February 2022

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.

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 4: The Churches at Ephesus and Smyrna

Submitted by William Finck on

CHR20220225-Revelation04.mp3 — Downloaded 9235 times

 

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 4: The Churches at Ephesus and Smyrna

In our last presentation we took a long digression in order to elucidate the mistakes which the early Christian writers had made where they attempted to explain the references which Yahshua Christ had made in Revelation chapter 2 to a certain group, or class, of men whom He had called Nicolaitans. The earliest of those writers, Ignatius of Antioch, had acknowledged the existence of a group called Nicolaitans, but without explanation he referred to them as being “falsely so-called” Nicolaitans, and if they did not deserve the label then even if an actual sect existed which called themselves by that name, it could not have been the same as those to whom Christ had referred here.

Later so-called Church Fathers attributed to the Nicolaitans certain sins for which Christ had explicitly condemned Balaam and a woman whom He called Jezebel in this chapter, but Christ Himself never attributed those sins to the Nicolaitans, so the attribution cannot stand. Several others went so far as to connect these Nicolaitans to the Nicolaus of Antioch mentioned in Acts chapter 6, which is basically a slander of that particular Nicolaus. The events of Acts chapter 6 date to as early as 34 AD, and certainly happened long before 41 AD where the death of Herod Agrippa I is recorded in Acts chapter 12. We may think that if a man who was described by Luke as having been one of the early saints and leaders of the church in Judaea had broken away and began some heretical sect supposedly known to all of those early Christian writers, that Luke, as well as Peter, James and Paul along with him, most of whom must have known Nicolaus personally, would have mentioned his heresy somewhere in their writings, as they all lived and wrote for at least another 28 years. James and Paul each died about 62 AD, in different places and under different circumstances, and that is when Luke ended the records of the Book of Acts. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the Nicolaus of Acts chapter 6 had founded any heresy worthy enough to be mentioned, and even hated, by Christ here in Revelation chapter 2. Yahshua Christ must have been referring to something else.

So in rejecting the false assumptions and unsupported conclusions of the so-called Church Fathers in reference to the Nicolaitans, and examining the history of the early Church from the writings of the apostles who authored our New Testament scriptures, in my opinion a much more accurate interpretation of the references to Nicolaitans mentioned here in Revelation chapter 2 may be attained. The word nicolaitan means prevailing over the people, and seeing the Judaizers with whom the apostles had struggled, who sought to rule over the people in the dispensation of rituals, later called sacraments, we can determine that a Nicolaitan is one of that particular class of priest, whether Judaic or Pagan, who sought to control the people by withholding mysteries and dispensing sacraments, or rituals.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 72: 97, Similarities of words in European languages with Hebrew, continued

Submitted by William Finck on

ChrSat20220219-100Proofs-72.mp3 — Downloaded 6036 times

 

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 72

In our last presentation we discussed why the New Testament was written in the Greek language, and the fact that the majority of quotations from the Old Testament which are found in the New Testament were made from the Greek Septuagint, which shows that the authors of our New Testament scriptures were very familiar with Greek text of the Old Testament even if they had also maintained a familiarity with the Hebrew version, or versions. Then we began a discussion of the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe, mostly Latin, Greek and English. As we hope to have already shown to some degree, those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related. Here we shall continue that discussion.

97) Similarities of words in European languages with Hebrew, continued

First, there are a couple of points I left unanswered in our last presentation, which I would like to address here. Evidently the Wisdom of Sirach did survive in Hebrew. Judith is more controversial, as there is a shorter Hebrew version that dates the work to a completely different period, the 2nd century BC rather than the 7th, and although it is in the Septuagint that version has not survived in Hebrew, or perhaps never existed in Hebrew. Like Esther, no portion of Judith was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But for several reasons, I believe Judith is a historical novel that was rewritten in different ages. Tobit was not preserved by the rabbis of Judaism, but fragments of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are no surviving Hebrew copies of Baruch, or of the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah, and arguably both works may have been originally written in Greek. There are no known Hebrew copies of the apocryphal works attributed to Daniel: Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children, and Susanna. The same is true of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Prayer of Manasseh and the four books of the Maccabees, which survived to us in Greek. A Hebrew original is claimed for 1 Maccabees, and that is acceptable, but if it existed it did not survive. The book known as 1 Esdras, from the Septuagint, seems to be a more complete copy of the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah known from the text of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. These are all of the books of the Apocrypha that are worth mentioning here, but I do not accept many of them as being canonical. Many of them do not belong in our Bibles.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 71: 96, Why the NT was written in Greek, and most quotations from the OT were made from the Septuagint; 97, Similarities of words in European languages with Hebrew

Submitted by William Finck on

ChrSat20220212-100Proofs-71.mp3 — Downloaded 4754 times

 

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 71

In our last presentation we discussed many of the countless similarities which the Hebrews had with ancient Greek culture, demonstrating the fact that Hebrews and Greeks held many common beliefs, even if one side was from a pagan perspective. Now we shall discuss the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe, mostly Latin, Greek and English. Those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related. But before we get into that discussion, we shall discuss a prophecy where Yahweh God had promised that He would speak to his people in a language other than Hebrew, and that language must have been Greek.

96) Why the New Testament was written in the Greek language, and most quotations from the Old Testament were made from the Greek Septuagint.

There are rumors that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, which is also sometimes called Syriac, but that is a lie. The oldest known manuscripts of any portion of the New Testament in Aramaic dates to the 5th century, and several known translations into Aramaic from Greek were created even later, such as the Philoxeniana in the early 6th century or the Harklensis in the early 7th. There was a Syriac harmony of the Gospels called the Diatessaron made in the late 2nd century by Tatian which has not survived. But that was an attempt to rewrite the four Gospel accounts in harmony, and should not be reckoned as actual Scripture. There are also related claims that Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic, and not Hebrew. But often, the apostles mention their native tongue, and they always called it Hebrew, and not Aramaic. Syriac and Hebrew are distinguished in Isaiah chapter 36, which records events that occurred about 700 BC. In that account it is evident that Hebrew speakers could not normally understand Aramaic, or Syriac. There may have been differences between the Hebrew of the first century and that of Isaiah’s time, but it was nevertheless Hebrew, and the apostles must have known better what language they were speaking than modern commentators.

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 3: What is a Nicolaitan?

Submitted by William Finck on

CHR20220211-Revelation03.mp3 — Downloaded 7994 times

 

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 3: What is a Nicolaitan?

In our last presentation we discussed Revelation chapter 1 and the nature of Yahshua Christ as He revealed it through the apostle John. While there are numerous indications in the words of the ancient prophets that Christ is Yahweh God incarnate, and while Christ Himself had made similar professions in several different ways in the accounts in the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel of John, here in Revelation chapter 1 He made several explicit statements as well as several allegories which reveal that He is God. This is found in the underlying meaning of epithets such as “He who is and who was and who is coming” and “First Born from the dead”, but it is explicit in verses 7 and 8 where we read: “7 Behold! He comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, even whoever had pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn before Him. Yeah, truly! 8 ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, says Yahweh God, He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’”

In verse 4 we also see a reference to Christ as “He who is and who was and who is coming”, but here in verse 8 we see those words attributed to Yahweh God, yet they are referring to Yahshua Christ. There is a difficulty in the King James Version in verse 8, where it has only “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord”, yet the New American Standard Version has the complete verse to read: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’” All of the Greek manuscripts have the phrase κύριος ὁ θεός, or “the Lord God” in verse 8, and the King James Version chose to ignore the word for God. That same phrase, κύριος ὁ θεός, was employed in the Septuagint wherever the Hebrew words for Yahweh Elohim, or Yahweh God, appear in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. For that reason we render κύριος ὁ θεός as “Yahweh God” throughout our translation of the New Testament, as it should be. So the terminology employed in these verses explicitly reveals the true nature of Christ as God, and Yahweh had also described Himself as the Shadday or Almighty throughout the Old Testament, yet here we also see that epithet applied to Christ.