Download Category: Arnold Kennedy

IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING RACE INTO ANY GROUP HAVING AN ETHNIC BELIEF, religion, common customs, national origins, etc, so that in this context multi-racial Jews can now claim to be an ethnic group. “Anti-Semitic” now is made to refer to anything against the concept of this “Jewish” ethnic group. Anti-Semitism is in no way what it is presented to be. The word, “Anti-Semitism” was first printed as late as 1880, according to the 1901 Encyclopaedia Judaica: Vol. 1/641. It is a term that was created by Zionism, according to modern Jewish authority who state, “Jews began in the 19th century to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860. This coincides with the cry anti-Semitism”-(Ency. Jud.1971,Vol.10:23).

The New Zealand Jewish chronicle of Sept. 1995 on page 15 quotes historian Robert Wistrich who says, “It dates back to 1879, the invention of a German journalist and writer who wanted to signify that anti-Semitism was not the same as traditional religious hatred of Jews, and therefore coined a phrase which had a racial connotation”.

The word, “anti-Semitism” was first printed as late as 1880 according to the 1901 Jewish Encyclopaedia: Vol 1 P. 641. The word is used as a cover-up by those claiming to be Israelites or Shemites, “but who are not”-[Rev 2:9]. These are who are known and identified as International Jewry today; they themselves state that they are Edom, as has been shown.

To be anti-Semitic rightly means being against the descendants of Shem, the son of Noah. Biblical Israel are Shemites. Historically and biblically, there are peoples known as “Jews” who are not Shemites, and some of these others descend from the other two sons of Noah, Japheth and Ham. They are not Israelites, but neither are some other Shemites.

Today we find a push for world government by these particular people, as usual through the socialist platform:

THE MEANING OF THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ HAS BECOME SO DISTORTED IN TODAY’S SOCIETY that it is difficult to comprehend what liberty actually means. Everyone wants his ‘rights’ but few seem to realise that rights [i.e. liberties] are defined by God’s law. Consider the sign displayed outside a pornography shop in the U.S.A. “Please do not harass the picketers. It is their Constitutional right to picket, just as it is our right to do business”.

The pornographers are hiding behind a man-made law while loudly proclaiming that what they’re doing is perfectly legal. It’s a sad fact to note that most of the modem church agrees with them! As long as these public sinners stay ‘out there,’ outside the four walls of the church, it is supposedly their right to do whatever they please, and we who publicly oppose them are infringing upon their rights.

But, why are we opposed to pornography? Why cannot we live side by side with the pornographers in peace? Because there will be no peace where there is pornography! Pornography is a proven prelude to rape, murder, and child abuse; more importantly, it is a sin forbidden by God. Because it is sin, if society continues to tolerate – and encourage – this abhorrence, society will be judged, resulting in a restriction on liberties for all. Any attempt to achieve freedom apart from God’s Law will result in loss of true freedom, bondage to sin, and consequent judgement from Heaven.

IN GENESIS CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO WE HAVE ‘ADAM MENTIONED IN THE MASORETIC TEXT, BUT NOT IN THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT OF GENESIS ONE. Scholars may not agree but early translators, including the KJV, indicate plural in Genesis chapter one and chapter 5:2, but singular in chapter two. Even ignoring this, we have a man and a woman (‘them”) being created (bara ‘) in Gen.1 before the ‘Adam (singular) who was formed (yatsar) in Gen.2. “Created” and “formed” have differing meanings. We cannot remain honest if we try to say that “created’ = bara ‘ is the same as “formed” = yatsar. (The same goes for plasso and ktizo in the New Testament).

From the sequence alone there is no way Genesis 2 could be a re-run of Genesis 1. On a weight of evidence basis, there is more to say that Adam (as we use the word) was the first spiritual man, but not the first biological man. In other words, God took one man from Genesis 1 and breathed into him the breath of life. “And man became a living soul”-(Genesis 2:7). The word “became” is consistently used in a manner showing the subject became something that it had not been before. Eve was the “mother of al living” with God’s breath, not of the others. This indicates that there are those with the Spirit, and those “having not the Spirit”-(Jude v19). The latter is the “natural man” who “cannot receive the things of God”-(1 Cor.2:14), but he may become very religious.

WHEN I HEAR OR READ THE WORD “CLEARLY” OR THE PHRASE, “The Bible clearly says”, alarm bells start to ring. My immediate thoughts are something like, “The guy must be out of context”, or “He has got something wrong”. My experience tells me this. Usually many problems in understanding the Bible stem from taking something out of context. It is so easy for any of us to get something wrong, and yet to think we are right when we ourselves are actually taking a matter out of context.

Few people really understand what context is and what the consequences are of misapplying or changing contexts in the Bible. From my observations, misuse of context happens both within Identity and outside of Identity. It happens often! The consequences are either wrong doctrine or wrong practice. Many people completely misunderstand the application of “context”. Where their mistake occurs is thinking that what applies to one context applies to a differing context as well. Doing this is a major cause of doctrinal conflict, and thus projects into our actions.

