Covenant Studies

The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, and Adultery! A Review of a Paper by Clifton Emahiser.

Here we are going to present, critique and hopefully be able to elaborate upon a paper by our dear friend Clifton Emahiser, which, according to his own records, he had written in April of 2007. It has been 23 months since we have reviewed any of Clifton’s work, so it is well past time that we gave him a visit.

There are lies which Christian churches have taught for over 1,800 years, and when these lies are examined against Scripture, there is no way in which they could possibly be true or Christian, since the Scripture tells a completely different story. So all who perpetuate those lies in the name of Christ are basically accusing Him of fraud, and that is the point which Clifton shall make here. But they are also accusing Him indirectly of other sins, such as adultery, and here we shall endeavor to explain that as well. These lies are a system of Bible interpretation which we generally describe as “replacement theology”, which we can begin to identify in the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” as early as Justin Martyr and the middle of the 2nd century of the Christian era. Justin lived as an adult and wrote his several works about one hundred years after the death of Paul of Tarsus.

This evening we are going to present a short paper from Clifton Emahiser titled Be Kind to Your Kind. Clifton had originally prepared this paper for publication on June 24th, 2006.

I am presenting this at the current time because I tried to rush the last presentation in my commentary on the Gospel of John, and I made a serious error which was pointed out to me by a friend at the Christogenea Forum. So I will present that afresh, and with much more time and consideration, hopefully next Friday. I also hope that having taken some time off this week, I have had some needed rest. Otto, our Weimaraner, benefited because I was able to assemble a dog house and a few other things he desperately needed in his new kennel.

So I would also like to say that while it seems that I have been close to completion for awhile now, my tasks in the aftermath of the hurricane are finally actually getting there, and I expect to be done moving out of the old house by early next week, so long as the weather is fair. I thought that we would be finished at least a few weeks ago, but we have had some obstacles to our progress. We still have a lot of work to do to settle in here at our new place, but we are close to accomplishing that as well.

We have found over the last five or six months that a certain supposed friend to whom we had extended our charity had really only sought to take advantage of us, thinking that perhaps he had some permanent license and entitlement, while at the same time he never complied with the terms which we had agreed upon when we first gave him shelter. More recently, this man even went so far as attempting to exalt himself as an elder above me in my own home, and claiming that he did not have to live by the few simple house rules that I had imposed upon him, and which he constantly and willfully disregarded. He professed this idea several times since the recent hurricane, that he did not have to obey my wishes in my own house. But even with that, my charity towards him continued until he began slandering me secretly, and now he slanders me openly. He is resentful that we discontinued our charity in the face of his arrogance, as if he had some sort of entitlement.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 6, Israel in the New Testament, by Bertrand Comparet, with Commentary

Here we are going to present, critique, and hopefully elaborate on Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Israel in the New Testament. These programs are intended to both honor and elaborate on the works of Bertrand Comparet, and to offer any corrections which are necessary, because all men are prone to making errors, and no man can avoid that fate. We are doing this as part of our series on Christianity in the Old Testament because the two subjects are actually a single subject. Comparet himself referred to this sermon in his original presentation of Christianity in the Old Testament. Regardless of the propaganda which is spewed by the denominational churches, both the Old and New Testaments represent racially-based covenants made with the same group of people. One may pick-and-choose passages in the New Testament in order to attempt to dispute that, but those passages are being taken out-of-context when such interpretations can be clearly shown to conflict with many plain statements made in either Testament which refute the validity of any universalist interpretation.

To the sincere Christian, Judaism should have no standing or consideration whatsoever. The promise of a future new covenant was made explicitly in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The condemnation revoking the old covenant was spelled out explicitly in both Hosea and Zechariah. The Jews as a people have never fulfilled any of the many promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerning the children of Israel. They will never fulfill them, because the Old Testament is a Christian book. With all certainty, it can be shown in history that the Keltic and Germanic peoples have their origins in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia, and that they did indeed fulfill all of those promises. They also accepted the new covenant that was explicitly promised for Israel, and they accepted Yahshua Christ the Messiah of Israel, who came “to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”, as Paul of Tarsus attests. This is the basic premise of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, it is a true premise, and now we shall commence to hear it from him:

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 5, Concluding Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with Commentary

Here we shall finally conclude our presentation and commentary on Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Christianity in the Old Testament.

After Comparet had presented a lengthy survey of Christian professions made in the Psalms and how they were interpreted as being Christian in nature by the apostles of Christ, Comparet returned to one of his earlier themes, to correctly assess the nature of the Old Testament feasts in relation to the phases of the ministry and the expected return of the Christ. So Comparet appropriately explained that the Spring feasts of the Old Testament calendar were related to the First Advent of the Messiah, and that the fall feasts relate to the expected Second Advent.

