Topical Discussions, June 2nd, 2023

Including Who's “Out-Jewing the Jew?”, Black Hebrew “Israelites” and Which is it, Lord or Yahweh?

Lately I have been considering and saving some of the short topics discussed at various venues at Christogenea which would serve as ten or fifteen or even thirty minute recordings for videos or for our radio streams. So while I have done a few of these topical discussion presentations in the past, hopefully we can do even more in the future.

But first I want to speak of some of the challenges I have operating Christogenea, so that listeners may better understand certain things, especially things like why it takes me so long to ship book orders. Lately I have missed shipping books on time for certain holidays, such as Christmas, a holiday which we don’t even really care much about. But at the same time, while I hate to disappoint our brethren, I don’t even pay much attention to the calendar. Right now all I know is that it is already June, and a couple of days ago I really thought May had only just begun.

Some readers or listeners seem to have the impression that we should operate as efficiently as Amazon or some other huge internet retailer. But Christogenea is a one person entity, which receives some help in some areas from my wife Melissa, or in some aspects, from certain close friends who believe in our cause. Until 2018 we used a third party to print and retail our books, and they probably made more money from the venture than we did, but I did not mind, so long as the books were available. Being a one-person entity, that is why I would rather just publish everything I write freely, as I feel that is an obligation, and electronically, because that is the easiest method for me, and provides the widest possible audience.

On Genesis, Part 16: The Curse of Canaan

In our last presentation of this commentary on Genesis we had discussed the first three of the sons of Ham, which are Cush, Mizraim and Phut. Now we shall discuss the youngest, or at least, the last one mentioned, which is Canaan. As we had explained when we presented Genesis chapter 9 and Thy Father’s Nakedness, since Canaan was cursed as a result of Ham’s having seen “the nakedness of his father”, as we read the account in Genesis chapter 9, then that phrase must have been a euphemism for another act, and therefore the birth of Canaan must have been the result of what is seen in the law in Leviticus chapter 20 where it says in part that “11 … the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness.” Having done that, we had also presented passages from Leviticus chapter 18 which further explain that the nakedness of a man’s wife is also the man’s nakedness.

But we cannot imagine that Canaan was cursed merely because Ham saw his own father naked, as we had also explained, with examples from Scripture, how in ancient times men had regularly seen one another naked even throughout the course of a typical workday, at least in certain vocations or activities. So that alone would not justify the curse of Canaan, but Noah certainly would have been justified to curse Canaan if Ham had violated his wife, which was also Ham’s own mother, and if Canaan was the result of such a union. Subsequent events in Scripture also justify Noah’s curse of Canaan, as Yahweh had upheld his words so that they became prophetic of the fate of Canaan. When Yahweh upholds a man’s words, it is because the words are just and the man had uttered them righteously. This we read of the young prophet Samuel, in 1 Samuel chapter 3: “19 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.”

On Genesis, Part 13: Thy Father’s Nakedness

Presenting Part 12 of this Genesis commentary, titled Solid Ground we hope to have elucidated from the situation of his descendants as it is described in Genesis chapters 10 and 11 and from the context of these chapters which describe the flood of Noah, that the most plausible location for the flood is the Mesopotamian Plain, and that the most likely landing spot for the ark after the flood is the foothills of Ararat which border that plain on the north. Here we should add one word of caution, that although we are confident of that assessment, we can never be absolutely certain given the relatively little information which we have in Scripture. But to this day, zealous denominational Christians and archaeologists both amateur and professional have sought Noah’s ark in the great heights of Mount Ararat, which has an elevation of over 17,000 feet. However we have found that the term ararat in Hebrew describes a mountainous region, and not merely a single mountain peak. The truth is that the ark must have landed on a foothill in that region, so that it would have even been possible for Noah, his family and the many animals with them to have survived after the flood, and that the wood from the ark either rotted away in its place, or more likely, it was repurposed by Noah and his family, or even others who lived in the region at a later time. The process of hewing logs into beams and planks by hand is quite arduous, and already-hewn logs from the ark would have been valuable for that reason alone. As we hope to establish later in Genesis, there are more than five hundred and thirty years between the time of the flood and the events of Genesis chapter 11 and the division of the sons of Noah, so it would be natural for his descendants to slowly spread into the plain south of Ararat, which is much more suitable for agriculture and husbandry than the mountains. As we have said, the site of ancient Babylon is about 250 miles from the southern edge of those mountains, and that is where the descendants of Noah are found in Genesis chapter 11.

Now at the end of that last presentation we have already discussed aspects of the first seven verses of Genesis chapter 9, but perhaps we should summarize that discussion, and, if possible, even augment it here.

Monday, May 1st, 10:00 AM: Evidently, our sound editor had left a 15 minute gap at an edit point in the final hour of the recording, however there was no missing content. The gap has now been repaired, and we apologize for any inconvenience.

Among the topics discussed: Why should Christians endeavor to keep the law?; Why would Yahweh “allow” the fallen angels to corrupt men?; Should a woman who is a widowed mother rule a household?; How would people “come out” of Mystery Babylon after it falls?; The media chatter over monkeypox fizzled: only 38 apparent sodomites in the U.S. died of monkeypox and 33 of them were black; Discipline, work and sleep habits; Materialism; young men and vocations; The meanings of Hebrew words for branch, Nazarene and Nazarite; Was Samuel a Nazarite?; Jacob and Esau, debate over the birthright; Danny Updegraff talks about early Christian Identity, Bill Gale and Jeanne Snyder; Indians, Canaanites and Casinos; Deception in the Judaized churches…

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

It is no mistake that 2000 years ago, Christianity spread and was accepted by tribes of White Europeans as they encountered it. It is no mistake that for the last 1500 years Europe has been predominantly Christian. Christianity had spread not only to both Greece and Rome, but also to Britain and other points in Europe as early as the middle of the first century. Tribes in Gaul were converting to Christianity in the second century. By the third century, if not sooner, Germanic tribes of the Goths and Alans had accepted Christianity. All of this was long before the official acceptance of Christianity began with Constantine the Great, the Edict of Toleration and the Council of Nicaea.

To mock Christianity today is to mock a hundred generations of our ancestors. People who mock Christianity think they know something better about our past than their own ancestors, the people who actually lived in those times many centuries ago. The truth is that the people who mock Christianity know little-to-nothing about the world of the past and the circumstances under which their ancestors ultimately accepted Christianity.

There are many incongruities in the perception of the people who mock Christianity today. On one hand they claim that it is a “cuck” religion, and on the other they complain that their ancestors were forced into Christianity by Christians. So they admit that their own ancestors were weaker than the “cucks” they despise. On one hand they claim that Christianity is an effeminate religion, and a Jewish religion, but then they complain that their ancestors were forced into it by Christians. So they admit that their ancestors were weaker than effeminates and Jews. All the while, they proclaim the “might is right” mantra of their own neo-paganism, while professing that their weak ancestors, forced to subject to Christianity, were somehow treated unfairly! Those who mock Christianity are simply too stupid to realize all of these cognitive disconnects, and there are many more that we won’t get into here. We already presented them here a few years ago, in two podcasts titled White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance.