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

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio


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:

Israel In The New Testament

by Bertrand L. Comparet, Taken From Your Heritage and digitized with Critical Notes by Clifton A. Emahiser

It is impossible to truly understand the Bible, or any part of it, without understanding [that] the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian people of today are the Israel of the Bible. The Bible speaks always and only to Israel. To claim its benefits for yourself, you must start by putting yourself in the ranks of Israel. Even the major churches show some dim awareness of this fact, although they won’t admit it.

Actually one cannot put himself in the ranks of Israel. One can only be born into the ranks of Israel. We would take this analogy one step further. It is impossible to understand History itself without understanding the Bible along with the fact that we are the children of Israel. Where did Europeans come from? Why did they accept Christianity? Why did they reject Jews for 1500 years, and now why do Jews rule over them? Why are they being overrun by other races, and why must they ultimately reject those other races? The Bible answers all of these questions and more. The Bible also foretold that all of these events would happen, along with many others. So before we can understand anything of our past, we must understand who we are, or we will have no true and solid foundation, and no certain guide for understanding our present, or our future. Continuing with Comparet:

For example, the Episcopal Church won’t admit that we are Israel, but read their Book of Common Prayer. [Comparet is challenging his listeners to read the book, which we can not present here.] Throughout this book it always speaks from the standpoint of Israel. To get out of the embarrassment of this inconsistency, most churches teach substantially this: “Although God’s promises to Israel were absolute and unconditional, God welshed on those promises and has given them to the church instead.” However, they don’t express this quite so frankly, if their doctrine were true, they wouldn’t have much of a religion. If Israel couldn’t trust Yahweh’s word, who else could? But, it is not true, Yahweh never welshed on a promise. Every promise He ever made to Israel, He has fulfilled and is today fulfilling the promises to Israel and to no one else.

This position, which is called Replacement Theology, has been the Catholic position since the Church was founded, and it is found in the writings of early Christians since the time of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. However it can be proven from the epistles of the apostles, from Peter and Paul explicitly, that this position is not the original apostolic position, nor does it represent true Christianity. Clement of Alexandria perverted the writings of Paul of Tarsus, and Justin Martyr seemed to be ignorant of those writings. Nearly all of the books of the prophets would also thoroughly refute this “replacement theology” position. Continuing with Comparet:

Then the churches say, we are only Gentiles, but we have become spiritual Israel. Now this is a most remarkable statement. The people of Israel were never at any time, a group of people who all held the same religious belief. At the best, there were always many apostates and idolaters among them. During much of their history, nearly the entire nation became apostates. The great prophet Elijah found that in the whole nation of Israel there remained only 7,000 men still loyal to Yahweh. But, the Bible never says they ceased to be Israel, when it was denouncing them for their apostasy. Israel always was purely a racial group, all of the same race, despite the apostasy of some of them from the true religion. Therefore, the only way anyone could become a spiritual Israelite would have to be the same process by which he could become a spiritual negro or a spiritual Mongolian, something [that] no one could ever do. You can be an Israelite only by birth, by inheritance.

For this same reason, when looking for the fate of the ancient children of Israel in the aftermath of the history of their deportations by both the Assyrians and the Babylonians, or in the earlier colonies which were made by Israelites in Europe and elsewhere, something to which the Bible also attests, one must not look for so-called, “Jews”, or worshipers of Yahweh, but for pagans. All of the children of Israel who were taken captive or who had emigrated before the captivities were pagans, and in the resulting history we find many tribes in Europe practicing that same sort of paganism which the Bible describes of Israel. Both the prophets and the epistles of Paul document the appropriate historical connections. Again returning to Comparet:

In many previous lessons, I have presented the evidence that the Israelites exist today under the name of the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Germanic people and that Yahweh’s promises to Israel have been actually fulfilled to them. Many churches teach [that] the New Testament has done away with all of this, it threw all of Yahweh’s promises and prophecies about Israel into the rubbish can and started a new religion with Israel left out of it. This is positively not true. The whole Bible is consistent from beginning to end. I have often told you that there is as much Christianity in the Old Testament as in the New, though it is harder to understand because it is presented in the forms of prophecy, rituals and symbols. Now I want to show you [that] the New Testament, like the Old, is an Israel book.

While Comparet originally presented this sermon before his later Christianity in the Old Testament, which we have just presented here in four parts, he did indeed go on to demonstrate the veracity of what he has just asserted: that “Christianity in the Old Testament… is presented in the forms of prophecy, rituals and symbols.” Continuing with Comparet:

The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, deal with the life and ministry of Yahshua the Christ. Yahshua always taught the truths pertaining to Israel. In Mark 12:28-29, a scribe asked Yahshua which was the greatest commandment of all. We read, “Yahshua answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God is one God.”

