Community Podcasts

We have been familiar with Jim Rizoli from our Social Media  circles for many years, but I have never before spoken with him. This week he wrote asking if I would like to do an interview, so I got together with him this Wednesday afternoon. While I cannot explain all of the details supporting everything which I believe in one hour, it was nevertheless an enjoyable conversation.

See Jim Rizoli's channel on Bitchute, especially for the parade of clowns he had on after this interview, and his virtue signaling ever since speaking to me. Jim is essentially a social justice warrior disguised as a holocaust denier. Jim claims to be opposed to World Jewry, yet he has accepted the entire Jewish agenda of egalitarianism and race-mixing.

EDIT 2023-3-12: Jim now denies being a race-mixer, but he is too stupid to even see how he advocates egalitarianism and race-mixing. The truth is that once a man thinks "people" of other races can be Christian, he is advocating race mixing. If he won't marry a gook, how does he think God would marry a gook? (Romans 7:1-4, Revelation 19:7-9) And once a man gets his information about Christianity or anything else based on the opinions of a woman, he is also advocating feminism! Jim, stop being a bitch.

Taking a brief hiatus between the Wisdom of Solomon and our coming commentary on the epistles of John, this evening we had a long discussion with some of our friends. Several different topics were discussed. Thanks to all who participated, you certainly are appreciated. Praise Yahweh!

Being on a road trip which has kept us much busier than we could have anticipated, this evening we decided to host another Open Forum. Here we discussed certain heresies which have been introduced into some supposedly Christian Identity circles, and the need for maintaining consistent fundamental principles in Biblical interpretation and in the formulation of sound Christian doctrine, among other things.
 

Thanks to all who participated, you certainly are appreciated. Praise Yahweh!

Who is Your Savior? A Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Perhaps six or eight weeks ago, we learned of a group which claimed to be Christian Identity, but which has been led off into believing a Roman Catholic heresy which is called “trinity”, which is of course a word, and a concept, that is not found in Scripture. Some members of this group are, or were, also participants in Christogenea forums. So at first we addressed this by presenting a paper from Clifton Emahiser titled The Day The Word Became Flesh, and now we shall address it further by presenting a Bertrand Comparet sermon titled Who is Your Savior? Doing this, our main point is to show that traditional Identity Christians such as Comparet understood that the “trinity” heresy is incompatible with Biblical Christianity.

For many simple reasons, the Roman Catholic trinity heresy, and we will call it Roman Catholic because that is where it began, with the development of the Roman Catholic Church, is absolutely incompatible with what we call Covenant Theology, and therefore it is incompatible with our view of Christian Identity, as Identity is based on Covenant Theology. It is also idolatry, as it forms the One True God into three different persons, perverting the Biblical perception of elements of His Being into the image of man. The worst aspect of this is the Catholic claim that the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of God, somehow becomes a person separate from God the Father and His Christ, simply because of “love”. From here, the possibilities for continued sophistry and idolatry are endless.

Note, January 28th, 2021: The version of these notes edited after the presentation evidently did not save properly, and have now been corrected. The original document has just been replaced, 12:35 PM EST. - WRF

After many discussions this past week in the Christogenea forums and chats, I thought that perhaps it is an appropriate time to present:

The Day The Word Became Flesh, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

Countless men have attempted to understand the Genesis account of Creation, which begins with a statement that “God created the heaven and the earth”, and then the first actual utterance ascribed to God is “Let there be light”, before it goes on to describe His actual creation of the heaven and preparation of the earth for habitation. Several verses after the proclamation “let there be light”, we see the sun, moon and stars were created, which are the only sources of light perceived by man, other than earthly sources such as fire or man-made light. Therefore, from the Genesis account alone, we cannot know what that light of Genesis 1:3 is, where God had said “let there be light”, and where He first distinguished day and night, even before the sun, moon and stars were created.

