g' gods.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
| |
|
 Today, 01:20 PM |
#37 |
Forum Member
Posts: 144
|
Re: Who saves Adam?
Originally
Posted by kludd
The Bible claims itself. "Born after the
flesh" in Galatians 4:29 is talking about the classic conflict between Amalek,
symbolic of those according to race or breed who typify the carnality of legalist and
wordist (I would call them a White jew, being that Amalek was a descendant of Esau; and
today we see the emulation of phariseeism by those who claim to be White, but act like
jews) and those "born after the Spirit" according to White Christians who typify
the believer in the grace of God. That is the context that both Jesus and Paul address,
not the religious shell game that you're playing. Our race is not persecuted by
Ishmaelites or Arabs, but by Esau/Edom and their lackies. <snip>
Pastor Mark Downey
|
The problem with that answer is that we have no evidence that Paul is not being specific
here, or generalizing, or spiritualizing. You're correct that it IS an allegory, and the
allegory is that, just as Ishmaelites are begotten of the flesh, so are jew/Edomites.
The Holy Bible is consistent with what Paul wrote, though. Ishmaelites DID persecute
Israelites. And of course so did Edomites and jews.
Those begotten of the flesh are Ishmaelites, who persecuted those begotten of the spirit,
Israelites, which is all Paul meant in Galatians 4:29:
But as then he that was begotten after the flesh persecuted him that was begotten after
the Spirit, even so it is now.
That cannot be denied. Paul equates Israelites to those begotten of the spirit, and
Ishmaelites to those begotten of the flesh. What can be denied is that the allegorical
portion of Galatians 4 is its hidden reference to the jews who had Paul in prison which
made it a bit difficult for him to criticize them directly.
It was Nicodemus who thought Jesus suggested that a "man must be born again when he's
old". It was Jesus who politely called him a fool--and corrected him.
John Knight
|
Originally
Posted by kludd
Not sure if John Knight is his real name. I've
been told that he has a criminal past, but don't know for what. I do know from his
postings on the internet and his pontifications on internet radio that he is anti-women,
anti-Hitler and anti-National Socialism and spreads a great deal of disinformation about
it, like NS was jewish. The following is from the Yahoo group Christian-Israel Fellowship
in which Pastor Jeff Weakly shares his opinion of Knight:
Folks,
Sorry but a few of my non-group posts have made it to the group.
Apparently John Knight put our Group name in his "To" list but his
messages are not posted because he is not a member. When I pick "reply
all" my message is posted because I am a member. So, sorry and I'll try
to pay more attention.
Just for your information - John Knight is a fella who teaches that
being "born again" (from above) means to be born a physical Israelite.
He denies regeneration by the Spirit of God. He also denies that
Israelites are Adamites and lots of other stupid stuff. His greatest
weapon is to change definitions of Hebrew and Greek words. We all use
tools such as Strong's and various Lexicons and Dictionaries. This
serpent goes in and without any competent authority changes definitions
to suit his own ends.
Long ago the Gnostics would cut words and passages out of the
Scriptures. These new Gnostics do the same thing by playing newspeak
(with Knight I call it Knightspeak) with words.
Once again, sorry to trouble you with all this.
In Christ,
Jeff
It would appear that Knight has difficulty in having civil discourse and chooses divisive
subjects. He speaks with a strong New York accent. I have difficulty trusting him.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
Hey, lets not rag on the strong New York accents... 
|
 |
|
| 10-05-2004, 12:49 PM |
#8
|
|
Re: CI People, Are You Aware Of This Web Site?
Originally
Posted by Harry
Hey, lets not rag on the strong New York
accents...
|
lol. Sorry 'bout that. Wasn't meant to be a negative comment. I get a kick out of all
kinds of accents, being that we don't have one in the Pacific Northwest.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
| |
|
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1901245#post1901245
| 05-30-2005, 03:08 PM |
#9
|
User awaiting moderation
Posts: 201
|
Re: CI People, Are You Aware Of This Web Site?
Originally
Posted by kludd 10-04-2004, 08:08 PM
Not sure if John Knight is his real name. I've
been told that he has a criminal past, but don't know for what. I do know from his
postings on the internet and his pontifications on internet radio that he is anti-women,
anti-Hitler and anti-National Socialism and spreads a great deal of disinformation about
it, like NS was jewish. The following is from the Yahoo group Christian-Israel Fellowship
in which Pastor Jeff Weakly shares his opinion of Knight:
Folks,
Sorry but a few of my non-group posts have made it to the group.