Yahshua regarded His whole ministry as being primarily to Israel. In Matthew 15:24 Yahshua said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” When Yahshua sent out His 12 disciples to teach the people, we read in Matthew 10:5-6, “These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles [sic heathen], and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

What Comparet did not mention here is that those “lost sheep” are in fact described in the Old Testament. For instance, Ezekiel chapter 34 says of the children of Israel “6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them.” Then Yahweh blamed the shepherds fro scattering the flocks, or causing them to be scattered, and said “11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.” The searching out of the sheep was conducted through the spread of the Gospel to Europe.

This last verse is problematical, since it can be demonstrated that, at least initially, the apostles understood it in a different way than it was literally spoken. However it remains true in any case, that the intention of Christ for the gospel was only for the so-called “lost sheep” of the house, or family, of Israel. As Acts chapter 10 shows, before the Crucifixion the apostles would have interpreted the statement to refer only to Israelites of Judaea, to those of the circumcision. It was not until later, after Acts chapter 10 and in the revelations given to Paul of Tarsus, that Peter is made to realize the identity of those sheep, as he himself attests in his first epistle. By the time that James wrote his first epistle he also demonstrated that understanding. Continuing with Comparet:

In Matthew 19:27-28 Peter asked Yahshua what reward would be given to those who had given up all to follow Him. Yahshua replied to Peter, “Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.” Note this carefully, He didn’t say that they would become heads of the Methodist, Episcopal or Baptist churches, but that they would become rulers and judges over the 12 tribes of Israel. This is not something of the past which Yahweh had to discard as a failure. This is Yahshua the Christ’s prophecy of what was so eternally true, that it would still be in effect in the millennium when He comes back to rule the earth in person. Also, many of the parables used by Yahshua concerned Israel, as Yahshua testified in the gospels.

Here Comparet professed a belief in a “millennium” which is a false Church teaching based mostly on a spurious interpolation found in Revelation chapter 20, verse 5. There, the clause translated as “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. In regard to Comparet’s mention of this “millennium”, Clifton Emahiser made the following note, which he actually appended to the very end of this sermon:

Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: Comparet again brings up the topic of a future millennium saying: “This is Yahshua the Christ’s prophecy of what was so eternally true, that it would still be in effect in the millennium when He comes back to rule the earth in person.” While I have a great respect for Comparet and his teachings, and I rate him as one of the best Israel Identity teachers, yet I cannot agree with his position on a future millennium. I believe that the millennium is already past, and I am not a praeterist. Adam Clarke in his Commentary says this at 1 Corinthians 15:23, volume 6, page 158 under the phrase, “But every man in his own order”:

“Some think that by them that are Christ’s at his coming, ‘we are to understand Christ’s coming to reign on earth a thousand years with his saints previously to the general judgment;’ but I must confess I find nothing in the sacred writings distinctly enough marked to support this opinion of the millennium or thousand years’ reign; nor can I conceive any important end that can be answered by this procedure.”

Clifton’s notes are good, although at the time that he made them he did not have my notes on the translation of Revelation 20:5, which explain the interpolation that causes men to mistakenly believe that the millennium cannot happen until after the resurrection of the dead. From the correct historicist view of Scripture, the thousand years has already transpired, and now we are in the time that Satan gathers all of the goat nations against the Camp of the Saints. Continuing with Comparet:

Surely, no other authority as great as that of Yahshua can be found, to testify what is truly Christian. Yet, there are still many people who mistakenly believe that the apostle Paul changed all of this. They believe that he threw out not only all of the Old Testament but also the teachings of Yahshua and set up a new religion. Paul would be the last person in the world to attempt such a thing! Paul makes it clear, in nearly every epistle he wrote, he is writing to and about Israel, although some of this has been hidden by mistranslation in the King James Bible.

This is precisely why, shortly after I learned the Christian Identity message in 1997, I undertook my own study of Greek and began to make a New Testament translation. I never really intended to translate the entire New Testament, although that is what I eventually did. I really only wanted to see for myself those supposed mistranslations in Paul, and to learn what Paul had actually said. Starting in 1998, after perhaps 18 months I was absolutely convinced that Comparet was correct. In 2001 I sent Clifton Emahiser a draft translation of all of Paul’s epistles, and I thoroughly reviewed that and updated it for compliance with the best manuscripts and readings found in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) in 2003. That is the text which appeared in the first edition of the Christogenea New Testament, but which has since been slightly emended and improved. Now we have recently completed a series of 111 podcast presentations containing a full commentary on the epistles of Paul, and explaining all of the important variations in our translation compared with the King James Version, and why we made them. Statements such as this one which we see by Comparet were our primary motivation for that entire endeavor. Now in regard to Paul’s statements about Israel, Comparet says:

Let’s review some of them.

