April 2020

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.

Don't miss our ongoing series of podcasts The Protocols of Satan, which presents many historical proofs that the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are real, and that they have been fulfilled in history by the very same people who dispute their authenticity. Our companion series, The Jews in Medieval Europe, helps to explain how the Protocols have been fulfilled.

 Our recent Pragmatic Genesis series explains the Bible from a Christian Identity perspective which reconciles both Old and New Testaments with history and the political and social realities facing the Christian people of Yahweh God today.

A Commentary on the Epistles of Paul has recently 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.

Visit the Mein Kampf Project at Christogenea.org and learn the truth concerning some of the most-lied about events in history.

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

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 11, Gnostic Heresies

ChrSat20200425Weisman11.mp3 — Downloaded 1874 times

 

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 11, Gnostic Heresies

In our last discussion Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which was Part 10 of this series, we discussed the The Nature of Cain, and how it is that when he was challenged by God to do good, but then immediately went out and killed his brother, that also serves to prove the circumstances of his birth, that he could not do good because “sin lieth at the door”. We also discussed how and why both Cain and Abel were making sacrifices in the first place, since Cain’s rejected sacrifice was the catalyst for his having been challenged, and having killed Abel. Weisman imagined that Yahweh was offering Cain acceptance, but that is not the case at all. Yahweh, being God, certainly knew that Cain was going to fail. His challenge to Cain and Cain’s failure are not an exercise in vanity on the part of God, but rather they serve as a lesson to us, that a bastard will always do evil in the end. The fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice to Yahweh after Cain had done so also serves to illustrate the reasons for Cain’s disqualification, once it is examined within the context of later Scriptures and statements made by the apostles concerning the patriarchs Enoch and Noah. By the act of making a sacrifice Abel was asserting his own claim as rightful successor to his father.

On the Gospel of John, Part 50: Adamic Dawn

CHR20200424-John50.mp3 — Downloaded 1959 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 50: Adamic Dawn

In our last presentation on John chapter 20, The Open Tomb, we discussed various aspects of the events of the morning following the resurrection of Christ, and sought to properly correlate John’s account with the descriptions which are found in the other three gospels. While we will continue doing that here, to some degree, we will shift our focus to the significance of the resurrection itself, because the risen Christ also represents what we may call the Adamic Dawn, as it provides for us an assurance that Yahweh our God transcends His Creation, that He Himself takes responsibility for His Creation, and that therefore we must also understand that His promises of eternal life for the Adamic man and salvation for all of the children of Israel are assured in His resurrection.

The ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans, the earliest Adamic cultures from which we have significant literature, all believed in the immortality of the souls of men and an underworld in which they dwelt, and often even in the judgment of men for their deeds after death. The early Greeks and others also expressed a belief in the possibility of resurrection from among the dead, although not in Christian terms, and attributed many of the same beliefs to the ancient Galatae, Gauls or Germans, attributing their bravery in battle to beliefs they had in their own immortality.

These beliefs, being found among the various Adamic nations, should not be viewed as competitors or as truthful alternatives to what is found in the Hebrew scriptures. That would merely be a repeat of the mistakes of the past and a failure to learn from our history. Rather, they should be viewed as reflecting certain core beliefs that the earliest Adamic ancestors of each of those nations, as they are listed in the genealogies found in Genesis chapter 10, had all held in common in prehistoric times. As the nations multiplied and were separated from their primordial ancestors, the myths began to diverge and suffered different embellishments in diverse places, as they were also influenced by the wayward pagan beliefs of alien peoples – those groups related to the people whom the Hebrew scriptures identify as Nephilim, which are the so-called fallen angels.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

ChrSat20200418Weisman10.mp3 — Downloaded 1917 times

 

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks in this program which did not make it into my notes. In one, I mentioned Melchizedek in conjunction with Paul. I did not mean to leave any impression that Melchizedek was contemporary with Paul, but only that Paul had described Melchizedek, referring to his explanation that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Of course, the only other Melchizedek mentioned in Scripture was contemporary to Abraham.

In our last discussion of chapter 4 of Weisman’s book, we showed that on four occasions, and a fifth, Weisman had lied about the substance of the genealogies which are provided in the Bible. We also spoke at length on Genesis 4:1, and showed that it is a corrupt witness, that interpretations of it and even the actual substance of it were debated in ancient times, and that if it is corrupt and it is not corroborated by any other witness, then it is useless for the purpose of formulation of doctrine because it is unreliable. Since it is the only witness that Cain was a natural son of Adam, the supposition must be open to debate because it is an unreliable witness. To the contrary, there are many witnesses in Scripture and in early Christian apocryphal writings which insist that Cain was not the natural son of Adam. The words of our Redeemer and His apostles also serve to prove that Cain was not Adam’s natural son.

