Ecclesiastes, Part 8: Even Vanity is Vanity

It seems to be often overlooked, that the first syllable in the word culture is cult. The first definition of culture listed in the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary is “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time.” Our definition would be a little different, but the point should be made.

Historically, in societies which are free of tyranny, the people shared a common origin, myth, tradition, and religious practice, which was actually a part of their daily lives from early childhood. The values of their society were ingrained into them during their educational process, taught to them by their parents from infancy. What to think about God, life, death, morality and sin, the people around them, other nations and races, all of these things are taught them in their upbringing, and are taught consistently in every phase of life. But tyrannies are generally compelled to codify and enforce their own religious beliefs and practices by either force or law, when they have objectives which conflict with the values of the organic nation over which they rule. For this reason, in chapter 16 of the Book of Acts, we see where certain Roman citizens were confronted with the Christian Gospel and they complained to the magistrates and said “These men agitate our city, being Judaeans, and they declare customs which are not lawful for us to receive nor to do, being Romans!”

When Rome was a Republic, its people naturally agreed to cooperate because they had a common origin and a shared culture and values. When Rome became an empire, its citizens were required to pledge allegiance to the emperor, even making sacrifices in temples dedicated to the emperor, and their daily practices and customs were restricted by law. The eventual acceptance of Christianity is often blamed for fracturing the Roman people and precipitating the downfall of the empire. However it is clear that the empire and its people had already slid into a state of decadence, and it had already begun to crumble long before Christianity was accepted.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 4, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we described the meaning and the use of the word catholic by early Christian writers, and we demonstrated that originally the term described the reception and acceptance of the Christian faith, as coming from the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, the Scriptures which were handed down by the apostles of Christ. In that original sense, we then asserted that Identity Christians are the true catholics, since of all of the modern Christian denominations, only we understand that both testaments, and both covenants, apply exclusively to ourselves. And of course, saying Identity Christians we include only White Europeans, the only people for whom the apostles intended the Gospel.

Then in parts two and three, we began a presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon on the Christian nature of the Old Testament. Doing this, we hoped to expand somewhat on Comparet’s original sermon, while adding our own opinions and outlining the reasons for our differences wherever we may disagree with him.

One topic we expanded on in part three of this series was the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. While Comparet described it as a foreshadow of Christianity from his own perspective, and said little that we had any serious disagreement with, our Christian faith is often condemned on this account, that a man would sacrifice his own son. So for that reason we were compelled to expand on Comparet’s sermon to a large degree.

Our pagan adversaries often complain that human sacrifice is Jewish in nature. We agree, that human sacrifice is evil. However we took the time to demonstrate that human sacrifice is also pagan, and that ancient pagan literature has many instances of human sacrifice which was looked upon favorably and even blessed by pagan gods. We gave as examples the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon, the king of the Danaans, and the sacrifice of nine of his own sons to Odin by the ancient Swedish King On, or Ane. We also illustrated the fact that these heathen kings sacrificed their own children for their own personal gain. But Abraham, sacrificing Isaac, had nothing to gain. Everything promised to him was to come through Isaac, his only heir. So which of these ancient sacrifices are Jewish in nature? In the end we must admit that the heathen sacrifices are worthy to be called Jewish, but Abraham’s sacrifice was selfless, a token of his obedience to his God rather than to his own lusts for money and power.

On Monday morning we received a phone call from his wife Debbi informing us that Mark Downey, a long-time friend and fellow Christian Identity pastor, had died in northern Kentucky. So Melissa and I are headed north once again, where we shall probably stay through the Sunday services at the Fellowship of God’s Covenant People. Mark had been diagnosed with late-stage cancer of the lungs about 6 months ago, and he and Debbi did everything they could to combat the disease. Mark fought a good fight, but with such a late discovery of the illness, it is evident that Yahweh God had different plans.

So tonight, as we visit with Debbi and attend whatever services are planned for Mark, we decided to offer a memorial for him by broadcasting his final sermons, a two-part series titled Eyes That See, which were delivered at the Fellowship of God’s Covenant People on November 2^nd and 19^th of 2017. In the second part, which is much shorter than the first, it sadly becomes evident that Mark has already begun to lose his voice, a condition which was caused by his illness. However his completion of the sermon is nevertheless a testament to his character and fortitude.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 3, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the portions of this sermon which we have already presented, Bertrand Comparet addressed some of the logical fallacies which are held by those who somehow think that the Old Testament and the New are separate books addressed to different groups of people. Then he presented some of the prophecies which should prove beyond doubt that the New Covenant was to be made with the same people who were at one time subject to the Old Covenant. In this context, he then discussed Genesis 3:15, Genesis 4:1, and the sacrifices of Cain and Abel described subsequently in Genesis chapter 4. From there he cited the Book of Job, and a Christian profession made by Job himself concerning his resurrection after death and his Redeemer, an obvious reference to Yahshua Christ. While we could not agree with some of Comparet’s assertions concerning the meaning of Genesis 4:1 or the age of the Book of Job, his elucidation of the Christian promises in these passages are certainly correct.