Apparently John Knight put our Group name in his "To" list but his
messages are not posted because he is not a member. When I pick "reply
all" my message is posted because I am a member. So, sorry and I'll try
to pay more attention.
Just for your information - John Knight is a fella who teaches that
being "born again" (from above) means to be born a physical Israelite.
He denies regeneration by the Spirit of God. He also denies that
Israelites are Adamites and lots of other stupid stuff. His greatest
weapon is to change definitions of Hebrew and Greek words. We all use
tools such as Strong's and various Lexicons and Dictionaries. This
serpent goes in and without any competent authority changes definitions
to suit his own ends.
Long ago the Gnostics would cut words and passages out of the
Scriptures. These new Gnostics do the same thing by playing newspeak
(with Knight I call it Knightspeak) with words.
Once again, sorry to trouble you with all this.
In Christ,
Jeff
It would appear that Knight has difficulty in having civil discourse and chooses divisive
subjects. He speaks with a strong New York accent. I have difficulty trusting him.
Pastor Mark Downey
|
Well, since it's been almost a year since this slanderous post was added to this
Stormfront forum, it's way past time to set the record straight.
Kludd writes: "Not sure if John Knight is his real name".
For what reason would kludd speculate that this is not my real name? If Kludd really needs
proof, all that's required is to ask. Why, instead, would Kludd spread such nonsense? This
IS my real name and it will not ever change.
Kludd writes: "I've been told that he has a criminal past, but don't know for
what".
Again, if Kludd took even 30 seconds to research this, or ask, Kludd would have proven
that it's a certifiable lie. Why, instead, does Kludd engage in character assassination
based on unsupported feminazi "rumors" which have no basis in truth? Could it be
that, unable to support their "opinions", the course of least resistance is
character assassination?
Kludd writes: "I do know from his postings on the internet and his pontifications on
internet radio that he is anti-women".
There are 3 million verifiable Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, and many of them are
women who vehemently disagree with Kludd. Again, this is character assassination intended
to defuse the issue, which is that Kludd can't defend their position.
Jeff Weakley writes: "John Knight is a fella who teaches that
being "born again" (from above) means to be born a physical Israelite.
He denies regeneration by the Spirit of God."
Jesus is quoted in John 3:6 as having said "that which is begotten [not born] of
flesh is a flesh, and that which is begotten [not born] of the spirit is A spirit".
If you want to know who's begotten of the flesh, take a look at Galatians 4 where Paul
tells us that this is Ishmael and his descendants. Who does Paul say in this allegory is
begotten of the Spirit? Read Galatians 4 yourself to discover who, see http://christianparty.net/allegory.htm
to see a detailed analysis, or reject what Jesus and Paul say and follow what Jeff says.
Jeff Weakley writes: "His greatest weapon is to change definitions of Hebrew and
Greek words. We all use tools such as Strong's and various Lexicons and Dictionaries. This
serpent goes in and without any competent authority changes definitions to suit his own
ends."
If Jeff were here he might argue that the word "begotten" in the above Scripture
should actually be "born", but the problem is that the Greek word that appears
there is "gennao" [Strong's #1080] whch means "begotten". Even the KJV
translators translated it as "begotten" 7 times and "begat" 42 times.
Had John intended to say "born", he would have used the Greek word
"genos" [Strong's #1085] which DOES mean "born" as it meant
"born" in the following Scripture:
Act 18:24 And1161 a certain5100 Jew2453 named3686 Apollos,625 born1085 at Alexandria,221
an eloquent3052 man,435 and(5607) mighty1415 in1722 the3588 Scriptures,1124 came2658
to1519 Ephesus.2181
This is not an attempt to redefine Scripture as Jeff claims. To claim that this
"serpent goes in and without any competent authority changes definitions to suit his
own ends" ignores that God gave us our own minds so that we could comprehend the
difference between "born" and "begotten".
These are two very different words, even in Greek. "Begotten" occurs with the
father, and 9 months later, "born" occurs with the mother. By substituting the
word "born" where "begotten" should be, judeochristians have added a
connotation to what Jesus said that could not possibly have been there.
It that doesn't make sense, please see http://christianparty.net/spirit.htm
And if this doesn't at least set the record straight, then what can?
