Noah’s Three Sons Providentially Correspond to the Three Synoptic Gospels by Arthur Custance
Arthur C. Custance was a man of many talents and has been described as a Christian anthropologist, an Anglican theologian and an apologist. He is widely known for his vast writings on Science and the Scripture, particularly their relation between each other. Custance pens the following in his work Noah’s Three Sons:
“It may be pointed out that in Genesis 10 the sons of Noah when grouped together are habitually put in the same order — Shem, Ham, and Japheth —although it is not absolutely certain that this is the order in which they were born… The Three Synoptic Gospels. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are termed synoptic because they deal with the events of our Lord’s life in a way quite distinct from the Gospel of John… It has been observed from the time of the earliest commentaries that Matthew presents a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ as King, and wrote his Gospel primarily with the Jewish people in mind. The opening genealogy traces this King, appropriately, back to David and to Abraham. His Gospel is full of references to the Old Testament and continually points out how this or that event was a fulfillment of prophecy. This was a message directed primarily to the children of Shem. Remembering the order in which the sons of Noah are always given, one might logically expect that the second Gospel, Mark’s, was directed to the children of Ham. We believe that it is… For Mark wrote his Gospel with the clear intent of portraying our Lord as a Servant of mankind… This is a wonderful truth. That the children of Ham have been servants par excellence to mankind —have in fact habitually served mankind better than they served themselves… That Mark wrote from this point of view seems clear. There is no genealogy of the Lord. A servant is known by his service, not by his pedigree. Mark is full of such phrases as immediately, straightway, forthwith, etc. This Man commanded power. It is a striking thing that the gods of Hamitic people on the whole were gods of power, whereas the God of Shem was preeminently moral, and the gods of Japheth were gods of illumination. Mark’s Gospel is a Gospel of doing, ceaseless activity; and there are some references to the sublime position of a servant which are not found in the other Gospels. Here and there Mark refers to people as servants where the other Gospels omit the fact, and Mark himself is singled out elsewhere as of particular service to Paul. Luke’s Gospel was clearly written for the Gentiles. It appears traditionally that the term Gentile was reserved for the children of Japheth. This is reflected in Genesis 10:5. It is further probably reflected in a passage which we shall examine a little more fully subsequently… Luke wrote for these people… In his Gospel, the genealogy of the Lord quite properly goes back to Adam, and the characteristic delineation of the Lord is as the ‘Son of Man.’ It is also worthy of note that the name Japheth means ‘fair’ or ‘light,’ as the word Ham means ‘dark…’ The word Luke also means ‘fair’ or ‘light.’ So we have three synoptic Gospels which, by many internal evidences far too numerous to enter into here, seem clearly to have been written under divine direction specifically for Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in this order. It is not certain of course that the actual text of each Gospel was completed in this chronological order, but the fact remains that God has seen to it that they should be preserved for us from the earliest times in the order in which we find them today.”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, pages 16-18.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
Arthur C. Custance was a man of many talents and has been described as a Christian anthropologist, an Anglican theologian and an apologist. He is widely known for his vast writings on Science and the Scripture, particularly their relation between each other. Custance pens the following in his work Noah’s Three Sons:
“It may be pointed out that in Genesis 10 the sons of Noah when grouped together are habitually put in the same order — Shem, Ham, and Japheth —although it is not absolutely certain that this is the order in which they were born… The Three Synoptic Gospels. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are termed synoptic because they deal with the events of our Lord’s life in a way quite distinct from the Gospel of John… It has been observed from the time of the earliest commentaries that Matthew presents a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ as King, and wrote his Gospel primarily with the Jewish people in mind. The opening genealogy traces this King, appropriately, back to David and to Abraham. His Gospel is full of references to the Old Testament and continually points out how this or that event was a fulfillment of prophecy. This was a message directed primarily to the children of Shem. Remembering the order in which the sons of Noah are always given, one might logically expect that the second Gospel, Mark’s, was directed to the children of Ham. We believe that it is… For Mark wrote his Gospel with the clear intent of portraying our Lord as a Servant of mankind… This is a wonderful truth. That the children of Ham have been servants par excellence to mankind —have in fact habitually served mankind better than they served themselves… That Mark wrote from this point of view seems clear. There is no genealogy of the Lord. A servant is known by his service, not by his pedigree. Mark is full of such phrases as immediately, straightway, forthwith, etc. This Man commanded power. It is a striking thing that the gods of Hamitic people on the whole were gods of power, whereas the God of Shem was preeminently moral, and the gods of Japheth were gods of illumination. Mark’s Gospel is a Gospel of doing, ceaseless activity; and there are some references to the sublime position of a servant which are not found in the other Gospels. Here and there Mark refers to people as servants where the other Gospels omit the fact, and Mark himself is singled out elsewhere as of particular service to Paul. Luke’s Gospel was clearly written for the Gentiles. It appears traditionally that the term Gentile was reserved for the children of Japheth. This is reflected in Genesis 10:5. It is further probably reflected in a passage which we shall examine a little more fully subsequently… Luke wrote for these people… In his Gospel, the genealogy of the Lord quite properly goes back to Adam, and the characteristic delineation of the Lord is as the ‘Son of Man.’ It is also worthy of note that the name Japheth means ‘fair’ or ‘light,’ as the word Ham means ‘dark…’ The word Luke also means ‘fair’ or ‘light.’ So we have three synoptic Gospels which, by many internal evidences far too numerous to enter into here, seem clearly to have been written under divine direction specifically for Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in this order. It is not certain of course that the actual text of each Gospel was completed in this chronological order, but the fact remains that God has seen to it that they should be preserved for us from the earliest times in the order in which we find them today.”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, pages 16-18.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
👍3💯1
The Gospel was Preached to Shem, Ham and Japheth, in that Order by Arthur Custance
Continuing along the lines of my previous post, Custance notes the particular order Noah’s sons are listed in Scripture. With this in mind, he observes how God often operates according to that pattern. Regarding the gospel being preached to the nations Custance writes,
“The First Preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel was preached first to Shem, then to Ham, and finally to Japheth. Once again there is no doubt about the first and the last of the two branches to receive the Gospel. The message was first to ‘ye men of Israel’ (Acts 2:22) and subsequently to the Centurion Cornelius of the Italian Band, a Roman and a child of Japheth (Acts 10:34). Between these two we have that incident of Philip telling the Gospel to an Ethiopian who gladly heard the message and believed (Acts 8:35).”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, page 22.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
Continuing along the lines of my previous post, Custance notes the particular order Noah’s sons are listed in Scripture. With this in mind, he observes how God often operates according to that pattern. Regarding the gospel being preached to the nations Custance writes,
“The First Preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel was preached first to Shem, then to Ham, and finally to Japheth. Once again there is no doubt about the first and the last of the two branches to receive the Gospel. The message was first to ‘ye men of Israel’ (Acts 2:22) and subsequently to the Centurion Cornelius of the Italian Band, a Roman and a child of Japheth (Acts 10:34). Between these two we have that incident of Philip telling the Gospel to an Ethiopian who gladly heard the message and believed (Acts 8:35).”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, page 22.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
🔥1
All Three Races Played a Role in the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ by Arthur C. Custance
“Those Playing an Official Role in the Crucifixion. Each branch of the race took a specific part in the Crucifixion. The moral responsibility was accepted by Israel (Matt. 27: 25); the physical burden of carrying the Cross was placed upon a Cyrenian, a child of Ham (Luke 23:26); the responsibility for execution was assumed by Japheth, who in the soldiers completed the sentence which only the Roman authorities could perform (Matt. 27:26). As far as Semitic responsibility is concerned, the issue was clear. They said, ‘His blood be upon us and our children,’ though afterwards they sought to unburden themselves of this responsibility (Acts 5:28). It should be stated here that Japheth also shared in this moral responsibility, though it seems that Pilate would have released Jesus if he could have found a way to do it without endangering his own position. Washing his hands did not relieve him of the moral responsibility, yet there is a sense in which he did not have the same kind of moral responsibility as that borne by the Jewish authorities. They set the stage and engineered the course of events, and Pilate found himself trapped… An article appearing in His Magazine by Steven Trapnell dealing with Simeon of Cyrene makes the following observations... this Cyrenian who carried the Cross of Christ was a Negro, coming as he did from North Africa....Such an honour and privilege, initially granted to only one man, was given not to a Jew but to a Gentile; not to a Judean but to a Cyrenian; not to a white man but to a Negro… My own impression is that Scripture is designed to teach this important truth, that God has never lost sight of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, nor ceased to work out His purposes using certain unique qualities which can be shown have, by and large, characterized their descendants.”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, pages 22-24.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