But these are certainly not contradictions in the Genesis account, and in spite of the fact that many fundamentalists of the past have insisted that the Creation account is absolutely literal and even “scientific”, it should rather be apparent to Christians that the events of Creation were explained in a manner by which the full meaning and truth of at least some of its statements would not become apparent until the revelation of the Gospel of Christ. Neither is the Creation account complete, as it does not describe the creation of things which are not regularly manifest on the earth, such as wicked spirits or angels, whether they be good or evil. As it is expressed in Matthew chapter 13, since Christ came to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world, the entire account of creation was certainly not included in Genesis, or things could not have been kept secret.

While we did not really speak much about Christogenea, that is okay, there are certainly more pressing matters to speak about. So the recent events in Washington DC and certain Identity Christians who have renewed the heresy of the Trinity Doctrine were the subjects which consumed most of the evening.

There were still some minor technical problems, but we are improving. We hope to do an Open Forum at least once each quarter this coming year, so we will do this again in early April!

This evening we had another open forum discussion with some of our Forum Members and friends. Many topics of immediate interest to Identity Christians were discussed, and especially the methods of our approach to Scripture and why we hold them dear.

Also: Vindication on our series of commentaries on The Arab Question.

The “Little Horn” of Daniel chapter 7, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

In his monthly Watchman’s Teaching Letters for 2002, Clifton Emahiser had sought to explain elements of the books of the prophet Daniel and the Revelation in an endeavor to refute the fallacies of what we call Futurism and Preterism, and to demonstrate the importance of the historical, or Historicist interpretation of prophecy as a key to understanding the Word of Yahweh our God. Doing that, Clifton had many other digressions as he progressed, and he discussed the two different descriptions of a “little horn” in Daniel in different ways. This shorter paper, The "Little Horn" of Daniel 7:8, was compiled from those studies.

Among denominational Christians, there are many foolish ways to interpret Scripture, and many ways to describe or label them. There is futurism, full preterism, partial preterism, millennialism or chiliasm, amillennialism or chillegorism, premillennialism and postmillennialism, and some of these overlap or encompass one another. There are even panmillennialists, who apparently believe that in the end, eschatology is not important at all because evidently, they also believe that everyone gets a participation trophy from God.

This evening we had an open forum discussion with some of our Forum Members and friends. This may give our listeners and other visitors to Christogenea some further insight into the attitudes and opinions of the members of our wider Christogenea community.

PS: The music was overbearing for the first few minutes of the podcast, for which we apologize. It has been 8 years since we used this format, and we will improve...

Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide

We are in Bristol, Tennessee this week, and while I was pondering what to present for this evening, and considering the circumstances which made our travel necessary in the first place, I could think of nothing more appropriate than a critical review of Bertrand Comparet's sermon, Noah's Flood Was Not World Wide .

Before preparing for this presentation, it had probably been at least 22 years since I read this sermon. When I did, I was quite disappointed in many ways which shall become evident as I proceed. While we love Bertrand Comparet, and while he was certainly a notable pioneer trailblazing our path to Christian Identity truth, he nevertheless maintained some critical errors, and they are evident in the conflicts which we shall find here in his own words. So I pray that a critique of this sermon also illustrates the need that we continually examine ourselves, because when something is true, it should be able to withstand all challenges.

As nearly all of our copies of Bertrand Comparet's sermons, this one was taken from Jeanne Snyder's transcriptions which were published under the title Your Heritage, and digitized and prepared for electronic publication by Clifton Emahiser, who had also added some of his own notes. Here in this particular sermon Clifton added only one brief note, which I will insert at the appropriate point. Of course, since this is a critical review, I will also add much of my own commentary.

The Gospel of the Kingdom

Tonight’s program is really a sort of sequel to our presentation last week, This is Not White Supremacy, It is God Supremacy, although it also stands by itself so that last week’s presentation is really not a prerequisite. Here we shall discuss The Gospel of the Kingdom, with a critique of Bertrand Comparet's sermon, What Gospel?