Now as we proceed with Comparet’s sermon, he continues by discussing a rather controversial topic, which is the call to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. There are many people who protest the connection of the Old Testament to our Aryan race for reason of the accounts of human sacrifice which it contains, and especially for the near-sacrifice by Abraham of his own son Isaac. We would assert that these people, including men who are supposed history experts such as David Duke, are highly illiterate. The following paragraph is from a presentation of Clifton Emahiser's paper, Born Under Contract, which I made here in June of 2016. I was addressing neo-pagans specifically, however the criticism applies just as well to so-called traditional Christians who also cast aspersions on the Old Testament:

Many of the neo-pagans who despise Christianity use Abraham’s offering of Isaac as an excuse. Yet the same neo-pagans would extol the virtues of their pagan gods, or properly, their pagan idols. They are ignorant of their own pagan traditions. In the Greek Epic and Tragic poets, there is a popular account, that Agamemnon the great king of the Greeks had sacrificed his own daughter Iphigeneia, whom he sent for under the pretext of a promise of marriage to Achilles. He placed her on an altar and sacrificed her to Artemis in exchange for the hope of having fair winds for the voyage to Troy, so that the Greeks could launch their attack against the city. The Eddas of Snorri also include references to human sacrifice, such as that of the Swedish king who sacrificed nine of his sons to Odin in an agreement to prolong his own life, which is a story found in the Ynglinga saga.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, a presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we had a long introduction of our own which asked the question What is a Catholic? Doing that, first we gave a brief exhibition from history and the prophets in order to help explain why it matters. Then we endeavored to provide a definitive answer from both the Greek meaning of the word καθολικός and from the earliest Christian writers. From there, we provided much evidence that originally, the word was applied to the origination and the acceptance of the Christian faith, and not to its application. A true and original Catholic accepts both Old and New Testaments in relation to himself and his people, and understands that both testaments are Christian testaments. At the same time, we would assert that a true Catholic can only accept both testaments if he or she is one of those people with whom were made those “catholic covenants”, as Irenaeus called them. In order to substantiate our arguments, we mentioned the Book of Odes from the Codex Alexandrinus. We had provided a commentary on that book here three months ago. Then we cited the early Christian writers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. And then, to establish what it was that the ancients saw as the world, we cited both Irenaeus and Martin Luther.

Lastly, we made a brief exhibition showing ancient attitudes towards the negro, citing two historical sources: the first century BC historian Diodorus Siculus, and the first century AD Christian work titled The Shepherd of Hermas. There we quoted a passage from the 9th Similitude of the 3rd Book, which was subtitled “Building of the Militant and Triumphant Church”, and which explains that blacks are an unredeemable and lawless race. Therefore it should not be a stretch to imagine that a truly militant, and ultimately triumphant Christian is one who stands against race-mixing, the likes of which we see all around us this very day. In the first centuries of Christianity, blacks were excluded from the “world”, and they must continue to be excluded. However knowing the Scriptures we must also exclude all other races, which were not a part of the “world” from the time of Christ to the time of Luther. So, we said that: Christianity is only for White Europeans, and Niggers certainly are unredeemable. And any of our White brethren who do not repent, and who have not yet been blasphemers or traitors, had certainly better repent soon or they are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with the Niggers. All blasphemers and traitors to our race and our God are already headed in that very direction.

Now, we stand by these words. However saying these things, some of our critics have accused us of diverging from our teaching of absolute salvation for the children of Israel, and have even accused us of embracing the so-called “works salvation” similar to that of the denominational churches. But our critics are fools, because nothing is further from the truth. We have not capitulated on anything which we have taught in the past concerning our Adamic race and salvation. Rather, our critics are simply too dull to realize that making that statement last week, we used the term Lake of Fire as an allegory to represent temporal destruction, which is what it is. Not temporary destruction, but temporal, meaning worldly as opposed to spiritual. The student of Scripture should understand that non-Adamic people do not have the spirit of God in them, and therefore they are “twice dead”, as the apostle Jude had called certain infiltrators among Christians of his time, where the apostle Peter called them “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed.”

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 1, an Introduction: What is a Catholic?

Here we are going to discuss Christianity in the Old Testament, and this evening’s program is going to serve as an introduction to the subject. As we commence with subsequent parts of the series, we shall present a critical review of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Christianity in the Old Testament. Because of its length, which is comparatively extraordinary for Comparet, the review will take at least a couple of presentations to complete, depending on how many of our own comments we choose to interject. But a lengthy introduction is necessary, because even before we begin, there are a couple of related subjects that I feel there is urgent need to discuss, and as I discuss these things, I am going to prove one bold assertion: that Identity Christians are the original and true catholics, even though what we call Christian Identity as we know is only about a hundred and eighty years old, counting it from the time that it began to develop with British exploration and archaeological discovery within the British empire. The discoveries which the British and others made in that era led to Christian Identity.

So many people are convinced for so many years that the Old Testament and the New Testament are different books, representing different covenants, and with different peoples. Nothing could be further from the truth, and as we have said in the past, this belief is absolutely contrary to the words of the books themselves. We shall soon see that the earliest Christian writers, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Lactantius, all agree with us in this regard.

William Finck speaks with Dr. Michael Hill about the League's experiences throughout the past 12 months, and the League's plans for the coming year. Reflected upon were the events in New Orleans, Charlottesville, Shelbyville and elsewhere, a discussion on League optics, partnerships in the Nationalist Front, the value of the Alt-Right, and more.

After the interview, Finck offers a 30-minute discussion explaining why Jesus Christ is not a Jew. He certainly is not, regardless of what the world thinks. This is the true and great lie which must be addressed today.

This recording has been appended to the Christogenea Saturdays program for January 27th, 2018. It merits this serparate posting.

What if Jesus were descended from the Israelite tribe of Judah, as the Scripture says that He is? Well, of course He is, because the Scriptures do not lie. But what if the people known as Jews today were NOT of the tribe of Judah? Nor even of Benjamin or Levi? Then how could Jesus possibly be a Jew? The answer is easy, Jesus is not a Jew because the people known as Jews today are not of Judah. The Bible itself tells us this.

For this reason Jesus Himself told the church at Smyrna, in Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

Just in case that is not understood, Jesus also said to the church at Philadelphia, in Revelation 3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

So according to Jesus Himself, the people calling themselves Jews at this time are not "real" Jews, meaning that they are not actually of the tribe of Judah. But how can that be? First, we will see that Paul of Tarsus agrees with Jesus, and the events which Luke recorded in Acts chapter 26 had actually transpired about 35 years before John recorded the Revelation.

The Gospel of Goddard? Or the Gospel of Christ?

Over the past year I have been very busy, not only with my own studies and writing, but with the real-world activities in which I feel it was necessary to participate, in New Orleans and Charlottesville and Shelbyville, and also in the care of our dear friend Clifton Emahiser and other things which have taken time away from my studies and kept us on the road and away from discourse in our Christogenea Forum and our wider Identity community. I am only a man, and I can only do so much at once.

So last week when I contacted a dear friend, now that I have some time and we had hoped to see him, he shied away with the statement that our lives are “going down a different path”. Immediately I knew what he meant. So this evening I am going to address a schism which has recently occurred among some of the friends who have in one way or another been associated with my ministry. This schism is not among them in particular, but between them and myself. Neither is it due to anything which I have said or done, but rather, it is because they have chosen to wander down a path of teaching with which I cannot agree. I even believe that this path is a wicked path, under which lies a diabolical religion of humanism and materialism, a love of mammon and a rejection of Yahweh and His Word, even if it is covered over with the veneer of Scripture.

Over the past year, I have even given them space in my ministry to present their case, but I still cannot accept their premise. However being busy with many other things, admittedly I have not given this the attention which I may have, or the study I may have, and which it certainly deserves. So now I will do that. However I will not name them, nor will I make any undue accusations against them. I do not even believe that their motives are necessarily wicked, but I only feel that they have been blinded by their own desires and their need for carnal fulfillment. Here I seek to be as objective as possible, and get to the root of the divisions and the circumstances.

But before we begin, let me also say that I doubt if this presentation will heal the divisions which have already occurred. Rather, I am certain that I will only make them angry, and eager to defend themselves. Out of necessity I must give some background as to some personal circumstances, which I am not comfortable doing, however I have a need to make an example. As Paul of Tarsus had said, “For there must also be sects among you, in order that those approved will become evident among you.” So therefore it must be, even if I am saddened to lose the fellowship of brethren. I only want to warn others, that they should give deep consideration before wandering down that same path. That is my least obligation.