- Christian Identity Directions
- Answering the Shills
- Disdaining the Culture of Fear
- End Time Dates
- Paul Bashers: A Line in the Sand
- Snakes in the Grass
- The Universalism of Eli James
- Weiland Letter 2005
- The Anatomy of my Split with Eli James
- Antichrist News
- Russia No. 1 - The Crimes of the Jews in Bolshevik Russia
- Ahmadinejad - A Friend of the Jews?
- Antichrist Whore
- BBC Says That the Jews Themselves Did Entebbe
- Effrontery of Judaism
- Effrontery of Judaism, Part 2
- Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv
- Genetic Proof of the Blood Relation of Palestinians and Jews
- Jew Media Brags About Israeli Control Over American Gov't
- Jewish Media Control
- Jim Jones: Marxist Shill
- Polluted Anti-Christ Mind, Part One
- The ADL IS Hate
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Five - Jewess Admits Scam
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Four: Israelis Fomenting Racial Agitation
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Three
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Two
- The Devils Pig
- The Enemy Within
- The Jewish Problem
- The USS Liberty: Interview with a Survivor
- Zionism Seemed Hopeless in 1902?
- Historical Documents
- Miscellaneous Bible Topics
- On Biblical Exegesis
- Notes Concerning Daniel's 70 Weeks Prophecy
- Divorce in the Bible
- On the Passover
- Pharma, Part 1
- Pharma, Part 2
- Pork Is Not Food
- Revelation Chapter 20
- Roman Women
- Temple Warning
- The Ephraim-Scepter Heresy, Revelation 5:5
- King James: Why Quote it?
- Prophecy of Television
- Things to Consider
- Christian Identity Directions
- About the Blog
- The Saxon Messenger Editorial Page
- A Tale of Two Englishmen
- Anders Breivik and The Right Far and Faux
- Crimes of the ADL, Part One
- Disdaining The Culture of Fear
- Fascism vs. Capitalism
- Liberalism is Racist
- Misogeny is “hatred of race”
- New Weimar Republic
- On the mongrelization of nations
- Saturday, June 20th
- Society, Think About It
- The Beelzebub Belt
- There Is No Political Solution
- White Liberal Misogeny
- Who is your god?
- Worshipping the Image of the Beast
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 22:20
105:44 minutes (42.35 MB)
Epistle of Jude - Christogenea on Talkshoe 05-11-2012
This name is actually Ioudas, the Greek form of Judah as is evident in the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke. Aside from the patriarch, there were two men in the New Testament associated with Christ who had this name Ioudas, and others who also bore it were mentioned. Attempting to distinguish these men is sometimes difficult, and therefore this epistle was entitled Jude in the A.V., although where he is mentioned in Scripture he is Judas, and the spelling is the same as that given also for that infamous apostle, Judas Iscariot.
Eusebius doubted the canonicity of Jude. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History at 6:14 discusses the work of the earlier Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius states of Clement that “In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly, he gave us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean, the Book of Jude, and the other general epistles.” Unfortunately, so far as I have seen, Eusebius does not elaborate to tell us why these epistles were disputed. Fragments of the work of Clement of Alexandria found in the writings of Cassiodorus show that he esteemed this Epistle of Jude to be canonical on other occasions as well as those cited by Eusebius, and he even quoted it at length along with some commentary. Clement also quoted and cited Jude in both his Paedagogus (The Instructor) and in his Elucidations. Irenaeus does not mention Jude by name, but he clearly quotes verse 7 of this epistle in chapter 36 of the fourth book of his Against Heresies, and he quotes verse 3 elsewhere in fragments which are attributed to him. Polycarp also quoted Jude verse 3 in his epistle to the Philippians. Tertullian both quotes and alludes to Jude over a hundred years before Eusebius' expressions of doubt, as do Hippolytus and Novatian and several other early Christian writers, all of them esteeming the epistle to be legitimate. Origen, in his Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, in chapter 10, said of Jude that he “wrote a letter of few lines … but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace”, referring to this very epistle. So it is clear, that while Eusebius and others may have at a late time doubted the veracity of Jude nearly three centuries after it was written, the early Christian writers did not doubt it.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 04/06/2012 - 20:59
85:42 minutes (34.33 MB)
2 Peter Chapter 3 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 04-06-2012
