Community Podcasts

The World of Hate vs. Love, John 15:19

After bringing our Commentary on the Gospel of John to its completion, I thought perhaps it is appropriate to take a moment to hear from Clifton Emahiser. I am considering a commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, alternating with my planned commentary on the epistles of John, and do not yet know which book I want to begin with first. Since beginning my New Testament commentaries with Matthew in 2011, I have been alternating between Old Testament and New, so I will probably continue after that pattern.

Here I am going to present and comment on a paper by Clifton Emahiser, titled Who’s Who in the World of “Hate” versus “Love”, for which Clifton used as its basis the words of Christ in John 15:19. According to Clifton’s records, this essay was written in April of 2012. While it may not be entirely possible for me to do, especially as Clifton himself had made the original presentation, I am going to at least try to present this in a way which makes it palatable for denominational Christians.

One hurdle we have in bringing people to understand our Christian Identity profession is where Judeo-Christians, or perhaps they would be better called denominational Christians, believe that God is love, as the apostle John had taught in 1 John chapter 4, but then they somehow misconstrue that teaching to believe that God is only love. The result is that these people then make Love their god, rather than love the God of the Bible. It is a form of idolatry by which they may as well be worshipping Venus, the pagan goddess of love, rather than Christ.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 13, Children of Wrath

In our last presentation addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, we began to answer his contention where he said that “The Jews… that Jesus was talking to in John 8 were true Israelites. They were not hybrids like those called ‘Jews’ today, and they were not the seed of the serpent or of Cain.” Later in this fourth chapter of his book, Weisman states, speaking of the words of Christ, that “Words may be spoken figuratively, symbolically, allegorically, poetically, typically, or anti-typically.” But he fails to mention anything of understanding words in their original historical context, which is an important aspect of understanding any real-life narrative or discussion from the past. None of the Judeo-Christian commentaries upon which Weisman has relied, as his citations throughout this book indicate, had ever interpreted the words of Christ or his apostles through the proper historical context of the captivities of Israel, the relatively small remnant which returned to Judea, and the history of that remnant over the 450-year period from the time of Ezra to the birth of Christ. Weisman, as well as the mainstream commentators, all take it for granted that the people of Judaea at the time of Christ were all Israelites, and that is certainly not true.

In his voluminous Antiquities of the Judaeans, in Book 13, Flavius Josephus described in detail how the high priest John Hyrcanus, around 129 BC, had conquered several of the cities of Palestine which had formerly belonged to Israel and Judah, but which were occupied by the Edomites since the 6th century BC. In that same book, Josephus later described how in the days of Alexander Jannaeus, a successor of Hyrcanus, he had done that same thing in 30 other towns or regions in Palestine, during his long rule as high priest in Jerusalem, from 103 to 76 BC. Both of these rulers had forcibly converted the Edomites whom they had conquered to Judaism, the Edomites accepted the conversion, and that is also explained by Josephus. These passages are cited and described in detail at Christogenea, notably in Part 12 of the commentary on Romans: The Epistles of Paul - Romans Part 12, 06-27-2014: Jacob and Esau.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 12, Children of the Devil

In our last presentation from Weisman’s book, where we are still in chapter 4 , The Role of Cain, under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil, we actually only presented one paragraph from the bottom of page 31. There Weisman claimed that Christ, in His discourse with His adversaries as it is recorded in John 8:41-44, did not mean father where he said father, but was instead using the word metaphorically. However the answers which John attributed to the Jews themselves reveal that they understood Christ to have been speaking plainly and literally, and the words of Christ in the surrounding dialogue also demonstrate that He was speaking plainly and literally, where He was clearly referring to the origin of His adversaries and not merely to what they believed.

So we had a necessary and long digression to explain that the origin of such allegorical interpretations of the plain words of Scripture are found in early Greek philosophy and in Gnosticism, and that early Church Fathers were following the philosophers and Gnostics in their own interpretations of Scripture, in spite of the plain meanings of words and the clear intent of the speakers, Christ and His apostles.

At the end of that last program, we also heard from a friend who has been involved in Christian Identity circles for a very long time, perhaps over 40 years. So according to our friend Michael, as we heard towards the end of our presentation last week, Charles Weisman did indeed admit to having some Jewish ancestry in a quip which he had made at a dinner party over 20 years ago, and the Christian Identity pastors and teachers and their wives in the circles in which he traveled had chosen to cover it up because they were impressed with his supposed learning. But here we have proven that if Weisman was indeed learned, he consciously chose to spread lies instead of the truth.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 11, Gnostic Heresies

