The Only True Adam of Genesis, Part 3: Adam’s Commission

We have been presenting this series, The Only True Adam, not only because I have been too busy with necessary but worldly tasks here at home to maintain my regular schedule, but also because we are constantly confronted both on social media and within our own real-world circle of associates with long-time Christian Identity adherents who believe that there were two distinct creations of man, each of them called adam, in the Genesis account in our Bibles.

The title of this series, first used by Clifton Emahiser several years ago, is a challenge to those people, that there is one – and only one – creation of Adamic man described in Genesis. The word adam is a collective noun referring to a race of men, as it says in Genesis 5:2 where we read “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” This is a clear reference to the day described in Genesis 1:26-27, and it uses identical language from that passage to describe that race. But the word adam can also be a proper noun, a name used to describe the first male of that race.

As we described in Part 2 of this series, which we understand was quite prosaic and perhaps tedious to follow along with in a podcast, the proponents of this so-called 6th & 8th Day creation theory insist that the adam of Genesis 1:26 is a distinct being from the eth-ha-adam of Genesis 2:7, and the first thing they ignore is that the adam of Genesis 1:26 in the Hebrew is called eth-ha-adam in Genesis 1:27! Then, among other things, we went on to explain that these differences are only grammatical, and other forms, such as ha-adam, al-ha-adam, el-ha-adam and vav-lamedh-adam appear in these same chapters of Scripture. So if one insists that there are two different Adamic creations in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, for reasons of grammar, then one better insist that there were really five or six different Adamic creations in Genesis, for that same reason. But if one insists that there are two different Adamic creations in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 for reasons related to the general narrative, then one must insist that there were three different Adamic creations once Genesis chapter 5 is encountered.

On the Gospel of John, Part 6: The Wedding Feast at Cana

In John chapter 1 the apostle had made many bold statements proclaiming the deity of Jesus, or Yahshua Christ. The assertions that He is the Word made Flesh, the Light of the World, the Lamb of God, and the declaration of the purpose of the ministry of John the Baptist all assert that Yahshua Christ is indeed Yahweh God incarnate. He is THE Son of God because He is the manifestation of God Himself, as it was promised in the Psalms and the prophets. This is better understood once the many passages from the Old Testament which also refer to these things are examined and considered, even if they were not all explicitly cited by John himself. The New Testament cannot be properly understood outside of the context provided by the Old Testament, and we sought to elucidate many of those passages as we presented John chapter 1 over the first five parts of this series.

The gospels of Luke and Matthew open with accounts of certain events from the birth and early life of Christ. But in the third chapter of each of those gospels there is the testimony of John the Baptist. The gospel of Mark, similar to that of John, says nothing of the birth or early years in the life of Christ, and opens with the testimony of John the Baptist. So the testimony of John is the event by which all four gospels open their descriptions of the beginning of the ministry of Christ. Doing so, all four gospels cite Isaiah 40:3, attributing the words to John as they are spoken in reference to Christ, where it describes “3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God,” and explains that John the Baptist was that voice. If John was that voice, then Yahshua Christ must be Yahweh incarnate, the God for whom he prepared the way.

Mark, in that first chapter, also cited Malachi 3:1 in reference to John the Baptist, where it says “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.” Yahshua Christ Himself had later cited this also, in reference to John, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 11 and Luke chapter 7. Both of these passages, from Malachi and from Isaiah, are prophecies of John the Baptist and of Yahshua Christ, and if John was the messenger to prepare the way before the Lord (Hebrew, adon) who would come to His temple, then Yahshua Christ is Yahweh Himself, who came to His temple in fulfillment of that prophecy. Once again, if we believe the testimony of Isaiah and Malachi, then Yahshua must be God incarnate.

The Only True Adam of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2

This evening I am going to present a pair of short essays from Clifton Emahiser, which were originally titled The Only True Adam of Genesis 1:26-27 & 2:7, parts 1 and 2. Some of the comments and data that I may add to these articles as we proceed, I have already discussed at length in various podcasts and articles at Christogenea, but especially in Part 1 of my own Pragmatic Genesis series. Clifton himself has another article on this topic, which he had written some time later, titled "Adam" in the Hebrew in Genesis, and in that initial segment of Pragamatic Genesis I expanded on that article.

I am not going to get into much depth on Hebrew grammar this evening, which is the main topic of Clifton’s other paper and that first part of Pragmatic Genesis. But here I will only say that adding a preposition or a definite article to a noun does not by itself make that noun represent something different from what it represents without the preposition or article. The people who push the idea of two distinct Adamic creations attempt to do just that, and by it they display their own ignorance.

This evening I am making this particular presentation for two reasons. First, because we are traveling this week to the National Conference of the League of the South, and secondly, because even to this day there are certain so-called pastors in Christian Identity who cling to this fallacy of an 8th-Day Creation, and have the nerve to ridicule us for refuting it. One of them will also be at this conference. They do not even bother to offer a discussion, and they really do not know what they are ridiculing. In the end, it is they who shall be ridiculed.

The Road to Here. A chat with some friends, Ferlin, Doug, Sonny and Brett, how they came to Christian Identity, their influences and some of the opinions they formed along the way.

We thank them for their edification and encouragement.

A Critical Review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I COME AS A THIEF

Here we are going to present a critical review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I Come as a Thief. Doing this, we may be especially hard on Comparet for his failed view of eschatology, but before we criticize him we will also admit that, if we had lived in his same era, we too may have fallen into the trap which he did, believing that the end of the age was going to come to its conclusion in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and a nuclear conflagration and invasion of the United States by Communist hordes.

But we now see that the Communist hordes were here all along, and they have already come to control practically everything of note in America. They are called Jews, and have deceived us with party politics and capitalist internationalism while making our Western nations safe for Marxism and a flood of non-White so-called immigrants. These devils were still under much deeper cover in the 1960’s when Comparet was writing, and even he did not see what was truly going to come.

However when we set aside the errors in Comparet’s eschatology, he is still correct in his principal, and that is because he did his best, in spite of the temptations to imagine the future, to adhere to the prophecy already given in Scripture, in both the Old Testament and in the words of Yahshua Christ. So even though the play on the world stage did not take the course that Comparet thought it might, his conclusions are certainly valid and his sermon worthy of review. So he begins:

A man cannot be a podiatrist and trim your toe corns without passing an examination to prove that he is competent to provide this service. But, any fool can become a legislator, and a lot of fools do become one. Consequently our laws, as a rule, are the products of unskilled labor. In trying to draft a statute, it isn't too difficult to word it so that anybody who is trying in good faith can understand it. The big problem is to word it so that somebody who is trying in bad faith, to misunderstand it, can't do so.

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

It is no mistake that 2000 years ago, Christianity spread and was accepted by tribes of White Europeans as they encountered it. It is no mistake that for the last 1500 years Europe has been predominantly Christian. Christianity had spread not only to both Greece and Rome, but also to Britain andp other points in Europe as early as the middle of the first century. Tribes in Gaul were converting to Christianity in the second century. By the third century, if not sooner, Germanic tribes of the Goths and Alans had accepted Christianity. All of this was long before the official acceptance of Christianity began with Constantine the Great, the Edict of Toleration and the Council of Nicaea.

To mock Christianity today is to mock a hundred generations of our ancestors. People who mock Christianity think they know something better about our past than their own ancestors, the people who actually lived in those times many centuries ago. The truth is that the people who mock Christianity know little-to-nothing about the world of the past and the circumstances under which their ancestors ultimately accepted Christianity.

There are many incongruities in the perception of the people who mock Christianity today. On one hand they claim that it is a “cuck” religion, and on the other they complain that their ancestors were forced into Christianity by Christians. So they admit that their own ancestors were weaker than the “cucks” they despise. On one hand they claim that Christianity is an effeminate religion, and a Jewish religion, but then they complain that their ancestors were forced into it by Christians. So they admit that their ancestors were weaker than effeminates and Jews. All the while, they proclaim the “might is right” mantra of their own neo-paganism, while professing that their weak ancestors, forced to subject to Christianity, were somehow treated unfairly! Those who mock Christianity are simply too stupid to realize all of these cognitive disconnects, and there are many more that we won’t get into here. We already presented them here a few years ago, in two podcasts titled White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance.

The Book of Odes is a collection of passages from Scripture which were once employed as a Christian Liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are known to us only from the Codex Alexandrinus. Here William Finck presents the Odes and demonstrates that their teachings parallel our assertions of Christian Identity. The conclusion is that the Book of Odes is a Christian  Identity Liturgy, and that Christian Identity is the original (small 'c') catholic faith.

Christian Identity Liturgy in the Book of Odes

The Book of Odes is known to us mostly from Alfred Ralfs’ publication of the Septuagint, and it consists of a collection of songs or poems which were found placed at the end of the Book of Psalms in the Codex Alexandrinus. Sir Francis Brenton did not include them in his Septuagint translation, ostensibly because that work was based primarily upon the slightly older Codex Vaticanus, where the collection is not found. The Odes are only pericopes which were extracted from other portions of Scripture, so by themselves they are not an actual Biblical book. However to us they are interesting, because of the nature of the pericopes themselves.