“Those Playing an Official Role in the Crucifixion. Each branch of the race took a specific part in the Crucifixion. The moral responsibility was accepted by Israel (Matt. 27: 25); the physical burden of carrying the Cross was placed upon a Cyrenian, a child of Ham (Luke 23:26); the responsibility for execution was assumed by Japheth, who in the soldiers completed the sentence which only the Roman authorities could perform (Matt. 27:26). As far as Semitic responsibility is concerned, the issue was clear. They said, ‘His blood be upon us and our children,’ though afterwards they sought to unburden themselves of this responsibility (Acts 5:28). It should be stated here that Japheth also shared in this moral responsibility, though it seems that Pilate would have released Jesus if he could have found a way to do it without endangering his own position. Washing his hands did not relieve him of the moral responsibility, yet there is a sense in which he did not have the same kind of moral responsibility as that borne by the Jewish authorities. They set the stage and engineered the course of events, and Pilate found himself trapped… An article appearing in His Magazine by Steven Trapnell dealing with Simeon of Cyrene makes the following observations... this Cyrenian who carried the Cross of Christ was a Negro, coming as he did from North Africa....Such an honour and privilege, initially granted to only one man, was given not to a Jew but to a Gentile; not to a Judean but to a Cyrenian; not to a white man but to a Negro… My own impression is that Scripture is designed to teach this important truth, that God has never lost sight of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, nor ceased to work out His purposes using certain unique qualities which can be shown have, by and large, characterized their descendants.”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, pages 22-24.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
🔥5🤣4❤1
The Curse of Ham or the Curse of Canaan? by Arthur C. Custance
“It has always been a matter of controversy as to why Canaan rather than Ham should have been cursed. Canaan was Ham’s son, and was therefore grandson to Noah. Some people have supposed that the name Canaan was substituted for Ham by Jewish scribes who had particularly strong feelings against this branch of Ham’s family… There is another explanation which seems to me more probable, and which if it is true, means that Noah really was cursing Ham. It is a common social custom among many primitive people to attribute the greatness of a son to the father, who then receives the honor for having raised such a worthy child. This is clearly reflected in Scripture where Saul seeks to honor David after the slaying of Goliath. He asks his general whose son the lad is (I Sam. 17:55). This has always seemed to mean that he did not recognize David, which would seem very strange in view of David’s close associations with him. Undoubtedly Saul knew David well enough, but evidently he did not know who his father was. It was his father he was seeking to honor according to social custom. Also, a woman could not bless a worthy son’s father, but she could bless his mother thereby giving personal witness to his worthiness. This seems to be the background of the woman’s observation in Luke 11:27. A man in blessing his own son was in fact blessing himself. This was true when Noah blessed Shem and Japheth. By the same token, however, if he had cursed Ham, the real offender, he would at the same time have been cursing himself. Quite logically, he could only pass judgment upon Ham by cursing Ham’s own son, which is what he therefore did… In the case of Ham and his descendants history shows that they have rendered an extraordinary service to mankind.”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, pages 25-26.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
“It has always been a matter of controversy as to why Canaan rather than Ham should have been cursed. Canaan was Ham’s son, and was therefore grandson to Noah. Some people have supposed that the name Canaan was substituted for Ham by Jewish scribes who had particularly strong feelings against this branch of Ham’s family… There is another explanation which seems to me more probable, and which if it is true, means that Noah really was cursing Ham. It is a common social custom among many primitive people to attribute the greatness of a son to the father, who then receives the honor for having raised such a worthy child. This is clearly reflected in Scripture where Saul seeks to honor David after the slaying of Goliath. He asks his general whose son the lad is (I Sam. 17:55). This has always seemed to mean that he did not recognize David, which would seem very strange in view of David’s close associations with him. Undoubtedly Saul knew David well enough, but evidently he did not know who his father was. It was his father he was seeking to honor according to social custom. Also, a woman could not bless a worthy son’s father, but she could bless his mother thereby giving personal witness to his worthiness. This seems to be the background of the woman’s observation in Luke 11:27. A man in blessing his own son was in fact blessing himself. This was true when Noah blessed Shem and Japheth. By the same token, however, if he had cursed Ham, the real offender, he would at the same time have been cursing himself. Quite logically, he could only pass judgment upon Ham by cursing Ham’s own son, which is what he therefore did… In the case of Ham and his descendants history shows that they have rendered an extraordinary service to mankind.”
-Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions by Arthur C. Custance, pages 25-26.
𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
👍2
Forwarded from 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕁𝕖𝕤𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝔼𝕩𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕕
Interracial Marriages between Japhetian Loyola/Borgia bloodlines and Shemite Incaic Nobility
As I have noted in my two previous posts: The Jesuit Pioneers of Anti-Whiteism and The Founding Fathers of Race Denialism, the Jesuits favor the annihilation rather than the preservation of the three Biblical, Noahic races. To the end that the Pope of their making can unite the world under a one world government.