In our last discussion Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which was Part 10 of this series, we discussed the The Nature of Cain, and how it is that when he was challenged by God to do good, but then immediately went out and killed his brother, that also serves to prove the circumstances of his birth, that he could not do good because “sin lieth at the door”. We also discussed how and why both Cain and Abel were making sacrifices in the first place, since Cain’s rejected sacrifice was the catalyst for his having been challenged, and having killed Abel. Weisman imagined that Yahweh was offering Cain acceptance, but that is not the case at all. Yahweh, being God, certainly knew that Cain was going to fail. His challenge to Cain and Cain’s failure are not an exercise in vanity on the part of God, but rather they serve as a lesson to us, that a bastard will always do evil in the end. The fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice to Yahweh after Cain had done so also serves to illustrate the reasons for Cain’s disqualification, once it is examined within the context of later Scriptures and statements made by the apostles concerning the patriarchs Enoch and Noah. By the act of making a sacrifice Abel was asserting his own claim as rightful successor to his father.

Following that, Weisman began to address the statements which Christ had made to His adversaries in John chapter 8, and he cited verses 41 through 44 of the chapter. Doing that, he made the assertion that in those words of Christ the word father does not really mean father. But if he had cited more of the passage, the overall context would have proven Weisman to be wrong. In fact, even the part he did cite proves him to be wrong, as the Jews themselves certainly did understand Christ to have been speaking about their ancestry, where they answered Him in verse 41 that “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” Of course they were wrong, because they were Edomites, something which is also established in the overall context, but if the Jews understood the word father to be literal, and Christ answered along those same lines, how does Weisman claim that the word father is not literal, but only figurative?

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks in this program which did not make it into my notes. In one, I mentioned Melchizedek in conjunction with Paul. I did not mean to leave any impression that Melchizedek was contemporary with Paul, but only that Paul had described Melchizedek, referring to his explanation that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Of course, the only other Melchizedek mentioned in Scripture was contemporary to Abraham.

In our last discussion of chapter 4 of Weisman’s book, we showed that on four occasions, and a fifth, Weisman had lied about the substance of the genealogies which are provided in the Bible. We also spoke at length on Genesis 4:1, and showed that it is a corrupt witness, that interpretations of it and even the actual substance of it were debated in ancient times, and that if it is corrupt and it is not corroborated by any other witness, then it is useless for the purpose of formulation of doctrine because it is unreliable. Since it is the only witness that Cain was a natural son of Adam, the supposition must be open to debate because it is an unreliable witness. To the contrary, there are many witnesses in Scripture and in early Christian apocryphal writings which insist that Cain was not the natural son of Adam. The words of our Redeemer and His apostles also serve to prove that Cain was not Adam’s natural son.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1

Once again, and right from the beginning, there were many digressions and topics discussed which did not make it into these notes. But I did add a few things we discussed extemporaneously which were related more directly to Weisman’s arguments.

In my opinion we have already destroyed Charles Weisman’s supposed refutation of Two-Seedline in several different and significant ways. But we are not even halfway through his book, and to be fair we must finish presenting all of Weisman’s arguments, and answer them all with the appropriate evidence wherever we believe they are wrong.

In our last presentation, I think we exposed three major failures in Weisman’s arguments at the end of chapter 3 where he had insisted that the giants of Genesis chapter 6 and later Scriptures were only the offspring of the unions between the sons of Cain and the daughters of Seth.

First, he failed to read the text of Genesis 6:4 properly, as it explains that giants were in the earth both before and after that event, so if the verse is read correctly, Weisman must answer how giants were already in the earth “in those days”, as Yahweh did not create any giants in Genesis chapter 1.

The Whole Armor of Yahweh, a presentation and review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

I thought to take one more moment of reflection on the current world circumstances and how Christians should face them, before returning to my commentary On the Gospel of John, which I hope to do next week. So once again, I will use the opportunity to present and critique a sermon by one of our notable Christian Identity predecessors, this time by Bertrand Comparet. This is The Whole Armor of Yahweh, which is certainly what we shall need to withstand all of the fiery darts of the devils who seem to be everywhere and all-powerful.

It is difficult not to talk about the hype over the so-called novel coronavirus, and whether or not the virus is a greater threat to human life than any other seasonal flu virus ????. The numbers are not at all convincing, the methods by which they are accounted are far less convincing, and I sincerely believe, as I wrote a month ago, that the hype is a hoax which has been perpetrated through the media and progressive politicians along with others of the so-called “rulers of this world” to push all of us further down the road to tyranny and plunge us into what we may call world communism. In fact, by now it should be evident to most of us that we are already living under tyranny, except that most of us are blindly complying to a government which is operating as if it were God. If this goes on too much longer, the largest banks and corporations will end up owing everything that they don’t already own, and the government is clearly in collusion.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

I think we have already established in multiple ways that Charles Weisman must have had some sort of agenda, because even though he admitted the truth of several of the fundamentals of what we call Two-Seedline, he nevertheless sought to dismiss it rather than to consider the elements which he himself admitted. For example, he had professed that the serpent must have been an intelligent being with its own order contrary to the order of God, but then he goes on to make suggestions that will ultimately lead to the conclusion that the devil is merely the flesh.