In Matthew chapters 4 and 9, the apostle described Yahshua Christ as “preaching the gospel of the kingdom”, and then, much later and at the end of His ministry, in Matthew chapter 24 Christ Himself is recorded as having said “14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” These words are quite ominous, as Christ Himself equates the fulfillment of the age with the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. So the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom will usher in the fulfillment of the age and the return of Christ. However the Gospel of Christ has been preached in diverse manners for two thousand years, and the end has not yet come. So we must ask, was Christ wrong, or could it be that the gospel of the churches is not the Gospel of the Kingdom? Here we hope to answer that question.

In the gospel of Mark, in Mark chapter 1 we read “14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” But the time which was fulfilled was that of the coming and purpose of the Messiah, and not necessarily that of the end of the age. Christ Himself, as it is recorded in Luke chapter 4, had cited a portion of Isaiah chapter 61 in reference to Himself, where He said that He had come “2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD…” But we know that it was not yet the end of the age because He stopped short of citing the rest of the passage, which continues and says “… and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; 3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.” This we await with His promised return.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 24: Nailing the Coffin

This final portion of our address of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine? may be anticlimactic. We have already witnessed and explained why Charles Weisman is truly not a Christian. We have already elucidated his many contradictions, and we hope to have fully exposed his many outright lies and misrepresentations of Scripture, and now that we near the conclusion of his book, we hope that he is already buried. But if not, then perhaps here we can drive the final nail in the coffin.

Up to this point in Chapter 6 of Weisman’s book, we have seen his attempt to explain psychological reasons for the existence of our Two-Seedline doctrine, and he ascribed a lot of reasons to its existence which all boil down to our needing excuses for blaming Jews for our woes, rather than blaming ourselves. But that too is a straw man argument, because we do not blame Jews for our woes. Rather, we blame sinful Whites who are caught up in all of the idolatry offered to them by Jews, and who have also accepted the antichrist teachings packaged under the umbrella of Liberalism. This is what has led us to accept not only Jews, but all of the other biological infestations of Yahweh’s Creation. So Jewish Supremacy and the imposition of Negros and all of the other races upon Christendom are a result of our problems, and not the actual cause of our problems.

But here Weisman also betrayed himself once again, where he spoke of Jews as a race and admitted that “Throughout all of history we have examples of Jewish hostility towards white Christians, and the harmful effects Jews have had on the European nations. They have clearly been as aliens in our midst destroying our way of life.”

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 23: Trees Good and Evil

We had started to address the portion of this final chapter of Weisman’s book under the subtitle “Elements of the Seedline Doctrine”, where we had left off with a discussion of the explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares provided by Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 23, as Weisman had mentioned the tares without elaboration. Evidently, Weisman took for granted the acceptance of his notion that tares were only tares because they were followers of the devil – as he had argued in another context on page 30 of his book – rather than being tares because they actually had been planted by the devil. Yet it must be the case, that the actual origin of the tares is with the devil, because as the apostle explained, Christ had come to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world. So if these things were kept secret for that long, since that very time which the Genesis account describes, then that is when the events must have actually occurred. The planting of tares among the wheat must be speaking in reference to the events described in a parable in Genesis chapter 3, and the subsequent scattering throughout the Adamic world of the children of Cain, the Rephaim – who are Nephilim – and other groups which may be associated with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Actually, it is a wonder to us that Weisman did not even mention the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares until this very point in his book, where he only made a passing reference to tares and said “The tares are apparently a satanic group of people.” But notice that he said group, and not race, however in that same paragraph Weisman had already spoken of “God’s people” and said that “Jesus spoke of ‘the tares’ or ‘children of the wicked,’ who were contrasted with the ‘good seed.’” So in that case Christ is telling us that their parents were wicked, and we see that He is speaking of a race of wicked people, not merely wicked individuals. In both cases in Matthew 13:38 the word for children is υἱός, which is a son, and the word for seed is σπέρμα, which is offspring. If the people of God are physical offspring of a particular individual, then the seed of the devil also must be physical offspring of a particular individual. Weisman could not offer an exegesis of the parable because doing so he would not have been able to conceal his blatant dishonesty.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 22: The Devil as a Psychobabbler

In Chapter 5 of his book, Weisman had attempted to smear our Christian Identity profession with claims that it came from Witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah. But of course, all of these were actually Jewish, or heavily influenced by Jews, so he could have simply claimed that we got it from Jews. However we have proven throughout this series that our profession does indeed come from Scripture, and we have cited many Christian and non-Jewish sources to support it which are far older than the sources cited in Weisman’s allegations. Therefore all of these Jewish or Jewish-influenced philosophies actually began with basic truths and perverted them into lies, and as we also saw, their resulting lies are not at all similar to what we believe and demonstrate that the Bible teaches.