First, let’s take the so called Epistle to the Romans. To whom does Paul address it? Romans 1:7 shows that it is addressed to those persons in Rome who are called saints. Yes, I know that your King James Bible says called to be saints. But, you will notice that the words to be are in italic type, which shows that these two words were not in the original writing. The translators added them in order to make it correspond with what the translators thought Paul should have said. But let’s take Paul at his own word, what he actually did write instead of what somebody else substituted for it.

Comparet is absolutely correct here. Many very subtle changes in the intent of the language from Greek to English have totally corrupted the meanings of the original texts, and this is especially true in the letters of Paul, who was actually the apostle to the Israelite Nations of the ancient dispersions of the twelve tribes. Even in the King James Version, the apostle Jude was translated rather correctly where he said: “it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” The faith was delivered to people who were already saints. So Comparet continues and says:

Remember that Paul was a very well educated man who knew the scriptures well. Paul knew that a saint was not somebody who would be named such by the church, in the dark ages, several centuries after Paul wrote, because the so-called saint had done some deed of piety. Do you know who all of the saints are? Paul knew because he knew the Psalms. In the first place, what does saint mean? It means set apart or consecrated to the service of Yahweh. It is used in the Bible almost exclusively of people as members of a class, rather than as individuals, it is used to describe the status of Yahweh’s people Israel.

The saints are the people whom Yahweh had set apart from all others, whether they sin or not. This is demonstrated in Psalm 37 where it says: “27 Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore. 28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.” The wicked are not His saints, and only His saints are called to depart from evil. So the saints are saints even when they sin. Comparet makes an example from another Psalm:

Therefore Psalm 148:14 tells us who all of Yahweh’s saints are. Not just some of them but all of them. It says, “He also exalteth the horn of His people, the praise of all His saints, even of the children of Israel, a people near unto Him.” Paul knew them, so when he addressed any of his epistles to saints, you know Paul was writing to Israelites.

In the Epistle to the Romans, as it is wrongly named in your Bible (for Paul didn’t call it that, but the translators did), Paul says he is writing, “To all that be in Rome, beloved of Yahweh, called saints.” Since all of the saints are Israelites according to the Bible, which Paul knew very well, we know that he was not writing to just Romans in general.

Nero for example, was a Roman. In fact, Nero was emperor at the time Paul wrote this epistle and we may be sure that Paul never considered Nero a saint. These saints are also identified as called. Paul knew whom Yahweh had called.

This is only partially true, as Comparet is quite biased against Romans and Nero. The epistle is popularly called Romans, and the Romans themselves were descended from an ancient branch of the tribe of Judah. We must consider any true Roman to be a saint in that regard. Nero was a Roman, and he was ostensibly descended from the princely line of ancient Troy, therefore he was most certainly an Israelite, and a saint, in spite of his sin. Many of the Kings of Israel and Judah were greater sinners than Nero, and they would have supposedly known better, having been raised in the Law, while Nero was raised as a pagan. In some of his other sermons, such as Daniel's Fifth Kingdom, Comparet admitted the Israelite origin of the Romans. So we cannot determine why he denied Nero that admission here, but Comparet was evidently in conflict with himself on the matter. But in any event, Paul never made any specific comment concerning Nero’s heritage. However in Philippians chapter 4 Paul had passed greetings from saints in Nero’s household on to the Christians of Philippi, where he said in verse 22: “All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.” Nero was Caesar when Paul wrote both of these epistles, Romans and Philippians. So here Comparet is certainly not being fair to Nero, even if Nero was a horribly prolific sinner. Now continuing with Comparet, in reference to the “called” of Paul’s epistles:

Isaiah 41:8-9 tells us, “But thou Israel, art My servant; Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof and said unto thee, Thou art My servant; I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.” Isaiah 51:2 instructs us, “Look unto Abraham your father and unto Sarah that bore you; for I called him alone and blessed him and increased him.” Paul well knew that Yahweh had called and predestined His people Israel, to be the people who are consecrated to His service, which is just what the word saint means. Therefore in Romans 8:30 Paul says, “Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”

Comparet may have done better to cite verse 29 along with verse 30, where Paul wrote: “29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” The Christian must be foreknown by Yahweh, predestinated by Yahweh, and it is only they who are called by Yahweh. Only the literal and physical children of Israel can claim the distinctions of being both foreknown and predestinated according to the prophets and Word of Yahweh throughout Scripture. The true Christian should not try to corrupt the Word of God to make it conform to what he perceives of himself. Rather, the true Christian should seek to conform himself to the Word of God. Comparet continues:

Similarly, Paul writes to the saints in various other cities. I Corinthians 1:2, II Corinthians 1:1, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Colossians 1:2, 24-26, and Philemon verse 5, all these clearly state Paul was writing to those who are the saints in those various cities. Paul knew that the saints, the Israelites, were the people to whom Yahweh’s message was addressed. The people in whom the message must take root, that they should be called to His service as Yahweh had declared from the beginning. Therefore, it was to them that Paul wrote and not to the Gentiles [sic heathen] in general.