Peter wrote his first epistle to the Israelites of the ancient Assyrian and earlier dispersions, who were dwelling in western Anatolia, mostly as Greeks, Romans, Scythians and Galatians. People of other Adamic, but non-Israelite, origins also lived in western Anatolia at this time, such as Ionian Greeks and Lydians. The context of his first epistle also demonstrates that these people were already established in Christ, and that Peter was only edifying that establishment. Presenting Peter's first epistle here several weeks ago, certain statements from that first letter were illustrated in order to demonstrate just who his intended audience was. Among them were 1 Peter 2:10, 2:25 and 4:3 which all prove that Peter was not writing to Judaeans, but to the dispersion of Israel from the Assyrian deportations and beforetime, because the things which Peter cites could only refer to them, and could never refer to the Judaeans of the remnant 70-weeks' Kingdom, nor could they ever refer to people who were not descended from the ancient Israelites in the first place.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 22:49
109:17 minutes (43.77 MB)
2 Peter Chapter 2 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 03-30-2012
In the first chapter, the thrust of Peter's message was in support of the truth of the Gospel accounts. Here in the second chapter, he addresses the nature of the adversaries of that Gospel.
II 1 Now there were also false prophets among the people, as even among you there shall be false teachers who shall introduce destructive systems of philosophy, even denying the Master who has bought them, bringing upon themselves quick destruction, 2 and many shall follow in their licentiousness, because of whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed, 3 and with greediness they shall make profit from you with fictitious words, for whom from of old their judgment is not idle and their destruction does not sleep!
This statement of Peter's may seem on the surface to be oriented towards a universalist type of thinking, where it can be imagined that Peter is saying that Christ purchased the false prophets with His blood, and therefore the false prophets also may be redeemed. But that is not the case which Peter is making. Rather Peter states, “from of old their judgment is not idle”, as the destruction of the ungodly had been ordained long beforetime. Peter is discussing the body of the people as a whole, who have always had false prophets among them. The false prophets and wolves in sheep’s' clothing are apparently Israel, they claim to be Israel, but they are not truly Israel and therefore their judgement is ordained from of old. Denying the Master, they must be tares, and not wheat. Peter is talking in terms of what was apparent in his day, and not in terms of genetics. The books of genealogy were long lost.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 03/23/2012 - 23:00
108:22 minutes (43.41 MB)
2 Peter Chapters 1 through 3 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 03-23-2012
Here are the comments of Eusebius on 2 Peter, from his Ecclesiastical History, Book 3: Chapter III. The Epistles of the Apostles.
“1 One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 2 The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. 3 But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.” From a footnote (20): “Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which the Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.”
Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890.)
So Eusebius doubted the legitimacy of the Second Epistle of Peter, but Cyprian and Hippolytus and other later Christian writers quoted from it. Eusebius was not, in my perception, a bad man. He wrote a lot of good things which we can certainly find to be agreeable. This is even in spite of the fact that his attitudes in many instances were very Roman Catholic, before there were any Roman Catholics as we know them, and therefore to me he was a proto-Catholic, in the later and perverted sense of the word. I would not necessarily expect all of the earliest Christian writers to even know of an epistle which Peter had written to only a few of the assemblies of Anatolia, and imagine that it may well have taken some time to get around. Especially since Eusebius claimed only that “we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon”, yet Eusebius does not ever state how such a thing had actually been learned, and therefore his statement amounts to hearsay against those writers earlier than he was, namely Cyprian and Hippolytus, who did accept the epistle as genuine. There are further allusions to the epistle, or so it seems, in the writings of Clement and Justin.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 21:14
95:17 minutes (38.17 MB)
1 Peter Chapter 3 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 03-16-2012
Last week we saw that in 1 Peter chapter 2 the apostle admonishes his readers: “13 You must be obedient to every authority created by mankind on account of the Prince, whether to kings as if being superior, 14 or to governors as if being sent by Him for the punishment of evil-doers but for the praise of those doing good. 15 Because thusly is the will of Yahweh: doing good to muzzle the ignorance of foolish men, 16 as free men yet not as if having freedom for a cover for evil, but as servants of Yahweh.” These words are very much like those of Paul of Tarsus in his letter to the Romans, in chapter 13.