Now I will also add, that if only the genealogy of the chosen line was given, as Weisman also insisted, then why are any other genealogies supplied at all? We see the descendants of Cain are recorded for several generations in Genesis chapter 4, so Weisman is found to have lied about that as well as he himself had attested that Cain was not chosen in the sense of being Adam’s heir and successor. So once again, he is also found to be contradicting himself.

On the Gospel of John, Part 49: The Open Tomb

CHR20200417-John49.mp3 — Downloaded 1490 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 49: The Open Tomb

Presenting our commentary on the account of the final events in the crucifixion and death of Christ as they are described in John chapter 19, we focused on the meaning and implications of the exclamation of Christ where He had said that “It is finished!” In doing that, we hope to have sufficiently elucidated what it was that had been finished at the cross as it had been written in the prophets and explained by the apostles. However doing that, we also neglected any discussion of other aspects of the event, not all of which were recorded by John, so it may be fitting to do that here.

In relation to earlier portions of John chapter 19, we have already discussed and correlated the various descriptions of the fate of Judas Iscariot, the dream of Pilate’s wife, and other things which Matthew had included in his account of the events of this day. Then we discussed at length the culpability for the crucifixion of Christ, and we also discussed the account of Luke which relates that Pilate had sent Christ to Herod Antipas before finally relenting to the demands which the Jews had made for his crucifixion. It is very likely that Herod was elsewhere in the Praetorium, or in the district of the city where it was located, so that entire event may have taken place in a very short time. Sending Christ to Herod, it is evident that Pilate had hoped that Herod would resolve the situation and satisfy the demands of his fellow Jews by another avenue, however Herod had instead merely sent Christ back to Pilate, thereby assuring that He would indeed be crucified as it was Pilate’s last chance to avoid having Him executed.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1

ChrSat20200411Weisman09.mp3 — Downloaded 1689 times

 

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1

Once again, and right from the beginning, there were many digressions and topics discussed which did not make it into these notes. But I did add a few things we discussed extemporaneously which were related more directly to Weisman’s arguments.

In my opinion we have already destroyed Charles Weisman’s supposed refutation of Two-Seedline in several different and significant ways. But we are not even halfway through his book, and to be fair we must finish presenting all of Weisman’s arguments, and answer them all with the appropriate evidence wherever we believe they are wrong.

In our last presentation, I think we exposed three major failures in Weisman’s arguments at the end of chapter 3 where he had insisted that the giants of Genesis chapter 6 and later Scriptures were only the offspring of the unions between the sons of Cain and the daughters of Seth.

First, he failed to read the text of Genesis 6:4 properly, as it explains that giants were in the earth both before and after that event, so if the verse is read correctly, Weisman must answer how giants were already in the earth “in those days”, as Yahweh did not create any giants in Genesis chapter 1.

Secondly, he failed to explain, that if the “sons of God” were the sons of Cain, as he insisted, and if he believes that Cain was a son of Adam, as he also insisted, and if the sons of Cain were in the image of God, as he had further insisted, why that would be a sin so grievous as to cause God to destroy all the descendants of Seth for race-mixing, since Seth was also in the image of God, being in the image of Adam his father? Weisman never explained how this was a sin, but we have on many occasions explained precisely how it was a sin.

Thirdly, but not finally because there were other errors as well, Weisman lied about the definition of the word nephilim, which certainly can mean fallen ones. By presenting Gesenius’ admitted preference as if it were the only authoritative definition, Weisman purposely lied by not citing Gesenius’ entire definition. Presenting Gesenius’ entire definition of nephil, we saw that Gesenius himself explained that it could mean fallen one, or at least, faller, and that it was often interpreted in that manner, as Gesenius also admitted, but Gesenius himself chose to follow the Jews, whom he mistakenly called “Hebrews”, who insisted that it meant fellers instead, and we believe that helped to obfuscate the truth.

Last week I promised to provide a scan of page 556 of Gesenius’ lexicon which contains the definition for nephil, and apologize for adding it late, as I did not do that until Tuesday morning.