Doing this, he removed many scriptures from their proper context and used them as support for his arguments, even when those scriptures actually help to prove our Two-Seedline positions once they are fully and properly considered. For example, as we addressed pages 19 to 23 of his book, under the subtitle “The Serpent, Devil, and Satan”, we saw where Weisman failed to distinguish those words as they appear in each passage which he had provided as an example in their proper grammatical form. Then he proceeded to assert the notion that all evil emanates from God, and that is not true. As we examined his examples for that assertion, we saw that there are two types of evil, evil which is evil in the eyes of man as he suffers the consequences of or the punishments for his sin, and evil which is evil in the eyes of God, which is rebellion against God by man. God cannot be blamed for that later evil, because God is without sin. When men break the laws of God, men are the parties responsible for the resulting evil, and God cannot be blamed for the sins of men. Weisman’s failure to make this distinction is deceptive.

The Day of Deliverance

While I have often criticized Wesley Swift for some of the fantastic tales that he spun, or because in his sermons he had often cited dubious and even nefarious sources as if they were authorities and fountains of truth, frequently Swift was on target and quite accurate in certain important areas. One of those areas was his early awareness of the descent of our nation into a state of tyranny and communism. Swift understood that as an ongoing process, and he also understood that many of the people would volunteer themselves into tyranny in exchange for a false sense of security.

But this is not a new phenomenon. The vaunted democracy of ancient Athens, which certain “combinations”, or special-interest parties had always sought to undermine, was subverted several times during the Peloponnesian War, where Thucydides explained in Book 8 of his history of the war that after an oligarchy of certain wealthy Athenians was imposed, “The people, hearing of the oligarchy, took it very heinously at first, but when Pisander had proved evidently that there was no other way of safety, in the end, partly for fear and partly because they hoped again to change the government they yielded thereunto.” When the oligarchy failed a couple of years later, Pisander, whose proofs were evidently only propaganda for the elites of his time, had been attacked by the poets for corruption and cowardice and he was also ridiculed for being fat. So he fled to the enemy, to Sparta, and was convicted of treason in absentia.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 7, Evil for Wicked or Good

Here we shall continue our address of chapter 3 of Charles Weisman’s book, which is simply titled “The Serpent”. As I had said before we began this endeavor in our last presentation, because this is probably the most important chapter in his book, we may present and address every single paragraph, so that none of our detractors can claim we purposely missed anything which they may then imagine that we cannot answer.

At the beginning of his chapter on “The Serpent”, we have already discussed most of the points made by Charles Weisman where he had presented a list of uses of the words satan and devil as they are found throughout the Scriptures. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, was his failure to distinguish between these words where they appear as simple nouns or adjectives or where they appear as a Substantive along with a definite article. The word diabolos is an adjective which can mean slanderer. But when it appears with a definite article it is used as a noun to describe a particular slanderer. Then where the definite article appears with a noun, it is referring to a known, particular instance of the given noun, rather than to just any instance. In other words, satan or a satan, without the definite article, describes anyone who at one point or another may be an adversary, but the satan, with the definite article, describes a particular and already known entity which is an adversary. Weisman exploited his examples of the use of these words by not explaining that difference. So thus far in his arguments in this chapter, Weisman has lied by omission.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?  Part 6, Demons, Devils and Satyrs

Once again we had many extemporaneous comments and explanations, and not all of them made it into our notes.

In our last presentation we came to the end of chapter 2 of Weisman’s book, and saw in one of his arguments towards the end of his section subtitled “The Enmity” that Weisman agreed with us when he tried to explain it. He admitted that the serpent was an intelligent individual, a person, who had its own order in the world which was contrary to the order of God. Of course, this could not be true of a simple snake created on the 5th day of Genesis chapter 1. So Weisman admitted that the basis for our so-called Two-Seedline belief is true, while at the same time he continued to deny Two-Seedline.

Now we begin to shall address chapter 3 of Charles Weisman’s book, which is simply titled “The Serpent”. Here he offers a lot of conjecture and what we may consider to be straw man arguments, however some Two-Seedline teachers or pastors of the past did indeed hold at least some of the more absurd concepts which Weisman argues against. Once again, I believe we shall see that Weisman’s arguments have no merit once we explain the basis for what we believe. Because this is probably the most important chapter in his book, we may present and address every single paragraph, so that none of our detractors can claim we purposely missed anything which they may then imagine that we cannot answer.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 5, Decoding the Enmity

This is not to be construed as a complaint, but this refutation of the lies of Charles Weisman is taking much longer than I initially expected. However it must be done in detail if we are going to sufficiently demonstrate exactly why he is wrong, and precisely why his arguments were often dishonest. So while we thought we could finish Weisman’s discussion of the enmity of Genesis 3:15 in our last presentation, we did not. Hopefully with this presentation we can conclude that, and then finally move on to chapter 3 of his book, which is titled The Serpent.

