The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/s/savage.rick/1995/rs.1195


From rsavage@netcom.com Tue Nov  7 07:33:19 PST 1995
Article: 292675 of talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!simtel!news3.noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Which Law for you?
Message-ID: 
Organization: SFA> http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 21:46:12 GMT
Lines: 15
Sender: rsavage@netcom19.netcom.com

    A change in society cannot be made unless we look at what standard we
use to deterimine "right" and "wrong."  In other words, which Law
deterimines our standard for justice and order.  There can be no
change unless there is a change in Law.
 
    This problem is discussed further in the file:  "This Book of the
Law:  Which Law for You?" which is now available for download at:
 
FTP-   ftp.netcom.com/pub/Sf/SFA
WWW-   http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ____________________
|  For unique political commentary & Christian views     Rick Savage      | 
|   SFA on WWW:  http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/           P.O. Box 5251     |
|    SFA by FTP:  ftp.netcom.com/pub/SF/SFA        Denver, CO 80217 (u)SA |
|  Mel Vig: http://www.tfsksu.net/~aryan_r/archive/straight/mvindex.html  |
 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!simtel!news3.noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Which Law for you?
Message-ID: 
Organization: SFA> http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 21:46:12 GMT
Lines: 15
Sender: rsavage@netcom19.netcom.com

    A change in society cannot be made unless we look at what standard we
use to deterimine "right" and "wrong."  In other words, which Law
deterimines our standard for justice and order.  There can be no
change unless there is a change in Law.
 
    This problem is discussed further in the file:  "This Book of the
Law:  Which Law for You?" which is now available for download at:
 
FTP-   ftp.netcom.com/pub/Sf/SFA
WWW-   http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ____________________
|  For unique political commentary & Christian views     Rick Savage      | 
|   SFA on WWW:  http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/           P.O. Box 5251     |
|    SFA by FTP:  ftp.netcom.com/pub/SF/SFA        Denver, CO 80217 (u)SA |
|  Mel Vig: http://www.tfsksu.net/~aryan_r/archive/straight/mvindex.html  |
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!simtel!news3.noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Which Law for you?
Message-ID: 
Organization: SFA> http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 21:46:12 GMT
Lines: 15
Sender: rsavage@netcom19.netcom.com

    A change in society cannot be made unless we look at what standard we
use to deterimine "right" and "wrong."  In other words, which Law
deterimines our standard for justice and order.  There can be no
change unless there is a change in Law.
 
    This problem is discussed further in the file:  "This Book of the
Law:  Which Law for You?" which is now available for download at:
 
FTP-   ftp.netcom.com/pub/Sf/SFA
WWW-   http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ____________________
|  For unique political commentary & Christian views     Rick Savage      | 
|   SFA on WWW:  http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/           P.O. Box 5251     |
|    SFA by FTP:  ftp.netcom.com/pub/SF/SFA        Denver, CO 80217 (u)SA |
|  Mel Vig: http://www.tfsksu.net/~aryan_r/archive/straight/mvindex.html  |
 

From rs241@delphi.com Fri Dec  1 13:13:00 PST 1995
Article: 14504 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!in2.uu.net!news-feed.mci.newscorp.com!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: rs241@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: VERGASSUNGSKELLER  =  Carburetion Cellar
Date: Fri, 1 DEC 95 09:20:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 303
Message-ID: 
References: <812427584snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <44nbqe$mgo@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> <812705164snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <455ppn$hro@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <816651696wnr@stumpy.demon.co.uk> <467fl8$vqq@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>  <477e76$924@ <48hgaa$14ai@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1b.delphi.com
X-To: John Morris 

John Morris  writes:
 
>The only definition offered by Butz that has been posted to this
>newsgroup by Revisionists has been that "Vergasungskeller" meant a
>coal gasification or coking plant.
 
 
 
 
As far as I know I may have been the only one who had offered that
suggestion by Dr. Butz.  Dr. Butz had offered several suggestions at
the 1992 IHR Conference.  I was challenged to produce evidence on
the carburation of coke.  The person I was dealing with was either
ignorant or was trying to define the argument by limiting it to
one aspect to Dr. Butz's thesis.  I chose to define the counter-
argument by introducing Dr. Butz's statements gradually.
 
 
 
>Since coke is 92% carbon, and most of the rest is ash, you have to ask
>yourself how much usable gas would they really have extracted from
>coke. You mention Pressac's first book below. Does it have the same
>pictures of the exteriors of the Kremas as the new book? Given the
>size of the rooms marked as "cokerie," are you seriously proposing
>that they could have extracted sufficient gas from coke--or even from
>coal--to act as a secondary fuel source? Are you seriously proposing
>that you could even set up a coking plant in such a small space?
 