This is only a small beginning of the plethora of proofs of the Israelite identity of his intended readers which is found in practically all of Paul’s surviving epistles. But Comparet knows that, so he goes further into Romans:

Let’s examine the Epistle to the Romans still more closely. Romans is generally regarded as supremely the book written to the Gentiles. It might surprise you to know that there is no such word as gentile in the Bible in its original language. Oh yes, I know that you can find it in the King James Bible, also in the less accurate of the modern English translations. It was never in the original languages and has been put in by the translators. Neither Hebrew nor Greek has such a word as gentile, nor any word which is equivalent to it. The word gentile comes from the Latin word gentilis which means, one who is not a Roman citizen. If you were to use the word accurately, you would have to say that Yahshua and all of His disciples were gentiles, for none of them were Roman citizens. Paul was the only one of the apostles who was a Gentile, for Paul was a Roman citizen.

Actually, that should say that Paul was the only apostle who was not a gentile, because he was a Roman citizen, according to the definition of gentile Comparet is supplying here. This error may have been in the original, because other and older transcriptions of Comparet’s sermon also have it that way. Furthermore, Comparet’s definition is not quite correct, and we shall explain that a little later. For now, we shall continue with Comparet:

But what does the Bible say in the original languages in which it was written?

In the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew, whenever you see the word gentile in your English Bible, the Hebrew used the word goy if it was in the singular, or the plural form of it, goyim. This word means precisely nation and nothing else. Remember Yahweh told Abraham in Genesis 17:6 “I will make nations of thee.” In the Hebrew Yahweh said, “I will make goyim of thee.” It would have been utterly too silly to translate this, [as] “I will make Gentiles of your descendants.” The translators translated it correctly here as nations. You remember when the twins, Jacob and Esau were still in the womb of Rebekah their mother, they struggled together and she prayed to Yahweh to tell her why this was so and Yahweh answered her, “Two nations are in thy womb.” In the Hebrew original this says, “Two goyim are in thy womb.” Certainly Yahweh never told her that “two gentiles are in thy womb.” Here the translators had to translate it correctly as nations. But, this is exactly the same word which they translate gentiles in many other places.

The New Testament which most of you have was translated from manuscripts written in the Greek language. Whenever in your New Testament you see the word gentile, the word in the Greek was ethnos. Ethnos means nation, just as the Hebrew word goy does. In many places, it would have been silly to translate it gentile, so the translators had to use the correct word, nation. For example in Luke 7:1-10 we read that a certain Roman officer, a centurion, had a servant who was dying. The centurion asked some elders of the Jews [or Judaeans] to intercede for him with Yahshua and ask Him to heal his servant. The Jews [or Judaeans] did urge Yahshua to do this for the centurion saying “that he was worthy for whom He should do this, for he loveth our ethnos and he hath built us a synagogue.” Surely no Jew [or Judaean] would have praised the centurion for loving the Gentiles [or a gentile, since the word is singular - WRF], nor would he have built a synagogue for Gentiles. So, they had to translate this one correctly as nation not gentile. Everywhere you see the word gentile in the New Testament, it is the same word ethnos in the Greek. This word ethnos has no pagan, or non-Israel, nor even non-Greek connotation. The Greeks distinguished between Greeks and Barbarians, which all educated men like Paul knew. So he said in Romans 1:14, “I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians.” So just remember that Paul never once wrote gentile in all his writings, he only wrote ethnos, which means nation. Therefore, do not be misled by the translation where you read in Romans 1:13, “That I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.” Paul actually wrote, “even as among other nations.” Paul had made converts who lived among other nations, both in Greece, Syria and in Asia Minor. You must carefully judge from the general context in which the term occurs, whether the particular nation of which he speaks is an Israel nation or a non-Israel nation. If it is a non-Israel nation, then the common term gentile may as well be used, even though inaccurately, because we are accustomed to it.

