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

William Finck
CHR20181228-NegroBeforePC-01.mp3

We are going to start something a little different this evening. Originally, I thought about presenting Clifton Emahiser’s brief paper, Diverse Seed Defiles Families. We may present that essay here in mid-January instead, since while I began preparing for that, a Christogenea Forum member had enlightened me to a book by Dr. John Van Evrie titled On Negroes and Negro Slavery, which was a defense of the institution of slavery in the South by a medical doctor from New York, of all places. Looking into this book, I saw that Wikipedia and other sources nearly ridicule Van Evrie, yet his book was actually cited in the bibliography of a famous Britannica article on Negros, which expressed many views shared by so-called “rednecks” and “racists” of today. It seems like a hundred years ago, our Christian Identity view of the Negro was actually quite popular among anthropologists, ethnologists and other academics.

This presentation is actually an extension of things that both Clifton Emahiser and myself had said as I presented his series of papers Identifying the Beast of the Field, where we cited similar sentiments as they were expressed by 19th century geologist Alexander Winchell, and elsewhere where I had mentioned men such as Alexander Winchell along with Professor Charles Carroll and his book The Negro, A Beast or In The Image of God? in my essay on The Role of Faith in a Successful Insurgency, Movement, or Community. So this is my endeavor to examine to a greater extent that phenomenon of such opinions held by educated men in the 19th century.

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

William Finck
John 3:22 – John 4:1
CHR20181221-John11.mp3

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.”

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

William Finck
John 3:16-21
CHR20181214-John10.mp3

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.

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

William Finck
CHR20181207-John316-Emahiser.mp3

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?

William Finck

 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.