 
Question #1:  I do not know how much gas can be extracted from coke.
If you want to present something that would debunk Dr. Piper's and
thesis, then be my guest.
 
 
Question #2:  When I first saw Pressac's first book I was surprised at
the quantity of photographs of the Crematoriums.  Especially at it's
construction stage.  The question I have to ask are there interior
photographs of the LeichenKellers?  There was one photograph of the
furnace room during one stage of it's construction.  I think there
are more.   I find it ironic that most of these photographs were not
published before Pressac's first book. Especially when one see's that
the prisoners seam to be in good health and are wearing warm clothes.
This book is also limited to a thousand or two-thousand copies so very
few people will have access to this book.
 
 
 
Question #3:  The French word cokerie is defined as coking plant (1993,
Larousse French-English/English-French dictionary, page 168).  This is
the only definition given in this dictionary.  If you have a different
dictionary, please provide a citation.
 
 
 
Question #4 and part of #3:  Dr. Piper said in one essay that there was
a coking plant in Crema II and that there were coke gas generators.
Mr. Pressac had used the French word cokerie in his original book
contradicting his English words.  His recent essay uses the word
coking plant in English.  Maybe your asking the questions to the wrong
person?
 
 
>I rather think that Butz' primary interest was in showing that it was
>technically impossible to have cremated something short of a million
>bodies in the last eighteen months that Auschwitz was in operation.
 
 
So far exterminationists have failed to prove that it was technically
possible to cremate one, two, three or four million people or that it
was done.
 
 
 
>>  On pages and 219 of the
>>Anatomy of The Auschwitz Death Camp, Jean-Claude Pressac with Professor
>>Robert Pelt included a partial drawing of Krema's IV.  They called this
>>particular room a coking plant.
>Actually, no they didn't. In Pressac's book _Les Crematoires_ upon
>which the article is based, the coke room is called simply "cokerie."
>I called Van Pelt about this, and he said that the captions were
>prepared by someone at the press long after he and Pressac were done
>with the translation and the citations. Van Pelt said that they should
>have been labeled "coke room" and that all that was kept in those
>rooms was solid coke whcih was the fuel source for all the Kremas.
>Professor Van Pelt expressed his regrets at the error.
 
 
As I said before, the French word cokerie translates into coking plant.
If you have an alternative translation, please provide one with a
reference.  I don't accept Professor Van Pelt's explanation for this
potential error.  I think I have an idea as to what happened, but I
would rather hear it from your side first.
 
 
 
 
>>When Mr. Pressac published his first book,  he had included a facsimile
>>of the telegram from Auschwitz to Topf & Sons requesting ten gas
>>detectors.  Several Revisionists had claimed that this telegram was in
>>regards to the gasifing aspects of the operation of the cremation.  Mr.
>>Pressac's recent essay located in Anatomy .... includes a facsimile of
>>Topf & Sons reply.  This alleged document was released after the fall of
>>the Soviet Union.  What I find so bizarre is the fact that DEGESCH the
>>producers of Zycklon B have gas detectors available, and that the
>>Auschwitz personnel did not request information from them first.
>Who knows. Perhaps they did request them from DEGESCH first and
>DEGESCH was out of stock. It happens. Do you know for a fact that
>DEGESCH stocked gas detectors in the first place? I don't know either
>way.
 
 
According to document NI-9912, there is a reference to one type of gas
detector (a paper strip).  This document was not issued by DEGESCH, but
by the Health Institute of Bohemia and Moravia.  This is the only
available wartime or prewar guide to the usage of Zycklon  that I am
aware of.  Since Zycklon  is a brand name and the word Zycklon appears
on the document, I can only conclude that this document was based on
DEGESCH's literature of that time.
 
 
I think DEGESCH  also had a monopoly on the production of Hydrogen
Cyanide products for fumigation.  So they would have been the best
choice to obtain gas detectors.
 
 
 
>>I believe Mr. Pressac in his first book claimed that the SS did not want
>>to arouse suspicion or some thing of that nature.  How silly.  As far as
>>I am concerned the facsimile that appears in Anatomy .... is a forgery.
>>Some may ask why would the Soviets forge a document and file it away?
>>The answer is simple.  They knew that the threat of Revisionism was going
>>to eventually going to come into being, and they were preparing themselves
>>for the inevitable.
 
 
 
>"The threat of Revisionism?" I think you overestimate the importance
>of Revisionism in the grand scheme of things. Try to bear in mind that
>Revisionism is a fringe movement utterly bereft of any respectability
>in academia and one which seems only to have a gained its only respect
>within antisemitic and white supremacist circles.
 
