December 2018

A Christogenea commentary On the Gospel of John has recently been completed. Many passages simply do not say what the modern churches think they mean! Don't miss this important and ground-breaking work proving that Christian Identity is indeed fully supported by Scripture.

A Commentary on Genesis is now being presented. Here we endeavor to explain the very first book of the Christian Bible from a perspective which reconciles both the Old and New Testaments with archaeology and ancient history, through eyes which have been opened by the Gospel of Christ.

A Commentary on the Epistles of Paul has been completed at Christogenea.org. This lengthy and in-depth series reveals the true Paul as an apostle of God, a prophet in his own right, and the first teacher of what we call Christian Identity.

Don't miss our recently-completed series of commentaries on the Minor Prophets of the Bible, which has also been used as a vehicle to prove the historicity of the Bible as well as the Provenance of God.

Visit Clifton Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Ministries at Christogenea.org for his many foundational Christian Identity studies.

Christogenea Books: Christian Truths in Black and White!
Visit our store at Christogenea.com.

The Scientific View of the Negro Before the Age of Political Correctness, Part 1

CHR20181228-NegroBeforePC-01.mp3 — Downloaded 25640 times

 

The Scientific View of the Negro Before the Age of Political Correctness, Part 1

This presentation, which may well become an occasional series, will endeavor to demonstrate that many mainstream writers and academics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, educated men who could not merely be dismissed as rednecks or racists, had correctly considered the Negro more as a beast than as a person, and certainly not as an entity which deserved a right to stand alongside White men as an equal peer in a civilized society. Of course, we certainly agree with that, not because we merely hate Negros, but because we have observed their behavior, we have judged their fruits, and we realize that they are far more an impediment to the function of society than they have ever been a benefit. They have been far more a destructive agent than they shall ever be a constructive asset. We believe that the evidence of the last hundred years demonstrates that as a race, Negros should have been left separated to dwell in their aboriginal state, and the only sound alternative was to leave them as non-citizens and slaves. Today, after nearly a century of “equality”, our cities are destroyed, our educational institutions have been debased with mediocrity, morals and ethics have become relative, and our arts are now mostly decadent exhibitions of savage concupiscence. We have become an English-speaking Africa decorated with European technology and a few still-white faces, white faces which are slowly coerced into awarding the Negro with ever-increasing benefits which stand as bribes so that they would maintain a facade of civility.

We can see the results of Negro emancipation and legislated political equality, having actually experienced the phenomenon. However one man who tried to warn the world of its consequences in advance was a medical doctor named John H. Van Evrie, who lived from 1814 to 1896. He was also the editor and proprietor of a newspaper called the Weekly Day Book, a Democratic newspaper, and a son of the founder of Rochester, a city on Lake Ontario in New York State. He also published several books on race relations and the character of the Negro, for which he used his own publishing company, Van Evrie, Horton & Company. His conclusions concerning the Negro led him to become a defender of the institution of slavery, and a defender of the cause of the Old South. He is slandered by mainstream sources today even in spite of the fact that many of his conclusions have been proven by the events of history subsequent to the War Between the States.

On the Gospel of John, Part 11: Bride and Bridegroom

CHR20181221-John11.mp3 — Downloaded 8015 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 11: Bride and Bridegroom

This is the fourth and, for now, the final presentation of our commentary on John chapter 3. In the three previous portions of this series we hope to have discussed adequately the conversation between Yahshua Christ and Nicodemus, the faithful but puzzled pharisee. We also hope to have established the Scriptural basis for what is “born from above”, which is the establishment by Yahweh of the ancient children of Israel into a peculiar and separate people living under His law. We saw that this was stated explicitly in the words of Solomon, in Wisdom chapter 19. However we also hope to have established that in the spiritual sense, the term is applicable to the wider Adamic race by the nature of their original creation, while Solomon used language that invokes the Genesis creation account to describe the establishment of Israel under the law at Sinai as a new aspect of God’s creation. So he wrote, as we may translate the Greek, “6 For the whole creation in its proper kind was fashioned again from above, serving the peculiar commandments that were given to them, that thy children might be kept without hurt.”

Furthermore, we hope to have established that the “world” which Christ had come to save was that very same thing: the once-present and then-future world which had been, and which still is, promised to come of those very same children of Israel. As Solomon had also described in Wisdom chapter 18, the twelve tribes of Israel represented on the breastplate of the high priest are indeed the “world” of our Scriptures. They alone are also “that which was lost”, which Christ had explained that He had come to save at diverse times during His ministry, as it is recorded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The one statement in John 3:16-17 where Christ said that “God so loved the world” and that “the world through him might be saved” cannot be interpreted in a manner which conflicts with the other statement which He made where He said that “the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” But any seeming conflict is immediately dissolved once we take note of Solomon’s Wisdom where he attested in chapter 18 that “24 … in the long garment was the whole world, and in the four rows of the stones was the glory of the fathers graven….” The stones represented the twelve tribes of Israel, and they are the “whole world” of the Scriptures.