Now Weisman attempts to discredit us with another plainly Jewish tactic, which is a so-called “psychological study”. Since he denies the truth of Scripture, and even goes so far as to state that Christ was merely following along with Persian and Babylonian dualism, as well as reducing God Incarnate to the level of a common slanderer, he must imagine other and wicked reasons for the existence of our doctrine just like he claimed that there were other and wicked sources from which it originated. Here, Charles Weisman certainly is playing the role of a devil, which is a false accuser.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 21: Weisman’s Smear Tactics

Earlier in our review of his book, discussing his comments on page 23, we showed how statements by Weisman revealed that he himself did not believe that either Christ or His apostles had represented truth, as well as some of the later prophets, such as Zechariah. That was where he said that “The concept of a second god which caused evil in the world was primarily formed during the Exile (585-515 B.C.), being the result of Babylonian and Zoroastrian influence.” His statements in support of that claim ignored references to Satan, demons and devils which are found throughout the Old Testament, and then claimed that such passages in the New Testament are mistranslated or misinterpreted. Then further claiming that the serpent was “nullified by Christ”, he denied many statements of the apostles and of Christ Himself in His Revelation. So it became apparent that Weisman is not even a Christian.

Now here in this chapter, Weisman corroborated that conclusion once again, where he compared the labeling of certain people as serpents, devils and vipers in the New Testament to examples of the often unrighteous demonization of men throughout history, and said that “Since the Jews have long been the self-sworn enemy of Christendom, they have been portrayed by many Christians throughout history as being of a devilish origin. It is a small step, then, to make them out to be the literal descendants of the devil or satan.” Doing that, Weisman unabashedly demoted Yahshua Christ to the level of a common slanderer, rather than recognizing that God Incarnate was bringing the light of Truth to men. So once again, Weisman proved to us that he is no Christian.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 20: Witches, Warlocks and Weisman

Over the past 19 parts of this series addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, discussing his first four chapters of his book, we hope to have fully established the truths of our Seedline profession, and the fact that Charles Weisman misrepresented many things, and even made many outright lies, in order to attempt to refute those truths. Now we will continue to present the rest of Weisman’s book, as he wrongly believes that he has refuted our position and now he attempts to slander it, evidently hoping to forever discredit our doctrines. As we undertake this endeavor, we will try to avoid repeating much of the basis for our beliefs here, as we have already elaborated greatly on all of the basic reasons for believing in what is usually called Two-Seedline. But so that we can defend against his charges here, we may have to repeat some things we believe, and will try to do so without too much elaboration.

Here Weisman attempts to slander our Seedline doctrine by associating it with witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, the rabbis of Judaism, and ultimately, the Kabbalah. But even this order of his own illustrations is deceptive, as we have demonstrated in our series on The Jews in Medieval Europe that Freemasonry was in large part founded on the Kabbalah, but the Kabbalah was not written until the 12th century, or perhaps the 13th, by a Jew in Spain. Of course, much of it was based on older systems, namely the Talmud and Medieval Neoplatonism, but the work has no authentic ancient authority. In turn, the Kabbalah is the link to witchcraft and alchemy in Medieval Europe, and in the time of John Dee the alchemists, who were all practitioners of Kabbalah, became Speculative Masons, and ultimately were admitted into the guilds of the Freemasons, whereafter Masonry became a tool in the hands of the Jewish Kabbalists by which to inculcate Christians into Jewish teachings and the accomplishment of Jewish objectives.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Here we shall finally finish our presentation and discussion of Chapter 4 of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which he had titled The Role of Cain. Doing this, we shall attempt to summarize many of the things we found throughout our discussions, as Weisman consistently misread passages, purposely ignored the context of passages, twisting and even lying about Scripture in his attempts to deny the veracity of Two-Seedline. With our investigation of this one chapter having begun in part 9 of this series, we hope to have refuted Weisman comprehensively.