 
 
Lord Russell on the first page (The Preface) in The Scourge of the
Swastika (1957 edition) quoted Sir Hartley Shawcross the Chief Prosecutor
for Great Britain.  In it Sir Shawcross, discussed the dangers for
apologists for defeated nations.  I think he was referring to historians;
he used the example of the First World War to substantiate his statements.
At the end of his speech, he had said something to the effect that this
trial would be an authoritative source for future historians to turn to.
It seams that he was warning about the inevitable.   I am pretty sure
that other people have made silly statements similar to Sir Shawcross.
 
 
I don't have to over estimate the importance of Revisionism.  Your
country is doing it for me as well as a host of other Western European
nations.  The case of Ernst Zundel is a classic example.  For nearly
ten years this man was hounded by your government using an archaic law
to destroy him, and it seams they are trying it again based on some of
the recent posts.   This tells me that apologists for victorious nations
have something to fear.
 
 
As to the lack of respect for Revisionism in academia, I think that the
Ernst Zundel case and other cases are a signal to anyone who crosses the
line is going to get squashed.
 
 
Also one more thing: I didn't realize that the publishers of Marco
Polo were White Separatists.
 
 
>In fact, I questioned Van Pelt on a previous occasion on just this
>point. Since it is a common denier assertion that many of the
>documents for the Pressac piece are forgeries because they come from
>the former Soviet Union, the first question I asked was how he knew
>that the Soviet archive was not forged. He made pretty much the same
>arguments that have been made on alt.revisionism before: the Soviets
>never catalogued the archive so they never knew what it was that they
>had. In fact, after they boxed it up and hauled it out of Auschwitz,
>they never even bothered to examine the documents. The archive is
>vast: there are about 60,000 documents in it that have nothing to do
>with the Holocaust or with gassings. They are just part of the huge
>amount of paper work that a big bureaucracy generates.  But Van Pelt
>did add some interesting details.
 
 
I find that statement strange since one of the documents that was
introduced at one of the war crimes trials was the Vergassungkeller
letter.  One item that was not introduced was the Auschwitz death
books.  From what I understand these books list the names and the
cause of deaths of around 60,000 prisoners.  I am pretty sure that
the Nuremberg defense team would have had a field day with these
documents.  Why would the so-called extermination camp of Auschwitz
have performed autopsy's on prisoners when the National Socialists
(based on exterminationist propagandists) would have considered them
human garbage.  Surely a nation that was fighting a war on three fronts
would have preferred their medical staff to serve in other functions.
I am very sure there are many revealing documents that have not come
to light of day.
 
 
 
>Some of the documents exist in multiple copies; the handwriting is
>entirely German; the architectural drawings are quite real and plainly
>written by architects (anyone who has ever looked a blueprint or a
>professionally-done plan will immediately recognize the trained "hand"
>of the architect). Finally, the documents are all signed,
>counter-signed, initialled, date-stamped, cross-signed,
>counter-initialled, and docketed. Anyone who has worked in a big
>bureaucracy will know that this is how things are done. All in all,
>the documents are too many and too elaborately done to have been
>forged.
 
 
 
I don't say all the documents are forged, one could easily forge a few
dozen if not a few hundred documents and insert them with the rest of
the documents.  If typewriters, rubber stamps, paper were left behind
one could easily create new documents.  Signatures may cause a problem.
The most convenient way one could obtain authentic signatures is to
capture the people involved and have them sign the forged paper.
For example what happened to Pru"fer after he had been captured by
the Soviets?  Was he signing a variety of back dated documents?
 
 
 
>Unless you are going to insist upon some infinitely recursive form of
>forensic verification, or that Van Pelt is a liar, or that a man
>trained in the history of architecture cannot tell the difference
>between a real historical architectural drawing and a fake, you are
>just going to have take his word for it that the documents in the
>Moscow archive are real.
 
If that were the case, I could just as easily dismiss the letter that
contains the word Vergassung.  I do try to determine whether or not
it is authentic based on my abilities.  For example, I do not consider
the ariel photographs as entirely fake I just consider the 1 x 4 meter
insertion hole for the gas chambers to be fake.
 
 
>The Soviets presented very little at Nuremburg compared to the British
>and the Americans. The constant complaint of the British and American
>prosecutors was about how ill-prepared thew Soviets were for the
>trials. Flip open any volume of the Blue Series and see how often the
>Soviets are conducting the examinations. As for the Auschwitz
>documents in Moscow, as above, the Soviets simply didn't know what
>they had.
 
 
Like the Vergassungkeller letter?  Was this letter on top of the pile
of 60,000 documents?
 