Yahweh raised up the Pharaoh of Egypt during the Exodus, knowing that the Pharaoh was evil, so that Yahweh could destroy him and demonstrate His glory and majesty to the children of Israel. Yahweh had Moses announce to the Pharaoh, which is recorded at Exodus 9:15-16, the following words: “15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. 16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” Yahweh appointed Nebuchadnezzar, whom the world saw as a tyrant, to rule wheresoever the children of Adam dwell, and he did. Yahweh established the Persian, Greek and Roman empires which followed, knowing that they would tyrannize men, knowing that they most often rule unrighteously, and they did. We know that Yahweh established these empires: their rise and their fall are clearly prophesied in Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7, in rather amazing ways. It was within Yahweh's permissive will that the dragon – which represents His Own enemies - was able to give its power to these beasts, and He foresaw what would result. Again, it was all so that His people would see His majesty, and learn to put their trust in Him. They rejected Him as their king over three thousand years ago, and therefore this lesson has been necessary. This is all part of the seven times of punishment foretold in Leviticus 26:18: “And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.” Because these times were decreed by our God for our punishment, we must suffer through them, as also He does.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 03/09/2012 - 22:03
83:36 minutes (33.49 MB)
1 Peter Chapter 2 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 03-09-2012
Discussing the first chapter of 1 Peter we saw that Peter was indeed addressing the uncircumcision, who were Israelites of the Old Kingdom that were dispersed in ancient times, which Peter by this time had fully understood, even though he had not understood it at the time of the events which were described in Acts chapter 10, which actually occurred some years before the writing of this epistle. We also saw how Peter directly connected the Old Testament and the New where he wrote of things such as the “foreknowledge of Father Yahweh in a sanctification of the Spirit in obedience and a sprinkling of the blood of Yahshua Christ”, which we see in the opening lines of this epistle.
Many universalists take the famous vision of Peter found in Acts chapter 10 and insist upon applying it to everyone on the face of the earth, although some numbskulls would instead insist that it applies to the eating of ham sandwiches. The primary key to understanding what Yahweh intended in His vision to Peter is at Acts 10:15 where it is recorded that He says to Peter: “The things which Yahweh has cleansed, you do not deem profane!” Yahweh told us in the Old Testament precisely what it was that He would cleanse. Any imagining of man as to what the object of the cleansing could be, which does not explicitly come from Scripture, is a false gospel. Among many other promises of that cleansing and its pertinence to Israel alone, we have these from Jeremiah and Ezekiel:
Jeremiah 33:8: “And I will cleanse them [Israel] from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.”
Ezekiel 36:25 “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”
Submitted by William Finck on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 01:49
89:21 minutes (35.79 MB)
1 Peter Chapter 1 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 03-2-2012
Each of the epistles of Peter are disputed by various critics. The first is rejected because its language is considered to be the highly polished work of an educated man. The second is oft rejected because it was disputed at an early time, it is not often quoted in early Christian writings, and its language is often quite rough. The differences are easily accounted if it is understood that 1 Peter, which is more or less a formal treatise, was probably related by Peter and penned by Silvanos, which is evident in 1 Peter 5:12 where it says “By Silvanos the faithful brother, as I reckon, I have written to you”, and 2 Peter was more of an informal letter that Peter may have written himself since no one else is mentioned. Both epistles are written to the same audience. While there are only what may or may not be allusions to 2 Peter in Clement and in Justin, the epistle is quoted by Hippolytus. It was later disputed by the Catholics (I use that word here with a capital C, in its more modern sense), such as Eusebius who called it one of the “disputed books”, along with Jude. While 2 Peter is little attested, that would not be alarming for a letter that is more-or-less an informal follow-up to the first longer and more formal treatise. I will offer more in its defense when presenting it later this month. As for 1 Peter, it is often quoted and always thought to have authentically belonged to Peter by significant early Christian writers. For instance, Irenaeus quotes 1 Peter 2:16 in Book 4, Chapter 16 of his Against Heresies, and 1 Peter 1:8 in Book 4, Chapter 9 and in Book 5, Chapter 7. Irenaeus also often calls Mark the “interpreter of Peter”, meaning that Mark wrote Peter's gospel. Likewise, Clement and Tertullian also quote from this first epistle of Peter on various occasions, as do other early Christian writers.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 21:53
72:44 minutes (29.14 MB)
James Chapters 4 and 5 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 01-20-2012
Here, because of its importance, and because of the ways in which the chapter is abused, I thought to repeat James chapter 3, and to present it in a manner a little more pointed than how it was presented last week.