Paul did preach to at least some non-Israelite people, such as the Athenians in Acts chapter 17 or the Lycaonians in Acts chapter 14. While there were some Israelites in these places, they were primarily inhabited by Japhethite tribes. So where Paul addressed them, he did not speak to them about redemption, or sin, or the law, or even of Christ, things which applied only to Israel. Rather, he spoke to them about the one true God, the Creator, who had let all of the Adamic nations go their own way, things which applied to the portions of the greater Adamic race who were not Israelites. He spoke to them in the context of Genesis chapters 1 through 11, and not in the context of Genesis chapter 12 through the Revelation.

Many years ago when Clifton published this, perhaps in 2005 or 2006, if I had to guess, he first asked me to proofread it, and it was part of an entire collection of Comparet’s sermons which he had transcribed. When I did proofread it all, I could not help but to make a few annotations here and there. In reference to Comparet’s explanation of the definition of gentile, I wrote the following, and Clifton retained it for his publication:

Critical note by William Finck: In addition to Comparet’s definition of the word “Gentile” I [would] say this: I call “gentile” a non-word because in our language it is just that, [it is] not an English word. Rather, “gentile” was borrowed from the Latin language, and assigned a corrupted meaning, “Non-Jew”, which it never bore in Latin! The English translators chose the Latin gentilis, “gentile”, for their corrupt translation of the original Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos) because Jerome, when he made the Latin Vulgate, used the word gentilis to translate ἔθνος into Latin. Jerome, however, may well have had more wisdom than the later English translators, since gentilis is defined [as] “family, hereditary; tribal; national ... clansman, kinsman” by The New College Latin & English Dictionary, and describes a people with some degree of relationship to each other. The Junior Classic Latin Dictionary published by Wilcox & Follett Company in 1945 defines gentilis: “of the same clan or race”, surely a word consistent with all scripture (Amos 3:2, Matt. 15:24 et al.) and nothing like the corrupted catholic interpretation of the word! To be honest, ἔθνος must be translated into a like English term when translating the Greek scriptures into English, and no borrowed and corrupted third-language term should be used, especially when that word’s true sense is ignored completely!

If the true meaning of the word gentilis were understood, people would know that the nations to whom Paul was sent were indeed descended from the ancient Israelites. It was actually Clifton who had initially found that definition in The New College Latin & English Dictionary, and must have presented it elsewhere in his own writings at an earlier time, so I cannot take credit for that part of my note. In any event, I only hoped that Clifton would use the material to help clarify what Comparet had explained, and he did. Now continuing with Comparet:

For further proof Paul was not writing to gentiles in the Epistle to the Romans, note how Paul tells these saints in Rome to whom he writes in Romans chapter 4, “Abraham is our father, as pertaining to the flesh,” and “Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Certainly he could not have told any Gentile that Abraham was his father, as pertaining to the flesh!

Actually, in the oldest Greek manuscripts, the first clause cited here says “Now what may we say that our forefather Abraham has found concerning the flesh?” A forefather is none other than an ancestor. Romans chapter 4 is Paul’s most complete profession that by his time, the promise by Yahweh that Abraham’s seed would become many nations was already fulfilled, and that he was bringing the Gospel to those very nations of the ancient promise. A study of ancient history demonstrates that Paul was certainly correct. In that same chapter, Paul defines the promise by explaining that those many nations came from Abraham’s seed, where the modern churches wrongly teach that many alien nations somehow became Abraham’s seed, which exactly the opposite of what the promise had said, and what Paul had taught. Now Comparet makes an exhibit in another chapter of Paul’s epistles, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, which may also seem rather startling to those who do not understand our Christian Identity:

This is consistent with what Paul wrote to the Saints in the city of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 he writes, “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Paul could not have truthfully told gentiles that their fathers, like his, had all passed through the Red Sea with Moses and had all been protected by the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night and had all eaten the manna and had all drunk of the water which poured out of the rock in answer to Moses’ prayer. Only to Israelites could he have said this with the slightest spark of truth.

Further on in that same chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul had said, where we will omit a short parenthetical remark: “18 Behold Israel down through the flesh: are not those who are eating the sacrifices partners of the altar?... 20 Rather, that whatever the Nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to Yahweh.” As we asserted at the beginning of this presentation, Paul was illustrating that the children of Israel, the nations who were “Israel according to the flesh”, were practicing paganism, just like the Old Testament informs us that they were, only they were doing it after they departed from ancient Israel, in Europe where they fulfilled the original promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to become many nations and a company of nations. Comparet continues:

Not even the prophets of the Old Testament were more firmly convinced of the great and continuing destiny of Israel than was Paul. I know that you have been taught, in your churches, that Paul threw all this into the rubbish heap and started a new religion without Israel in it. Where they get that idea I certainly don’t know. Listen to this from the Epistle to the Romans, and see if you can find anything here to show that Paul thought that Israel was all through. In Romans 9:4-5 Paul speaks of the “Israelites: to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises; whose are the fathers; and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came.” You have been taught [that] Gentiles are adopted as the children of Yahweh. However, did you notice Paul says it is the Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption?