>>According to Pressac's first English language book, Leichenkeller I
>>(the alleged gas chamber) had a air extraction motor of 3.5 HP.
>>LeichenKeller II was supposed to have a motor of 7.5 HP.  What I find
>>peculiar is the fact (based on the available and allegedly authentic
>>documents) that a more powerful ventilation engine was installed at
>>LeichenKellar II than at LeichenKellar I.  If you can provide a reasonable
>>explanation, please do.
>I don't have access to the book. Perhaps you could post some accurate
>quotations. Perhaps you could post something that showed that a 7.5 HP
>driven deaeration system was actually installed after it was decided
>*not* to use Leichenkeller II as a gas chamber.
 
 
I could be wrong, but I would rather you show  me where exactly where
I am wrong.  Also, when was it considered that Leichenkellar II was
going to become a gas chamber?  What evidence do you have that the
7.5 HP air extraction system was not installed?  What is your source
for that statement?
 
 
>Perhaps you could also explain why Leichenkeller I, supposedly a
>morgue, needed a ventilation system with a capacity of 8000 m3/hr,
>i.e., one that could virtually replace all the air in the "morgue" two
>to three minutes.
 
Perhaps you can explain why a morgue wouldn't need a ventilation system
that powerful.  Perhaps you can give a reference to your claims that the
morgue was capable of  extracting 8000 square meters per hour and what
type of motor.  Perhaps you should consider that dead bodies do smell.
Perhaps you can explain how these numbers were  arrived at.
 
 
>In the meantime, here is a question for you to think about. Bischoff's
>reference to the "Vergasungskeller" says that they could not use the
>"Leichenkeller" (morgue) because the roof supports could not yet be
>removed and that therefore they would have to use the
>"Vergasungskeller" instead. Are you proposing that Bischoff meant that
>they would store bodies in the coal-gasification cellar or carburetion
>chamber at the opposite end of the building while they waited for the
>cement in the roof of the morgue to set?
 
 
 
 
Perhaps you should consider that they wanted to use the
Vergassungkellar as a morgue?
 
 
 


From rsavage@netcom.com Sat Dec  2 08:33:49 PST 1995
Article: 41764 of alt.religion.christian
Newsgroups: alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preamble to the Law - part 1
Message-ID: 
Keywords: Law
Organization: SFA> http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 07:17:01 GMT
Lines: 188
Sender: rsavage@netcom11.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.christnet:35692 alt.christnet.bible:19171 alt.christnet.theology:9879 alt.religion.christian:41764

                       Preamble to the Law
                             Part 1

     I am going to begin today by asking a question.  Can you
imagine a world without any form of law?  A world without any moral
standards or guidelines whatsoever?  I know for certain that I
would not want to live in that kind of a world; would you?

     And so today, we will begin a three part series we're calling
"The Preamble."  That's right, the Preamble.  Do you think you know
what and where it is?  Well, keep listening, and let's see how
right you are.

     We know that God revealed Himself to Adam and gave to Adam
certain laws for we see them being followed in the early chapters
of Genesis.  In James 2:23 we read of Abraham:

     "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith,
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

     And so, Abraham was called a friend of God because "it was
imputed unto him for righteousness," or perhaps we could say of
Abraham as it was later said of Caleb, that "He followed me fully."
     So, in this sense, until God revealed Himself to our
Forefathers at Mount Sinai, we had no law, no moral standards, and
no guidelines for life, public or private.  Oh Yes, of course, we,
the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, European, and kindred peoples have always
been the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and
perhaps blessed with a natural allure of consciousness toward Him.

     But, as scripture teaches, conscience is not nearly enough for
our preservation, much less our salvation, and even though God
revealed Himself in the law and then in the person of Christ, today
we see before our very own eyes that we are reverting to moral
chaos, both personal and societal.  Thus our Anglo-Israel nations
and peoples seem to be turning away from God.

     But anyhow, for Israel, the law began with God's first
revelation to His people made at Mount Sinai in the Ten
Commandments.  We find the Ten Commandments set in Scripture in
Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

     The New Testament Greek refers to the Ten Commandments as,
literally, the "precepts," or the greater as well as all the lesser
laws of God.  Thus when Christ and the apostles taught on the
subject of the Ten Commandments they actually implied and taught
the entire law, including all lesser laws, statutes, ordinances,
and judgments of God.  And this explains what Christ said in
Matthew 5:17:

     "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

     And so, Christ came not to destroy the law, but to establish
it in its totality and to write it in our hearts as we read in
Hebrews 10:16:

     "This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into
their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"

     That, in a nutshell, is the literal doctrine of the New
Testament regarding the Ten Commandments.  But we must immediately
recognize in the Ten Commandments that God makes no distinction to
us between Himself and His Word.  Indeed, in Revelation 19:13 and
1 John 5:7, He is known to us as the Living Word.  And in the
Gospel of John 1:1, 14, we read:

     "the Word was God....  and
     the Word was made flesh."

     And so, it must also be said that God is His Law and the Law
is God.  Now, I am not saying that we should worship the Bible or
the Law, but, insofar as God has revealed Himself to us, He has
revealed Himself as a God Who is known by the Name and by the
content of His Word and Law.

     And I think that we have lost much of our revelation and
knowledge of God because we have not studied or viewed the Law as
God.  So, let us take a look at the Ten Commandments, for this was
the first time the Israel people as a nation received and began to
know God, and let's see if we can recover some of this lost
knowledge and grow in the wisdom of the Lord thy God.

     The Ten Commandments are extremely important words because
they established God as the only God of Israel and as a covenant
keeping God for His Israel people.  And so, let's read the Ten
Commandments from Exodus 20:2-17:

     2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee
out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
     3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
     4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth.
     5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me;
     6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that
love me, and keep my commandments.
     7  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God
in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that
taketh his name in vain.
     8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
     9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 
     10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD
thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates:
     11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it.
     12  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days
may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee.
     13  Thou shalt not kill.
     14  Thou shalt not commit adultery.
     15  Thou shalt not steal.
     16  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour.
     17  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou
shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any
thing that is thy neighbour's.

     You will find the second witness of the commandments in
Deuteronomy 5:6-21.

     Now if we study, and I mean really study these Ten Words, we
will find that they contain much more than just commands, because
as part of the Living Word, they contain facts about Who He is.

     For here, we learn historical facts, such as the LORD God is
the one "who brought you out of the land of Egypt."  Of course,
this is a reference to Israel and no other peoples.

     Here we learn doctrine, or theology, about the personality of
God, such as, "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God."  We hear
promises, that He is the one "showing loving-kindness."  We also
notice a threat of "visiting iniquity."  And we also see His
justification or rationale, such as, "for in six days the LORD God
made heaven and earth."

     Altogether, the commandments and ordinances given in Exodus 24
are the Living Word, and that makes them more than just plain old
everyday laws.  They are God's teachings.  So then, biblical law,
is not merely law as we think of it in the narrow sense -- that is,
a list of do's and don'ts, but the law contains teachings related
to all aspects of our God.

     The law, then, is not just the foundation for a legal code,
but the foundation of wisdom, insight, and learning about God
Himself.  That is, the law is much more personal than we normally
think of it.

     If we understand the law in this sense, as being a part of the
fullness of God, then we can better understand our forefathers'
appreciation for the law and how, through obedience to it, they
were righteous before God.  As so, before closing for today we
might just read Luke 1:6, for there we are told:

     "And they were both righteous before God, walking in
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord
blameless."

     So the only walk with God that they understood in the Old
Testament was obedience to the commandments and ordinances of God.
     In our next article we will look more specifically at the
preamble to the law.

Gospel Ministries
PO Box 9411
Boise, ID  83707
Message by Pastor Bob Hallstrom



-- 
 _____________________________________________________
|        Rick Savage, P.O. Box 5251, Denver, CO 80217-5251  (u)SA         | 
|               SFA on WWW:  http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/                 |
|  Mel Vig: http://www.tfsksu.net/~aryan_r/archive/straight/mvindex.html  |


From rsavage@netcom.com Sat Dec  2 08:33:51 PST 1995
Article: 41765 of alt.religion.christian
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.theology
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preamble to the Law - part 2
Message-ID: 
Keywords: Law
Organization: SFA> http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 07:18:21 GMT
Lines: 192
Sender: rsavage@netcom11.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.religion.christian:41765 alt.christnet:35693 alt.christnet.bible:19172 alt.christnet.theology:9880

                       Preamble to the Law
                             Part 2

     In our last article I began discussing the "The Preamble."
That's right, I said preamble.  And as I promised, we will now look
at this preamble -- but the preamble to what?  Well if you
remember, in the last article I gave you the answer.

     Many of you are familiar with the Constitution of the United
States.  At the very beginning of the document, we find a preamble
that begins "We the people, of the United States," etc.  Well this
preamble was not an accident.  Now everyone knows about the ten
commandments but few stop to realize that it, too, has a preamble. 
And so let us read the preamble along with the 1st Commandment. 
God stated and commanded in Exodus 20:2-3:

     2  "I am the LORD thy God, who brought you out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage;
     3  "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

     The preamble to the ten commandments is found in verse two and
tells us a great deal about all of the commandments, and even more
as we shall see.  But please notice that the Constitution of the
United States begins "We the people," which makes a clear
declaration of who is responsible for what follows.  And then in
Exodus 20:2 we see that it begins "I am the LORD thy God," once
again declaring who is responsible for what follows.