From there, and in relation to a name which is present in the Old Testament but which is obscured in the English translations, Comparet’s sermon necessarily goes on to describe what Satan truly is in Scripture, in relation to the name Azazel which is found in the Hebrew of Leviticus chapter 16, but which is translated only as scapegoat in our King James Version. To properly understand the significance of the Day of Atonement in the fall feast schedule, Comparet rather adeptly finds it necessary to explain the significance of Azazel, and that also requires a proper understanding of the meaning of the term Satan....

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

A presentation of Born Under Contract, a paper written by Clifton Emahiser

Here we are going to present an article written perhaps 12 years ago by Clifton Emahiser, which is entitled Born Under Contract. This article aims to demonstrate that the promises made to the Old Testament patriarchs by Yahweh had confined all of their legitimate descendants under a covenant, which is essentially a contract, and that they themselves would have no choice in the matter. In the ancient world, a father had property rights and the power to make such life and death commitments over his offspring, and the offspring had no say in the matter. So, for example, Abraham had an inherent right to place his son Isaac on the altar and sacrifice him to the will of his God. Now, I said legitimate descendants, because the contract was accompanied by a law which forbade illegitimate descendants from reaping its benefits.

Here the sophists and scoffers may say something like, ‘oh, that is not true, the law was not given until Mount Sinai.’ However the Scripture proves otherwise. Abraham was chosen by Yahweh, as we read in Genesis chapter 26: “5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” So a little more must have been given to Abraham than what the Scripture describes. The proof is in the fact that Abraham had every concern over who his son Isaac, who would inherit the covenant, would marry. This is found in Genesis chapter 24: “1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. 2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. 5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest? 6 And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again.” A generation later, Esau had disregard for this, and his mother made certain that it cost him his share in the inheritance of Jacob. She is recorded in Genesis chapter 27 as having exclaimed: “46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?” To this we see Isaac’s response, in Genesis chapter 28: “1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” So the patriarchs, and the matriarchs, were properly racists.

Christogenea Saturdays, December 26th, 2015. This is our final program for this year. Next week, or technically on January 4th, Christogenea.org turns 7 years old. It was founded the first week of January, 2009. We pray that this is only our beginning, and praise Yahweh for what we have been able to do thus far.

Tonight we are going to present the short essay Nine Covenants with Adam-Man by Clifton Emahiser. We remember that this is one of Clifton's first essays which he had distributed to his prison ministry as a brochure, probably back in 2001 or 2002. I remember proofreading this essay for him way back then, and it contains some concepts which in the narrower historical focus of the history of the children of Israel and the New Covenant, are often forgotten among Identity Christians today. We will present Clifton's paper, and hopefully edify it in some degree, by addressing some of the questions it may raise.

The Importance of Paul of Tarsus to Identity Christians

Before commencing this program, I must make a confession, so that nobody is confused from the start. Myself and my ministry and all of its efforts are firmly grounded in the immutable fact that all of the promises of Yahweh God and of Yahshua Christ (or Jesus) which we have in our Bibles are absolutely 100% racially exclusive to the Saxon and Keltic and related peoples. There are no exceptions. All of the promises of God are made to one race of people only, who today are more loosely identified as White Europeans or Caucasians. Of course, even these labels are not specific enough, however listeners who are already Identity Christians should know what we mean when we use them. Nobody who has ever followed our work at Christogenea could fairly accuse us of being universalists in any sense of the word.

What we believe about the Bible can and should be described in two ways: first, it is Covenant Theology. We understand Covenant Theology to be the belief in God's Word as He made it: the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to their seed are made exclusively to their genetic descendants, and nobody else. This is an honest acceptance of the Word of God as He imparted it to men. Secondly, it is Christian Identity, or more fully Christian Israel Identity. It is Christian Identity because we seek to identify through both Scripture and history, with the support of language and archaeology, exactly what people on the earth today are the beneficiaries of those Covenants: who the children of Israel are, and who they are not, according to that same Word of God. It is the truth of Covenant Theology which leads us to the need for Christian Identity. Therefore to accurately understand Christian identity, one must first realize the truth of Covenant Theology.

William Finck and Clifton Emahiser present and discuss Clifton's paper, The Insane Doctrine of Personal Salvation, Part 2.

William Finck and Clifton Emahiser present and discuss Clifton's paper, The Insane Doctrine of Personal Salvation, Part 1, among other things

This presentation is based on the essay Yahweh's Anointed: The Children of Israel.

This presentation is based on two essays available here: The Seed of Inheritance.

This presentation is based on the essay Heirs of the Covenant, along with a discussion of Isaiah 45:25 and Romans 11:26: Which part of "ALL" don't the pharisees understand?

Scriptures used for the program:

Ezra 9:10-12 KJV: “10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11 Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.”

James 4:4: “Adulterers! Do you not know that the love of Society is hatred for Yahweh? He therefore who would desire to be a friend of Society establishes himself as an enemy of Yahweh!”

Mark 12:29, from the KJV: “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.” 

Amos 3:2: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” 

Presented in this podcast are William Finck's Broken Cisterns essays, Part 1 and Part 2

See our essay Sin and the First Epistle of John for the original paper on this topic.