How could Paul make it any clearer than this, which is in Romans 11:1-2 “I say then, hath Yahweh cast away His people? Yahweh forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Yahweh hath not cast away His people which He foreknew!”? Remember what he says about those whom Yahweh foreknew! “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Since Yahweh’s people Israel are those He foreknew, then this is written about them.

And only the children of Israel were foreknown, as Yahweh said in Amos chapter 3: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. ”

The false interpretations of the denominational churches cause many contradictions with the actual reading of the Scriptures. Once Christian Identity is realized, all of the contradictions disappear, and all the false teachings of the Jews are exposed. So Comparet continues and says:

We see that in the New Testament, the writings of Paul very clearly constitute Israel books, just as much so as the Old Testament. But what of the other books in the New Testament, which were not written by Paul, are they also Israel books?

Now let’s look at the writing of the other apostles in the New Testament. What about James? James addresses his epistle to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. This could not be to the Jews, for they were not of any of the tribes of Israel and also they were not scattered abroad, when James wrote. For ten years thereafter, they were still collected together in Palestine.

There were Judaeans in diverse cities throughout the Roman empire, but they were not actually scattered, as they were still associated with Jerusalem, and they still only consisted of two tribes, and not of all twelve.

There were two apostles named James in Scripture. One, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was slain by Herod Agrippa I, which is recorded in Acts chapter 12. The other, James the half-brother of Yahshua Christ, lived until 61 or 62 AD, and he is the James who wrote this epistle. His death at the hands of certain of the party of the Sadducees was recorded by Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Judaeans. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, but the real diaspora of the Jews from Palestine did not occur until after a later revolt was crushed by the Romans, after 135 AD. So Comparet is correct, that by no means could James have been referring to Jews when he wrote the words which open his epistle. Furthermore, Josephus attests in Antiquities, in Book 11 (11:133), that only two tribes were ever under Roman rule, and they were the only ones who were ever called Judaeans. Yet the records of the Old Testament inform us even further, that Josephus could only have been writing of a very small portion of those two tribes. Josephus said “there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.” A survey of ancient history can prove that those ten tribes were called by the names Sakae, Scythians, and Galatae, and then later by more specific names for smaller tribal divisions, such as Goths and Alans, etc. Paul wrote to some of them in his epistle to the Galatians, and told them that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,” and “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law,” none of which can justly be interpreted as to apply to anyone but the literal, genetic children of Israel. So Comparet is once again correct where he says in relation to the opening lines of James’ epistle that:

It could not even be the people of the kingdom of Judah, for they were never more than the 3 tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. James is speaking to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. We know that the Assyrians first took into captivity all the people of the ten northern tribes who made up the kingdom of Israel. Then the Assyrians, under King Sennacherib invaded the southern kingdom of Judah and deported 200,150 of its people in the same captivity with the ten tribes. We know from historical sources, upon the fall of Babylon, the tribes of Israel, by that time known as Scythians, swooped down on Babylon and carried off most of the [remaining] people of Judah, Benjamin and Levi who were captives at Babylon. They left behind just the relatively few who returned to Palestine with Ezra and Nehemiah. So when James wrote his epistle in 60 A.D., the twelve tribes were scattered abroad. By that time they were known as the Angli, Saxons, Ostrogoths, Visigoths and the Royal Scyths, already moving on their long march into their predestined homes in Europe. It was to them James was writing.

Actually, by the time of the return of Nehemiah and Ezra, there were many who did remain in Babylon. Peter later brought the Gospel to them, as he says he was in Babylon at the end of his first epistle, and as he was an apostle of the circumcision. But those who remained in Babylon were still from only two tribes. Later, those Jews who remained and who continued to reject Christ wrote the Babylonian Talmud there, the more popular of the several editions of the Talmud.

There were also many Israelites who departed from Egypt by sea rather than follow Moses, among whom were a portion of the Danaans, and the Trojans. After the conquest of Palestine, many Israelites departed and invaded Greece and were known as Dorians. Around that same time, many others of the tribes of Israel took to the seas, and the Greeks later recalled them as Phoenicians. They settled Anatolia, Greece, Italy, France, North Africa, Iberia, the British Isles, and the Danube River valley. They probably settled other areas as well. These early sea-faring Israelites were just as significant in fulfilling the promises to the Patriarchs as the Israelites of the later deportations were. Back to Comparet:

What about Peter? The First Epistle of Peter leaves no doubt he was writing to the Israelites. The first verse is badly mistranslated, instead of, “To the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,” as your King James Bible reads, the actual wording in the Greek is, “To the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia etc.” Pontus, Galatia and Cappadocia are the eastern part of modern Turkey and we know that the Scythian tribes of Israel did occupy this region before they moved out on their long journey into Europe.

Comparet’s translation is correct in substance, as the word for which the King James Version had strangers should be sojourners. It refers to someone who emigrates, and not to an alien, to someone who is estranged, and not to a stranger.

As for what he said about the Scythians, this is true, but the Galatians returned and re-occupied four centuries later, in the 2nd century BC. Furthermore, in Paul’s time there were just as many Greeks and Romans in these areas. They were colonized and ruled over first by the Macedonian Greeks, and later by Rome. Asia was much more Greek than it ever was Scythian, and its capital in Paul’s time was Ephesus. An examination of both of Peter’s epistles reveals that he wrote them to assemblies which Paul of Tarsus had founded, for the most part, and in them he upheld the teachings of Paul. While it cannot be proven, he probably even wrote them after Paul’s arrest and execution in Rome. So Comparet continues and speaks further of Peter’s epistles:

The Israelites were exiles from their original homeland in Palestine and were dispersed over a wide region. Finally, to clinch the matter, Peter identified them in the second verse as “Elect, according to the foreknowledge of Yahweh, the Father.” But who were Yahweh’s elect? In Isaiah 45:4, Yahweh speaks of “Israel Mine elect.” As to the foreknowledge of Yahweh, remember that in Romans 11:2, Paul confirms that “Yahweh hath not cast away His people which He foreknew.” Elect is but another word for chosen. In Deuteronomy 7:6 the people of Israel are told, “Yahweh, your God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.”

Let’s look further into what Peter has to say. In 1 Peter 2:9, he says to these exiles of the dispersion on Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, etc., “But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: that ye should show forth the praise of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” I know that the King James Bible says “a chosen generation”, but this is a mistranslation, for the word in the Greek is genos, meaning a race, not a generation. This couldn’t describe anyone but Israel, as the chosen race is Israel.

Among many other places we find it in Isaiah 44:1, “Yet now hear O Jacob My servant; and Israel whom I have chosen.” Deuteronomy 7:6 continues, “... Yahweh thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.” [Or as Peter said]: “a royal priesthood, an holy nation.” This also can only be Israel, for Exodus 19:6 tells the people of Israel, “Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.” A peculiar people is another identifying mark of Israel, for Deuteronomy 14:2 says, “For thou art an holy people unto Yahweh thy God and Yahweh hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself above all the nations that are upon the earth.” Finally, “that ye should show forth the praise of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” is another identifying mark of Israel. In Isaiah 43:21 Yahweh says, “This people have I formed for Myself; they shall show forth My praise.”

The darkness is a reference to the blindness of Israel, as it says in Isaiah, in reference to the children of Israel, “Who is blind, but my servant?” Comparet continues:

I have skipped over the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is not signed, but is usually credited to Paul. I can’t imagine anyone disputing that this book, as indicated by its title, is written to, as well as written about, the Hebrews, the Israelites. Probably we need not say more about it here. If I were to start in on that book, it alone would take several lessons to cover. I will go into that some other time.

Of course, we have already made our own lengthy commentary on Hebrews, which spanned at least 25 hours. Hebrews was with all certainty written to the Israelites of Judaea, and Paul wrote it as his apology, or a defense of his teaching of the Gospel. Much of Hebrews clearly answers the differences which Paul had with the Judaizing Christians of Judaea, that are evident in Acts chapters 14, 15 and 21, and also in Galatians chapter 2. Comparet continues:

What of the little-understood Book of Revelation? It is too clear for any possible doubt that this book is written in symbols and is not to be taken literally. You must understand the symbols used in order to know the great realities for which they stand, these symbols are in general Israel symbols. Hence it can be understood only by those who can recognize the Israel basis of the symbols. This is also a book about which whole volumes have been written. It is too long for me to take up as just a subdivision of our present theme of Israel in the New Testament.