     When Moses was called, and at the burning bush, and was told
to go to Egypt and deliver the children, he asked God:

     "... when I come unto the children of Israel, and
shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me
unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name?
what shall I say unto them?"  Exodus 3:13

     And God said unto Moses in the following verse:

     "... I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
you."

     So Moses was introduced to the great I AM, and here in Exodus
20:2, God reveals Himself first of all as the great I AM, stating
"I AM the LORD thy God."  The words "I AM" refer to the living God. 
How else can even we express the sense of our existence other than
by such words as "I AM."

     Next we find another name used of God:  "LORD" in capital
letters.  While this name, that is LORD, or YHWH (Yahweh) in the
Hebrew, was previously known to our forefathers, the complete
meaning of the Name was not revealed to them.  But God had shown
them that He was El Shaddai, or God Almighty, or the God
All-Powerful.  And in the context of El Shaddai, the name is used
in conjunction with God's power to supply all the needs of His
people.

     But in the Word of the LORD, as revealed in Exodus 20:2, the
LORD thy God begins to keep those promises made to their
forefathers and to live out the history of His covenant with us,
His Israel people.  Yes, the LORD is the maker of a covenant with
Israel, He is the keeper of covenant promises, and thus He is the
supplier of Israel's needs.

     In this regard when you see the word LORD, that is LORD in
capital letters in your King James Bible, it always refers to a
covenant keeping God, and of course the covenant was made with
Israel -- not with all nations or peoples of the world.  And so,
because of the covenant God made with Israel, the words LORD or
Yahweh, and Israel, are words that go together, and when you see
LORD, in capitals you must also see Israel.

     This is also evidenced in the entire phrase "I am the LORD thy
God.  For here God also reveals that He is: "thy God," telling us
that He is specifically the God of Israel alone.  And Oh yes, God
is the one Who made everything that exists, including Adamic man
and all other creatures.  But, in the Old and new Testaments, God
is the covenant making and keeping God of Israel, and Israel alone.

     In addition, the statement "I am thy God," implies that there
are other gods in the world, but, in relation to the LORD thy God,
all other gods are lesser gods, and in reality are fictitious gods
for they only exist in statutes and perhaps in the imaginations of
men.  But the LORD thy God is the living God.  The living God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

     And so when The LORD thy God states that He is our God, or
"the LORD thy God," He is breaking the news that He has reconciled
Himself to us.  You see, our forefathers were no longer lost or in
slavery.  They were no longer consumed by a foreign culture and
foreign religion, but God's liberty had risen like a new and
shining sun in their lives, and on their nation.

     This is the glory God's people were destined to enjoy, and not
the temporal, half-shine of golden calves, brass Molechs, and other
lesser gods.  The phrase "thy God" also implies a union, that is,
a marriage, and, indeed, God goes on in the commandments to reveal
that He is a jealous God, a God who is jealous of our attention and
affections for foreign, or substitute gods.

     And finally, in the words "I am the LORD thy God, the LORD God
commands us to put all eternal faith and trust in Him, the one and
the only true God of Israel.  The One who brought us out of Egypt. 
The One who has redeemed us from bondage to sin, bondage to alien
cultures and religions.  And it is only following this supreme
Word, that we are given a series of orders we are to live by.

     Now, in those days, if our forefathers sinned, they were
redeemed and their sins were covered by the sacrifices, but with
the final sacrifice of the perfect Christ, those sacrifices were
overtaken or done away with.  Just as God's law was and is final
and eternal, we now have a final and eternal sacrifice, and God's
order is complete and established.  What was elementary,
introductory, and preliminary in the Old Testament is now finished
in the Gospel.

     The LORD God also says in the preamble to the law that He is
the one who brought our forefathers out of the land of Egypt. 
Recall now that the promise of leaving Egypt meant a fulfillment of
the promise to go to a land "that flows with milk and honey."  And
we should understand that every land that is blessed by God flows
with rivers, with water, or with living rivers of water; yes any
land blessed by God will flow with milk and honey.

     I won't cite all the specific scriptural references just now,
but you'll recall the land and Garden of Eden, from Genesis 2:10,
and the Circle of the Jordan, in Genesis 13:10.  Even Egypt, during
the time Joseph was there, and until it fell from God's grace, it
was blessed as the Hebrews lived in Goshen, the very best territory
in all Egypt (Genesis 47:6).