On the Gospel of John, Part 10: The Only-Begotten is Not the Only

CHR20181214-John10.mp3 — Downloaded 8501 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 10: The Only-Begotten is Not the Only

In our last presentation in this series on the Gospel of John, which was subtitled The World of Salvation, among other things we had discussed were several aspects of the statement of Christ which is recorded in John 3:16. This is a favorite verse of the universalist denominational Christians, but it certainly does not mean what they imagine it to mean. They read this verse as if it says that Yahshua, or Jesus Christ, is the only Son of God, and had come to die in order to save the entire planet and everything, or, at least, everyone, dwelling thereupon. Of course, that is absolutely contrary to the entire body and context of the Scriptures. But with their interpretation of one verse, and only sometimes with imagined support from a couple of other verses, they would negate the entire meaning and value of all of the books of the prophets, as well as the complete substance of the epistles of the apostles and many of the other statements of Christ Himself.

So we began to address this particular passage by explaining that the Greek words translated as world were never intended to describe what we now know as the planet, and that even in the Medieval English of the King James translators, or in the German of Martin Luther, the concept of world did not imply the inclusion of the entire planet and everything on it, as the word is usually understood in modern times.

Now we are going to address another aspect of this passage, which is the use and translation of the Greek term μονογενής (Strong’s # 3439). In its most literal sense it means “only-born”, and it is the word which the King James translators rendered as “only-begotten” in John 3:16. But is that what the Gospel writers really meant to convey when they used the term? This is debatable, but we would rather understand it according to the idiom of the times, and especially its use in the idioms of the Greek Old Testament, where we will find that it was not necessarily used in that literal sense in our Scriptures.

John 3:16, What It Says And What It Doesn't

CHR20181207-John316-Emahiser.mp3 — Downloaded 10134 times

 

This evening, rather than present my commentary on the balance of John chapter 3, something which I am not yet quite prepared to do, I decided to present a related paper by Clifton Emahiser, and offer an expanded commentary on that. The paper is titled John 3:16, What It Says And What It Doesn't, and was finalized by Clifton on March 8th, 2004. Doing this, I will necessarily repeat several things which I said in Part 9 of my commentary on the Gospel of John, and also some things which I hope to state in Part 10, which is soon forthcoming. Doing this, the evolution of our opinions on John 3:16 may also be better understood, although I wish that Clifton were here to share that. In this paper, Clifton employed several of my own notes which I had sent to him on the subject, but also, because he was copying something I wrote to him in a letter, he referred to several other of my writings, which I shall endeavor to include or elaborate upon here.

John 3:16, What It Says And What It Doesn't

Most of Clifton’s pamphlet-sized essays were written in response to someone that he had questions from, or someone whom he questioned, or sometimes something he saw in the media. I do not remember the specific reason why Clifton had written this essay, but because he included a couple of paragraphs from a letter I wrote to him on the subject, and because they discussed the errors of a certain individual whom Clifton addresses here, we must have had an ongoing dialog leading up to this publication. As the impetus for this essay, Clifton recalls a trip he made to Louden, Tennessee, for a Christian Identity gathering in 1996. During the course of his nearly 20-year ministry, Clifton had made quite a few responses to what he had seen and heard at that particular gathering, and this was perhaps the last of them. Among those responses, he was compelled to write his papers on the Ephraim-Scepter Heresy, a Defense of Matthew & Luke and more significantly, the first 21 of his Watchman’s Teaching Letters, which were all subtitled with the question Just Who is This Patriarch, Judah? So it might even be safe to say that the single gathering in Louden was also the real impetus for Clifton’s starting his ministry.

Who Painted the Wise Man Black? Who made the Magus a Negro?

 A question we are frequently confronted with goes something like “So if Christian Identity is true, why is one of the Magi a black man?” But of course, none of the Magi, or “wise men”, were black, and originally Christians would not even have conceived of such a notion.

The ancient Parthians, Persians and Medes were all originally and predominantly White people, while the occupants of Mesopotamia and the Near East today are basically comprised of mixed-race arabs, even if they do not consider themselves to be arabs. Parthian Soldier circa 2nd c. BC
A Parthian Soldier circa 2nd c. BC.
The people of these regions became genetic arabs after they were conquered by the Islamic hordes in the 7th century and forcibly converted to the Mohammedan religion, whereafter they were amalgamated with both the arabic and Turkic races, among others.
But in earlier times, wherever they were portrayed by the ancient Greek and Roman writers and artists, they were clearly depicted as being White, and from these came the Magi who visited the Christ child. The story of the Magi is related in the Gospel of Matthew, in chapter 2, where the King James Version has "wise men" for the plural form of the Greek word μάγος, or magus. According to the earliest of Greek historicans, Herodotus, the Magi were originally a priesthood among the Medes and Persians, and they were mentioned on the Behistun inscription of the Persian emperor, Darius the Great.

Who Painted the Magi Black.pdf — Downloaded 14881 times