In this regard, I would think that the most important thing to note about the Book of Revelation, is that in the end there is a city, and on the gates of the city are written the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. A tree grows in the city, the Tree of Life, which bears twelve types of fruit, ostensibly corresponding to those same twelve tribes. So it may safely be inferred, that if one is not a member of one of those tribes, one will never be permitted to enter into that city. Outside of the city are “dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” But all men sin, even all Israelites. So who are these others who are left outside? That question is only answered once it is realized that Christ came to cleanse only the children of Israel for their sins. As Comparet had quoted Paul earlier as having said in Romans: those whom He foreknew, these He also justified. All Israel shall indeed be saved, and all of the goats go to the Lake of Fire. Comparet moves towards his conclusion:

We have covered enough to show that the New Testament and the Old Testament are just the two sides of the same coin which has the same value, whichever side you look at. If this were not so, we could not have confidence in either one of them. Truth must always be consistent with itself. Yahshua came not to take back Yahweh’s promises and nullify the prophecies but rather, as Paul said in Romans 15:8, “Now I say that Yahshua was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of Yahweh, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.”

All that had been promised to Abraham and Moses was to be made good. Likewise, these promises to Abraham and Moses included the basis for Christianity. In fact Moses was a Christian. Does that startle you, when you remember that Moses died more than 1,400 years before Christ was born? Yet the New Testament tells us that Moses was a Christian. Hebrews 11:24-26 says, “By faith, Moses when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of Yahweh than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season: esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.”

It is certain that he could not have esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, unless he truly understood what all the rituals he taught the people really meant, that they talked of the coming Redeemer. So it is that Hebrews 10:1 speaks of the law having a shadow of the good things to come. The Book of Hebrews explains how the rituals were only symbols of the coming of Christ and His sacrifice for us.

For this, Clifton Emahiser has one more Critical Note, with which I must agree, and he says:

Comparet also quotes 1 Cor. 10:1-4 & Heb. 11:24-26 where I believe that “Christ” is a mistranslation. At 1 Cor. 10:1-4, I believe that “Christ” should instead be “the anointed” meaning the children of Israel, and the “Christ” at Heb. 11:24-26 should be “the anointed” meaning Jacob’s anointed pillow stone. Otherwise, Comparet makes some excellent points at these passages.

Addressing Clifton’s last remark, I would rather think that the rock in the desert to which Paul referred, which he called a “Spiritual Rock”, was really a reference to Yahweh God Himself, who is Yahshua Christ. Jacob’s pillar can, however, stand as a symbol for Yahweh and the promises which Yahweh made to Jacob.

Comparet is correct however, as we have discussed earlier in this series, that Moses was indeed a Christian, in spite of his mis-reading of that passage in Hebrews chapter 11. So he concludes in his final paragraph of this sermon:

Therefore, never let anyone tell you that the two halves of the Bible are inconsistent and to accept one you must reject the other. No, the Bible is all one book, it tells of Yahweh’s putting His sons and daughters on earth as His chosen people, Israel and the great destiny He set for them. It tells of His foreknowledge of their imperfections and sins and His provision from before the foundation of the world, of the Redeemer who would save His people. Both Old and New Testaments are Christian books and both of them are Israel books.

There are many other passages which come to mind, some of them which are mistranslated in the popular Bible versions, which help to prove that the New Testament is indeed for the same children of Israel for whom was written the Old Testament. Closing this series, we will provide our translation of just a few of them:

The words of Simeon in Luke chapter 2: “29 Now release Your servant, Master, in peace according to Your word: 30 Because my eyes have seen Your Salvation, 31 which You have prepared in front of all the people: 32 a light for the revelation of the Nations and honor of Your people Israel!” The light of Christ was to reveal the identity of the nations of Israel, the nations of the promises to the patriarchs, and it did: when the people of Europe turned to Christ.

The words of Christ to Ananias in Acts chapter 9, concerning Paul of Tarsus: “15 But the Prince said to him ‘Go! For he is a vessel chosen by Me who is to bear My Name before both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.’” The construction of the Greek grammar informs us that the nations, the kings, and the sons of Israel are all one and the same, and that is exactly what Paul himself had later explained in Romans chapter 4 and 1 Corinthians chapter 10, both of which Comparet had mentioned here.

The words of Paul where he explains what Christ had spoken to him in reference to his ministry, from Acts chapter 22: “21 And He said to me ‘Go, because I shall send you off to distant nations.’” And finally, the words of Paul to Herod Agrippa II, which are a reference to that same command, from Acts chapter 26: “6 And now for the hope of the promise having been made by God to our fathers I stand being judged, 7 for which our twelve tribes serving in earnest night and day hope to attain, concerning which hope I am charged by the Judaeans…” Nothing could be more clear, that the “distant nations” to which Paul was sent were the same “twelve tribes” which bore the hope of the promises! And none of these were “Jews”!

As Comparet also said, we could continue on with such expositions for many hours. Here we will conclude by saying that the denominational churches are following the teachings of the Jews and they are forced to deny 90% of the Bible. But Christian Identity accepts the entire Scriptures as being true, and studies the language and the history which proves they are true.