John Knight
ps--Pastor Downey writes: "He speaks with a strong New York accent. I have difficulty
trusting him". I happen to detest New York accents with a passion, regardless of who
the speaker is, so in a sense I agree with Pastor Downey's statement in one respect. Most
New York accents sound like jew accents, which to me sound like they're straight from the
devil. I've met Italians with worse accents than the jews themselves, and trust them even
less than jews in some ways.
With such an opinion of New York accents, do you think it's at all possible that Pastor
Downey is correct about my accent?
|
This is either the most disingenuous post from a putative
"White Racialist" to ever cross our computers, or it's the best evidence ever
for why God commanded that women may not ever teach, preach, prophecy, nor have authority
over a man:
"I find it interesting that Seedliners allow this filth without
taking Lindstedt to task for UNCHRISTLIKE behavior. The Christian
men I learned from (Butler, Miles, Louis Beam, among many others) in
20+ years of being a Seedliner weren't anything like this. It
was this ugly, unchristlike, unaccountable type of behavior
exhibited by Lindstedt, Bob Jones, John Knight, Willie Martin that
goes dishonorably unchastised by the supposed Christians in their
listservers that opened my eyes to the type of men who were teaching
AND following Seedline. And I turned my back on Seedline because of
that."
If this moral minor learned even the slightest thing from "20+
years of being a Seedliner", she would have learned in the first five minutes
of her revelation that once such a moral conviction is understood and accepted, it's not
going to evaporate overnight, for any reason, otherwise she would have to admit that she
never understood it in the first place. But to *fraudulently*
claim that her only REASON for abonding such a moral conviction is simply the
personalities involved demonstrates the complete futility of ever trying to teach such
women anything, much less relying too heavily on their opinions [or judgment, to use the
term loosely]. Imagine being a man sent off to war based on the moral convictions of
such a disingenuous, flaky, unprincipled, quixotic [not to mention amoral, un-Godly,
anti-Christ, foul mouthed, anti-male, adulterous] personality such as this. Just as
you're about to defeat the enemy, you'd hear from the home front "And I turned my
back on [the war] because of that", or better yet "And I turned my back on [our
soldiers, ala Jane Fonda] because of that".
Imagine how this moral minor would react if Timothy
had said to her: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if
they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety", 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
Can't you hear her now, saying: "And I turned my back on
[Timothy] because of that"?
What if Paul had said to her: "For God is NOT [the
author] of CONFUSION, but of peace, as in all communities of the holy people. Let your
women keep silence in the communities: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but
[they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith The Law. And if they will learn
any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for women to speak in
the community", 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.
"And I turned my back on [Paul] because of that"!@
The final straw for this moral minor, the one which she abused and ignored when she
dumped her previous husband, the one which would have her writing "And I
turned my back on [Christianity] because of that" is Ephesians 5:22-24:
"Wives, subject yourselves to your own
husbands, as to the Lord, because a husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is Head of the
assembly, and He is the Savior of the body. But even as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so also the wives to their own husbands in everything".
Such moral minors not only should not be teaching men, should not be
preaching to men, should not be prophecying to men, should not have authority over men:
moral minors and adulteresses such as her should not even be allowed into the
Congregation of the LORD, ever, for any reason, whatsoever.
For the woman which hath an husband is
bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,
she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband
liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her
husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man. Romans 7:2-3
===========================================
Klunt ("lydia_the_faithful" <lydia@kinsmanredeemer.com)
sez:
I have heard this garbage from Lindstedt long enough. While I owe
NO explanation to Lindstedt, he has perpetuated lies about me ever
since I married Mark Downey. So let me come out with the truth in
order to expose Linstedt to be as much as a liar as what Jesus
claims in John 8:44. And make no mistake about it, Lindstedt is as
evil as any jew.
As a good Christian woman, actively dedicated to the furtherance of
the White Racialist Movement for close to 30 years, I'm here to tell
you that there is no truth to any of what Lindstedt has posted here
in his accusations. Now you have my word against his, but we hold
ourselves accountable to a local CI community of several different
fellowships and I have evidence and witnessness to disprove what he
charges here. He does not know us, nor we him. I find it
interesting that the men of these groups do not mind the lies and
lewdness of this man.
In his 'UNIQUE' style, he continues to build on this story year
after year so that it becomes more preposterous with each new
embellishment, and then presents them 'to the world' as truth, as if
it's some expose'. We've ignored him as long as we could, but this
defamation and slander must be answered to.