     But even as the Hebrews fell into idolatry and sin, so Egypt
become a foreign hell hole for them and for the Egyptians.  And so
God delivered His people out of Egypt, and had them move to the
land of Canaan.  God was moving our forefathers out of dust and
death and into a land of abundance, a land flowing with milk and
honey.

     But let us continue our look at the preamble to the law, in
the very first and supreme Word of God to us as a people.  He
commanded:

     "I am the LORD thy God, who brought you out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery..."

     In Joseph's time, Egypt and life under the Pharaoh was a
blessing for God's people.  You'll recall that Joseph was placed in
command over the entire house, or nation, of Pharaoh, and the
nation grew fat with riches and stores of grain even in times of
famine.

     Indeed, the title Pharaoh means, literally, "great house." 
And of course we know that Israel became rich and prosperous in the
land of Goshen but in being associated with Egypt, they in a sense
served Egypt and in that sense they began to lose their identity. 
Perhaps I could say that service to Pharaoh became bondage for our
Forefathers.

     We see a like thing happening to us in this day and age for as
more and more people serve the state, they grow to love their
salaries and benefits, which actually become a form of bondage, and
thus they accept the spirit of captivity as false security.

     You see, our forefathers began to look on Pharaoh as a God and
not merely as a ruler or a judge of men.  And likewise today as man
looks more and more to the state for his well being, he, whether he
recognizes it or not, looks to the state as being his god -- his El
Shaddai, the provider of all things.

     But, as I have stated there is only one "The Lord thy God,"
and in Him lies all Authority and Power.  Yet scripture also speaks
of our making judgments as "little gods."  These "little gods," are
mortal men who have matured to the point of being qualified to make
judgments and rule over other men.

     For example, the 82nd Psalm, provides for us the duties and
responsibilities of magistrates or civil rulers and we need to read
three verses from this Psalm.  Join us next time as we conclude
this three-part series on "The Preamble to the Commandments of God.


Gospel Ministries
PO Box 9411
Boise, ID  83707
Message by Pastor Bob Hallstrom


-- 
 _____________________________________________________
|        Rick Savage, P.O. Box 5251, Denver, CO 80217-5251  (u)SA         | 
|               SFA on WWW:  http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/                 |
|  Mel Vig: http://www.tfsksu.net/~aryan_r/archive/straight/mvindex.html  |


From rsavage@netcom.com Sat Dec  2 08:33:52 PST 1995
Article: 41766 of alt.religion.christian
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.theology
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preamble to the Law - part 3
Message-ID: 
Keywords: Law
Organization: SFA> http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 07:19:11 GMT
Lines: 181
Sender: rsavage@netcom11.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.religion.christian:41766 alt.christnet:35694 alt.christnet.bible:19173 alt.christnet.theology:9881

                       Preamble to the Law
                             Part 3

     This is the third and final article on the subject of The
Preamble to the Commandments of God.  We have previously located
and read the ten commandments located at Exodus 20:2-17, but our
emphasis has been placed upon the preamble to the commandments
which began in verse 2 saying "I AM the LORD thy God."

     At the end of our last article I stated that there is only one
"The Lord thy God," and in Him lies all Authority and Power.  Then
I also stated that scripture also speaks of our making judgments as
"little gods," and in this article we are going to look at these
lesser or little Gods.

     These "little gods," are really mortal men who have matured to
the point of making judgments and ruling over other men.  For
example, the 82nd Psalm, provides for us the duties and
responsibilities of magistrates or civil rulers, and before we
continue, we need to read three verses from this psalm:

     1  God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth among the gods.
     2  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the
persons of the wicked? Selah.
     6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are
children of the most High.  Psalm 82:1-2, 6

     In verse 1 we see the word "God" which is translated from
Strong's number 430, but also in verse 1 is the word "mighty" which
was also translated from Strong's 430; therefore verse 1 should
read:

     "God standeth in the congregation of the gods; he
judgeth among the gods."

     The idea being conveyed to us here is that magistrates were to
be regarded as representatives of God, acting in His name, and
therefore, in a subordinate sense, the name "gods" was given to
them.

     In reading verse 2 we see that these "gods" are actually
magistrates or perhaps we might refer to them as "little gods," but
anyhow here they "judge unjustly."  And so men serving as "little
gods" are imperfect and can sometimes exercise false judgment. 
This verse also demonstrates to us that the gods spoken of in verse
1 and 6 are earthly men.

     And so we see that these magistrates are as "little gods" and
they make judgments in court, as governors or judges over other
men, but in verses 6 and 7 God states to these little gods:

     6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are
children of the most High.
     7  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of
the princes.  Psalm 82:6-7

     Thus God appoints men to be gods, that is rulers and
magistrates, and it follows that not all men can be or are
appointed as these little gods.