The above painting which hangs in the Pedro de Osma Museum and the Church of la Compañía de Jesús, depicts the Marriages of Martín García Óñez de Loyola (nephew of Ignatius Loyola) with the Inca princess Nũsta Beatriz Clara Coya and of Juan de Enríquez de Borja (grandson of Francis Borgia) with Ana María Lorenza de Loyola y Coya, the daughter of the previous couple. Thus the Jesuits were united with Incan nobility through marriages in successive generations. Between the couples are the two most important Jesuits Ignatius Loyola and Francis Borja. Above them is the Jesuit monogram.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕁𝕖𝕤𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝔼𝕩𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕕
As I have noted in my two previous posts: The Jesuit Pioneers of Anti-Whiteism and The Founding Fathers of Race Denialism, the Jesuits favor the annihilation rather than the preservation of the three Biblical, Noahic races. To the end that the Pope of their making can unite the world under a one world government.
The above painting which hangs in the Pedro de Osma Museum and the Church of la Compañía de Jesús, depicts the Marriages of Martín García Óñez de Loyola (nephew of Ignatius Loyola) with the Inca princess Nũsta Beatriz Clara Coya and of Juan de Enríquez de Borja (grandson of Francis Borgia) with Ana María Lorenza de Loyola y Coya, the daughter of the previous couple. Thus the Jesuits were united with Incan nobility through marriages in successive generations. Between the couples are the two most important Jesuits Ignatius Loyola and Francis Borja. Above them is the Jesuit monogram.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕁𝕖𝕤𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝔼𝕩𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕕
🔥3⚡1
Forwarded from The Anglo-Saxon
Kalergi was a race mixed Catholic, but nobody cares to mention that.
👍3💯1
Forwarded from IFB Independent Fundamental Baptists
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
He’s literally us.
❤5💯3👍2
Forwarded from IFB Independent Fundamental Baptists
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Whether you agree or disagree with Kirk’s politics, to place him on the same level as Michael King is to minimize the wickedness and heresies of “MLK”
MLK the Short-Robe Jesuit
“King’s Ignatian spirit impressed itself on those he loved and cared for.” -America
In 1957, MLK wrote to Henry Engler, dean of Loyola University’s (NOLA) business school: “Please copy from Father’s files some of his statements to the people.”By "Father,” King meant Fr. Louis J. Twomey S.J., his earliest ally among Catholic clergy. Twomey had earlier discovered the work of “interracialist” Fr. John LaFarge, S.J.¹; Twomey kept his advisory role secret to “protect” himself and King. King wrote to Engler from Oslo, “I am tired, but I always find time to do what Father says.” ²
In 1965, Jesuit Saint Peter’s College awarded MLK with an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws and Letters. ³
¹Who was on the dais during MLK’s I Have A Dream speech.
See also:
MLK, a Masonic Puppet!
Jesuit John LaFarge, the Father of the Civil Rights Movement.
Modern Integration Founded by a Jesuit.
The Boulé Society, the Black Equivalent of Skull & Bones.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕁𝕖𝕤𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝔼𝕩𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕕 & 𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
“King’s Ignatian spirit impressed itself on those he loved and cared for.” -America
In 1957, MLK wrote to Henry Engler, dean of Loyola University’s (NOLA) business school: “Please copy from Father’s files some of his statements to the people.”By "Father,” King meant Fr. Louis J. Twomey S.J., his earliest ally among Catholic clergy. Twomey had earlier discovered the work of “interracialist” Fr. John LaFarge, S.J.¹; Twomey kept his advisory role secret to “protect” himself and King. King wrote to Engler from Oslo, “I am tired, but I always find time to do what Father says.” ²
In 1965, Jesuit Saint Peter’s College awarded MLK with an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws and Letters. ³
¹Who was on the dais during MLK’s I Have A Dream speech.
See also:
MLK, a Masonic Puppet!
Jesuit John LaFarge, the Father of the Civil Rights Movement.
Modern Integration Founded by a Jesuit.
The Boulé Society, the Black Equivalent of Skull & Bones.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕁𝕖𝕤𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝔼𝕩𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕕 & 𝔹𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 ℍ𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟
💯5
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
Catholic Church seems to be a major player in pushing refugees because they want more Catholic Latinos in America.
The folly of putting religion before race!
@MartinezPolitix
The folly of putting religion before race!
@MartinezPolitix
👍5