Lindstedt to JDGrier on another board said: "Klunt even admitted
that she snuck in a private message to you demanding censorship and
publicly demanding censorship as well."
My Response to the JDGrier: You and I know and nowhere was it
stated that I ever sent a private message to you. But Lindstedt
will go on believing for YEARS thatI sent you a private message, AND
. he'll elaborate on that as time goes on.
Another one of his `truths', Lindstedt says: "on their
own little
listserver ghettos where their MAIN TOPIC OF CONVERSATION is
`Have
you seen the awful things that Martin Lindstedt has been saying
about us?"
My response: If you ever visited the groups we participate on, you
will know that the MAIN TOPIC OF CONVERSATION is the same as most
White Racialist groups and on not on what this perverted little man
is saying about us.
The censorship happens when he shows his true colors in HOW he says
what he is saying. The first post he put on JDGrier is what his
fruits are all about. It's full of lies (and I'll remind you
slander and defamation), pornographic lewdness and filth. Should
that be allowed on Christian sites???? THAT sure sets a good
example of what racialist Christianity is all about, huh??? I
don't believe that for one moment, and either did the owners of
the other Christian listservers. Hence his FILTH is censored.
I find it interesting that Seedliners allow this filth without
taking Lindstedt to task for UNCHRISTLIKE behavior. The Christian
men I learned from (Butler, Miles, Louis Beam, among many others) in
20+ years of being a Seedliner weren't anything like this. It
was this ugly, unchristlike, unaccountable type of behavior
exhibited by Lindstedt, Bob Jones, John Knight, Willie Martin that
goes dishonorably unchastised by the supposed Christians in their
listservers that opened my eyes to the type of men who were teaching
AND following Seedline. And I turned my back on Seedline because of
that.
So, it is time to expose what Lindstedt is saying here, although it
is obvious he is doing it to draw us away from our work from God and
to distract others from the important issues of White Racialism.
The truth of the matter is that he has a private war going with
those who do not adhere to the Seedline doctrine. This character
admittedly gets PERSONAL information from 3rd sources (and possibly
even more distant sources) and then he puts it all together as if
it's fact, elaborating on it as time goes by. ANYONE who dares
to disagree with him is put through the same grind of filthy name
calling and innuendo presented as truth.
For the record, on MY personal situation, he likes to say he's
got a whole slew people who have given him information. But, funny
thing . he's never come to US asking US about the reliability
of that information. He's never ONCE practiced Christian due
process. He's gone to `several' Klansmen (and I find THAT quite
interesting, because I know the history of Badynski's activism and
the condition of the NW Knights' membership when I left Badynski).
He's also found his sources in a few of the non Seedline group out
here . for which there IS a handful of people here that was quite
ticked off at Mark and other church members for holding a bad leader
accountable for his unrepentant and overt sins. There WAS gossip
about Mark and me from 2 women in that group of ticked off people,
but when I heard about the gossip, I approached BOTH women in a
Christlike manner and told them the chronology of events and reason
I was compelled to leave Badynski.
Apparently, the men of Seedline want to believe the gossip of 2
women. So be it. I find that hilarious, given their propensity to
discount and discredit women (especially those who act in a
Christlike manner). My secular divorce was pursued ONLY after 2
years of attempts of reconciliation when I found Badynski had been
having long-term promiscious internet relationships. I have several
hundred e-mails to prove that little scandal. In that time I was
counseled by SEVERAL elders, 3 pastors, 2 pastor's wives and 1
secular professional counselor. My secular divorce was pursued AFTER
approval from all involved AND at Badynski's bidding. My
courtship with Downey occurred AFTER the secular divorce was FINAL
and it was done with much counseling, thought and prayer. If men
and women don't understand that and wish two faithful servants of
the Lord happiness, then that is their issue with God. But they
will not be running MY life.
Now my word against Lindstedt's? Oh, you bet. But, accountability
will remain where our Lord and Master is concerned. Lindstedt will
have his day of judgment, and so will all the other men on these
lists who have not taken him to task for his unchristlike actions.
And I will continue to expose this filthy liar and challenge the
TRUE MEN OF GOD to chastise his filth and unchristlike behavior.
Now, for a couple comments about his post. My comments are in all
caps, not for yelling, but to differentiate his comments from mine.
| |
|