Most of us will have heard about a person who is supposed to have stuck a pin in a Bible and is supposed to have read, “Judas went and hanged himself”, and then stuck in the pin again and read, “Go thou and do likewise”. This might sound a bit corny, but in sermons and in writings this activity is an ongoing reality. Yes, it does happen; and of course, the consequences may be just as unreasonable and wrong.

This matter of context can be best be illustrated by means of examples. In this paper, we can look three context areas in a general sense and then at one in detail:

WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IS BORROWING MONEY AT INTEREST-(Heb. Daneizo), not other forms of ‘borrowing’, i.e. Heb Sha’al. Lending without interest is commended, but usury is denied.

Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

The principle against borrowing at interest is established under the law, and is expressed clearly in the following two verses.

Deuteronomy 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but THOU SHALT NOT BORROW; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

Deuteronomy 28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and THOU SHALT NOT BORROW.

IS TRUTH JUST A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION? Isn’t one person’s view of ethics just as valid as another person’s? Are not all views, in essence, the same? And does the whole issue of truth and ethics really matter? Does it make any difference? Can the honest seeker of truth decide without accurate data? In our consideration of ethics — the moral evaluation of what is right and what is wrong — we will need to overcome some common misconceptions people hold in this arena of ethical determination.

1) Misconception: ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE

Personal opinion doesn’t determine reality. For example, I can choose to believe that the earth is flat, but the reality of the matter is that the earth is spherical not flat! I may still choose to believe that it’s flat, but I’m still wrong! Another way of stating the claim that all truth is relative is to say, there are no absolutes! Yet in response to this claim I must ask, “Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?” It is humorous to note that the rejection statement — “There are no absolutes.” — is, in fact, an absolute!

Is the statement “All truth is relative,” true? No, it’s impossible since it is a self-refuting statement, one which contradicts itself. It is, in fact, making a statement of absolute truth when it claims, there is no absolute truth!

Some examples of self-refuting propositions would include, “I’m a truthful liar”; “I’m an honest thief”; “I’m a compassionate killer”. All of these statements are false since they are internally contradictory and therefore self-defeating!

WHEN TALKING TO A LOCAL WAIHEKE IDENTITY IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, I was asked, “Arnold, I hope those articles you write in ‘The Waihekean’ are tongue and cheek”. “Well”, I replied, “they are designed to make people think but they are not all tongue in cheek”. This produced a reply on the value of racial mixing and the equality of all races together with an alleged lack of meaningful genetic differences between them. In reply I pointed out two things. Firstly a November article in the N.Z. Herald “Genes Carry Indelible Imprint Of Social Rank” where research showed there are distinctive genetic profiles between the Hindu castes in India.

Secondly I pointed out the matter of race-specific diseases and how racial intermarriage could cause offspring to be liable to a greater range of diseases. This was not received; it seemed as if he was saying that science offended his religion, although I do not think he would class himself as being a religious person. Perhaps he was confusing values with facts, values being a religious non-scientific activity. But what he probably had in mind were matters of worth in the good sense that people in one restricted gene pool should not be treated differently than another, and this made him blind to biological differences, even if everyone who thinks about it knows visible features such as eye shape are because of biological differences.

What bothers me is the attitude of some people who will not believe something regardless of the evidence, and this is what I want to talk about. In the Western world values are considered matters of personal choice and things we should keep an open mind about. But values cannot rightly over-ride facts, and those who promote the idea that values should over-ride facts arrogantly seek to impose their beliefs upon others in a religious manner. People today tend to place facts within the scope of science whereas they say beliefs belong to the realm of religion. A person who will not accept scientific fact is essentially religious.

IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE DEMOLITION, THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING. The most common question is, “Why did God allow it”? Very few are acknowledging any possibility that God did it, because if they did, they would be going against the popular flow. We will make some examination into the verse below that literally says, “God did it”.

Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these”.

In this short verse, there are several different verbs translated as, “form”, “create”, “make” and “do”. These are all in what language experts call the “participle active mood”. A definition of this mood is as follows, “The participle represents an action or condition in its unbroken continuity, and corresponds to the English verb, “to be” with the present participle. It may be used of present, past or future time”. From the use of these verbs, together with the associated nouns, we can see that these facts never change. What God does in a given situation never changes.

WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING IS WHETHER OR NOT MOST SO-CALLED “CHRISTIAN” CHURCHES ARE DAUGHTERS OF THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (ROME). This concept is not new, but we will take a different approach.

Our approach is from that of Matt 13:33, “Another parable spake he unto them; “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took. If this leavened doctrine has now spread through all denominational churches, is any action demanded from those who are members of any of these churches?

“Meal” is a symbol of God’s provision of His Word as something that cannot be used up if a prophet of God is involved. We see this in 1 Kings 17:14, “For thus saith the Lord, the barrel of meal shall not waste”, where a widow was fed “according to the word of the Lord by Elijah”. The meal was continually being renewed. In 2 Kings 4:40, meal was used by Elijah to destroy deadly poison in a pot of food. We find more about three measures of barley meal in Genesis 18:6 and Rev. 6:6.