In our last presentation, we had left off where Weisman mischaracterized the relationship of Kenites with Israel at the time of king Saul, where he said “The Kenites were friendly to the Israelites.” There we had shown that from the time that Balaam prophesied about the Kenites in Numbers chapter 24, to the time of Saul, a period of nearly 450 years, there is only one mention of a single Kenite, and that referred to Heber, who was a Midianite smith in the days of Deborah and Barak, perhaps 400 years before the time of Saul. The Kenites not being mentioned again until for some unknown reason Saul had warned them to depart from Amalek, we see that Weisman had no basis for that statement. This is representative of the poor interpretations of Scripture offered by Weisman throughout this book.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

Here once again we shall continue with our series of presentations Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and this is part 18 of our endeavor. We believe that all along the way, through each of the first 17 parts of this series, we have shown that Charles Weisman depended upon an ignorance of history – purposeful or not – coupled with many misinterpretations of passages, seemingly intentional misreadings of passages, and even outright lies, in order to convince his readers that Two-Seedline teachings are in error.

We last left off with Charles Weisman’s claim that the serpent of Eden was the first murderer, the “murderer from the beginning” mentioned by Christ in John 8:44. Making that claim, Weisman evidently hoped to decouple interpretations of Matthew 24:34-35 from John 8:44, which together, along with an understanding of the history of Judaea over the decades leading up to the ministry of Christ certainly do prove that He was indeed speaking to descendants of Cain. We have shown conclusively that within the Biblical context, the serpent of Eden could not have been the first murderer, and that Cain alone was the first murderer.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

We have tarried with Charles Weisman’s prolonged disputations revolving around John 8:44 and Matthew 23:34-35 for several of these presentations, and we are still not through all of Weisman’s arguments in relation to these passages. Some of those arguments revolve around the question of who killed the prophets in the Old Testament. In that passage from Matthew chapter 23, Yahshua Christ declared that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacharias will come upon a particular race. We would assert that according to the laws of God, that race must be guilty for the crimes for which it is going to be punished, or if the charge is false, then according to the law the individual making the charge must suffer the penalty. We cannot imagine that Christ our God was making false charges or acting contrary to His law.

In the actions of men and nations, there is collective guilt, and there is individual guilt. When one nation wars against another, the men who actually do the shooting are compelled by their rulers, and generally not motivated to commit murder on their own volition. If the war were unjust, the rulers would be guilty individually, although the nation which did their bidding would share collective guilt. Therefore Peter, in Acts chapter 2 addressing men of Judaea in reference to Christ had said “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. The wicked hands were not those of the Romans, but the Jews, those who stood in the Praetorium demanding of Pilate that He be crucified, leaving him no other alternative. But the nation as a whole shared a collective guilt for the deed as they had suffered (tolerated) wicked rulers.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

In our last presentation in this series, which was subtitled The Blood of Abel, we left off where Charles Weisman discussed the episode in Matthew chapter 23 where Christ had told His adversaries that their race would be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, which, discounting the interpolation in verse 35 we believe refers to the father of John the Baptist. We do not believe that it referred to the Old Testament prophet Zechariah as Christ had laid direct blame for the murder of this Zacharias on his adversaries, and not merely on their ancestors, where He said “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Here we will continue that discussion of Cain and those who are responsible for the death of Abel and the prophets, as we are not finished with the portion of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book which concerns that subject.

Speaking of Abel, in Hebrews chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus had written: “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” We have already discussed at length the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and provided Scriptures supporting the plausibility of our argument that the only reason Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is that Yahweh would not acknowledge Cain himself, Cain not even having been eligible to make such a sacrifice. But the only reason that Abel’s sacrifice was better lies in the mere fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice, by which he had asserted that he was indeed the eligible son.