     Now before you get mad at me for sounding like a humanist, let
me ask you, from where do you think humanism stole all its ideas? 
That's right, they pervert scripture and try to make mere men into
gods, rather than recognizing them as mere rulers or judges.  So
let me clarify further, this matter of "little gods."

     In John 10:34, Jesus Himself reminds us that scripture is true
in this matter of men being gods.  We also see in scripture that
angels are sometimes called "sons of elohim," or "sons of God," and
you can read of this in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7.  Men are
further called elohim or gods in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, 28.

     Unusual as it may seem, it is this historical and scriptural
doctrine that links us to our lost brethren or lost sheep of the
house of Israel throughout the northern European nations, who fell
into the Nordic heresies of Odinism, druidism, and so on.

     These beliefs indirectly recognize and give credence to the
doctrine of Adamite mandate to have dominion over the earth, and in
that sense we are also to be as "little gods."

     And perhaps if our Anglo-Saxon brethren would wake up to their
true identity as the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, then perhaps they could then see that they have a
responsibility to God and their fellow brethren to rule, not as men
making laws over men, but as these little gods administering the
laws of God.

     But there is a grave mistake made in reference to these
"little gods."  "Little gods" are not to be worshipped, for human
beings are simply not God, and thus are susceptible to idolatry,
and even the righteous can fall by seeking to honor "little gods"
-- other men, or even angels -- with worship or divine honors which
rightly belong to God alone.

     In the context of the preamble to the law in Exodus 20:2, the
Hebrews found out Who The LORD thy God was, and that He was supreme
in power and authority.  It was the LORD thy God who ruled over
Pharaoh, over Moses, and all other little gods, be they mortal men
or angels.

     Now before we close we should briefly take a look at the First
Commandment, which in Exodus 20:3, says:

     "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

     The word "other" has also been translated as "strange," and
the two words "before me" are not complete as translated as it
should read "before my face."  Then this verse could just as well
read:

     "Thou shalt have no strange gods before My face."

     The meaning is that Israel was to worship no god in addition
to "The LORD thy God," the covenant keeping God of Israel.  You
see, the LORD thy God was their God and was personally known to
them.  In addition, He and His great power was revealed to them in
delivering them from the Egyptians, in dividing the Red Sea, in
bringing forth water from rock, in providing quail in the desert
and manna from heaven to feed them, and in providing a pilar of
fire to guide them.

     Yes, by such miracles The LORD thy God had revealed Himself to
Israel and in that sense He was not a strange god to them for He
was known to them by the work of His hands.

     Notice also that it does not simply say, "Thou shalt have no
other gods or no strange gods."  It says thou shalt have no other
gods "before me or before my face."  The emphasis of the command,
then, is on placing God first and foremost, and not exalting mere
men or angels on a level with The Lord thy God.

     The Hebrews were dragged out of Egypt not only in compliance
with God's promises to Abraham, but also to end their idolatry of
Pharaoh and to establish the rule and reign of "the LORD thy God." 
Yes they were to be delivered from what was described to us in
Exodus 20:2 as the "house of bondage" and delivered unto a house of
holiness, a nation of holy or separate people, a people having an
identity as the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

     This deliverance can be viewed as a new form of bondage, if we
may call it that, but this time, it was to be bondage to the
kingdom of God.  But in this new bondage there was actually
liberating worship and service to God, and therefore complete and
total liberty, a liberty such as that proclaimed in Leviticus
25:10:

     "... proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto
all the inhabitants thereof:..."

     Is this not the exact proclamation on our own Liberty Bell? 
And is it not significant that the founders of this country would
think to make such an inscription on the bell!  Certainly it is,
and I would suggest it is just another piece of the puzzle that
shows that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and kindred peoples are the
literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

     But the main point I wanted to get across is that the
Commandments are actually much fuller teachings than we generally
recognize, and that biblical law, as we have come to call it, is
not merely a law code in the strictest sense, but teachings related
to all aspects of God.

     If we first worship God, in the manner He commands us, then
obedience and blessing in accordance with all the other laws and in
accordance with Christ's grace becomes possible.  This is the
lesson, the history, and the personality of God, and in this regard
it will behove us to rediscover the preamble to the Commandments of
the LORD thy God.

Gospel Ministries
PO Box 9411
Boise, ID  83707
Message by Pastor Bob Hallstrom

-- 
 _____________________________________________________
|        Rick Savage, P.O. Box 5251, Denver, CO 80217-5251  (u)SA         | 
|               SFA on WWW:  http://www.nilenet.com/~tmw/                 |
|  Mel Vig: http://www.tfsksu.net/~aryan_r/archive/straight/mvindex.html  |



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.