The Whole Armor of Yahweh, a presentation and review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

CHR20200410-WholeArmor-Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 2370 times

 

The Whole Armor of Yahweh, a presentation and review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

I thought to take one more moment of reflection on the current world circumstances and how Christians should face them, before returning to my commentary On the Gospel of John, which I hope to do next week. So once again, I will use the opportunity to present and critique a sermon by one of our notable Christian Identity predecessors, this time by Bertrand Comparet. This is The Whole Armor of Yahweh, which is certainly what we shall need to withstand all of the fiery darts of the devils who seem to be everywhere and all-powerful.

It is difficult not to talk about the hype over the so-called novel coronavirus, and whether or not the virus is a greater threat to human life than any other seasonal flu virus ????. The numbers are not at all convincing, the methods by which they are accounted are far less convincing, and I sincerely believe, as I wrote a month ago, that the hype is a hoax which has been perpetrated through the media and progressive politicians along with others of the so-called “rulers of this world” to push all of us further down the road to tyranny and plunge us into what we may call world communism. In fact, by now it should be evident to most of us that we are already living under tyranny, except that most of us are blindly complying to a government which is operating as if it were God. If this goes on too much longer, the largest banks and corporations will end up owing everything that they don’t already own, and the government is clearly in collusion.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

ChrSat20200404Weisman08.mp3 — Downloaded 2072 times

 

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

I think we have already established in multiple ways that Charles Weisman must have had some sort of agenda, because even though he admitted the truth of several of the fundamentals of what we call Two-Seedline, he nevertheless sought to dismiss it rather than to consider the elements which he himself admitted. For example, he had professed that the serpent must have been an intelligent being with its own order contrary to the order of God, but then he goes on to make suggestions that will ultimately lead to the conclusion that the devil is merely the flesh.

Doing this, he removed many scriptures from their proper context and used them as support for his arguments, even when those scriptures actually help to prove our Two-Seedline positions once they are fully and properly considered. For example, as we addressed pages 19 to 23 of his book, under the subtitle “The Serpent, Devil, and Satan”, we saw where Weisman failed to distinguish those words as they appear in each passage which he had provided as an example in their proper grammatical form. Then he proceeded to assert the notion that all evil emanates from God, and that is not true. As we examined his examples for that assertion, we saw that there are two types of evil, evil which is evil in the eyes of man as he suffers the consequences of or the punishments for his sin, and evil which is evil in the eyes of God, which is rebellion against God by man. God cannot be blamed for that later evil, because God is without sin. When men break the laws of God, men are the parties responsible for the resulting evil, and God cannot be blamed for the sins of men. Weisman’s failure to make this distinction is deceptive.

The Day of Deliverance, a presentation and review of a sermon by Wesley Swift

CHR20200403-Swift-DayofDeliverance.mp3 — Downloaded 2273 times

 

The Day of Deliverance

While I have often criticized Wesley Swift for some of the fantastic tales that he spun, or because in his sermons he had often cited dubious and even nefarious sources as if they were authorities and fountains of truth, frequently Swift was on target and quite accurate in certain important areas. One of those areas was his early awareness of the descent of our nation into a state of tyranny and communism. Swift understood that as an ongoing process, and he also understood that many of the people would volunteer themselves into tyranny in exchange for a false sense of security.

But this is not a new phenomenon. The vaunted democracy of ancient Athens, which certain “combinations”, or special-interest parties had always sought to undermine, was subverted several times during the Peloponnesian War, where Thucydides explained in Book 8 of his history of the war that after an oligarchy of certain wealthy Athenians was imposed, “The people, hearing of the oligarchy, took it very heinously at first, but when Pisander had proved evidently that there was no other way of safety, in the end, partly for fear and partly because they hoped again to change the government they yielded thereunto.” When the oligarchy failed a couple of years later, Pisander, whose proofs were evidently only propaganda for the elites of his time, had been attacked by the poets for corruption and cowardice and he was also ridiculed for being fat. So he fled to the enemy, to Sparta, and was convicted of treason in absentia.

The Athenians were able to recover their democracy, but it was in a modified form, and ultimately they were defeated by the Macedonians in 338 BC and a short time later had, in effect, lost it forever. However when tyrannical laws are imposed on Americans in the name of security, the process never seems to be reversed, the culprits are never punished, and the government grows more and more powerful. Now, with the Coronavirus scare and the accompanying fear-porn that has paralyzed the nation, the lemmings who readily sell their freedom for security may finally end up completely enslaved. But Wesley Swift already saw that as an ongoing process in 1965, when he gave this sermon.