III 1 You must not produce many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive a greater judgment. 2 For we all fail often! If anyone does not fail in word, he is a perfect man able to guide with a bridle even the whole body. 3 Even if the bridles of horses are put into their mouths for which to persuade them for us, then we maneuver their whole body. 4 Behold also, there are such great ships, and being driven by severe winds, maneuvered by the smallest rudder, being driven straight where impulse desires. 5 Thusly also the tongue is a small body-part and boasts loudly. Behold how small a fire ignites so great a forest! 6 And the tongue is a fire, an ornament of injustice. The tongue sits among our body-parts soiling the whole body and setting ablaze the course of existence, and being burned by Gehenna!
Gehenna, the destruction caused by the fiery trials of this life, the wars and strife caused by the tongue. All of these things are of course true, but we must consider how and what kind of speech causes men to slip. And in whose perception do men slip? One man may think that you have erred when he does not like what you say. But what is sin, to slip in the eyes of man? Or to slip in the eyes of God? It may well be that man's pride which causes him to think badly about you. Therefore we have only one Judge: Yahshua Christ, and one Guide, which is His Word.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 22:31
82:35 minutes (33.08 MB)
The Epistle of James - Christogenea on Talkshoe 1-13-2012
II 1 My brethren, do not with respect of the stature of persons hold the faith of our Prince Yahshua Christ of honor. 2 For if perhaps a man should enter into your assembly hall with a gold ring in a shining garment, and a beggar should enter in a filthy garment, 3 then you should look upon he wearing the shining garment and say “You sit here comfortably”, and to the beggar you should say “You stand there”, or “Sit beneath my footstool”, 4 have you not made a distinction among yourselves and become judges of evil reasonings?
“Respect of persons” is respect for the stature or the status of persons in judgement. The Greek word προσωπολημψία comes from πρόσωπον, literally the face, and a verb which means to receive. The use of the term by James reflects that same idea which Paul often infers where the King James Version translates the Greek word προσωπολημψία, which is literally the receiving of a man's appearance, and related words and phrases as “respect of persons”.
Submitted by William Finck on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 22:28
91:55 minutes (36.82 MB)
The Epistle of James, Chapter 1 - Christogenea on Talkshoe 1-06-2012
I do not see how the Hebrew name Ya'aqob, the Greek Iakobos, could have possibly become James in English. At first I pondered the notion that the translators of the King James Version were purposefully flattering the king who commissioned them. However that cannot besince the spelling of this name in the 1560 Geneva Bible is Iames, which today we would write as James. Wanting instead to be faithful to the Greek, when I translated the New Testament I spelled it Iakobos, leaving it as it appears in the Greek Nominative case. The English name James seems to have come from the French word for leg, which is jambe (the 'b' is silent). A related French word jamon, refers to a leg of ham. King James Version apologists strive to connect the two terms since Iakob does come from a Hebrew word with a meaning connected to the heel of the foot. But Ya'aqob (Strong's # 3290) means "heel holder" and therefore allegorically it means "supplanter", and that has nothing to do with a pig's leg.