We have already discussed much of Weisman’s argument concerning “the enmity”, and how he had used, or rather, abused, three passages of Scripture to somehow prove that the enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman was ended at the Crucifixion. In this endeavor, Weisman cited two passages from Paul, which are Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:14-15, and one passage from John, found at 1 John 3:8.

First, it can be established that Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians was written only a short time before his epistle to the Colossians, and that both were written during the two-year period while he was in captivity in Rome. This is explained in a paper at Christogenea titled Ordering and chronology of the epistles of Paul, and it is beyond the scope of our purpose to present it again here.

I really don’t like to discuss news or current events, but this evening I have a short program, so I will take a few minutes to discuss the latest media scare, coronavirus. The notes for this are found at the Christogenea Forum, where I am certain there will be further discussion.

The Time of the Heathen – a Critical Review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

While I admire and respect Bertrand Comparet as a trailblazer in developing and spreading the truth of our Christian Identity profession, I also believe that his message had a lot of flaws. But some of his errors were merely due to the time in which he lived, and if I had also lived then, doing what I do now, I may well have repeated them. This is because Comparet’s view of eschatology was a product of the Cold War, and apparently, he did not see any possibilities of an end-of-the-world scenario which may have transcended that age of apparent conflict.

But other flaws can evidently be attributed to the fact that his message was not fully developed, and for that reason it had some internal conflicts. For example, while Comparet recognized that there were goat nations and sheep nations, which were genetic races of people with contrary destinies, and of course he also knew that the identity of the sheep was with modern White Europeans, he sometimes also looked at goat nations as if they could somehow be allies of the sheep, and here he clearly makes that mistake.

So in the aftermath of our critique of Comparet’s sermon on the Sheep and the Goats, I thought to offer a critique of this sermon as well, and hopefully even some of our skeptics, who continue to cling to Comparet’s views in at least most areas, will themselves see the need for refinement and revision which we – meaning both Clifton Emahiser and myself – have been pressing for many years.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 4, Lies of Omission

As we said at the end of Part 3 of this series, in refuting Weisman’s lies, we have necessarily gotten ahead of him, so we will have to repeat ourselves later in our address of his book. For example, at the end of the book there is a section on Witchcraft, Gnostic and Masonic beliefs and the Talmud and Kabbalah. Weisman is thereby slandering our understanding of Scripture by associating it with all of those wicked writings, which is ad hominem rather than legitimate debate, and we addressed some of that in the beginning of the last presentation we made in this series.

Following that, we addressed Weisman’s contention that the “seed of the woman” in Genesis chapter 3 refers only to Christ Himself, which is not true, and we exposed the lies about Hebrew grammar which he created in his attempt to prove that it is true. We also addressed many of the citations he made from various denominational commentaries which make the same insistence, and we refuted them, but on the other hand, we pointed out how a few of them actually agreed with us, and not with Weisman – something which he evidently did not understand, or did not want to understand.

Then we demonstrated the folly of the statements made by Weisman and by some of the commentaries which he cited that claim that Satan was somehow eliminated at the Crucifixion, when it is quite clear in Scripture that Satan was still in the world 30 and 60 years after the Crucifixion, as it is professed in the epistles of the apostles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and the apostles themselves described for us what Satan is, as Satan is still with us today. Apparently we shall discuss Satan much further on when we address part 3 of Weisman’s book, which is subtitled “The Serpent”.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 3, Seed is a Collective

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks and explanations in this presentation. The prepared notes are found below.

This will be part 3 of our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. We are still in chapter 2 of the book, which is titled “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Once again, we still haven’t located a copy of the book which contains the first chapter, but if we ever do, we might have to backtrack a bit to address that also. A friend wrote me this week and I think he may have a copy. Now, as I have said several times already, continuing to examine Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall also continue to find that he failed to answer the question which he himself had posed in the title of his book.

Before we get back to where we left off in Weisman’s book, I would like to discuss this hare-brained idea that our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 had originated in the Talmud. Perhaps this argument belongs at the end of our address of Weisman’s book, since he has chapters there which present it, but it is brought to the forefront by his supporters, so we shall address it in part now. Concerning our interpretation, I don’t really like to call it “Two-Seedline” but we are sort of stuck with the label because it has long been popular. The label is too narrow, and the real struggle is between two trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life.

A Critical Review of The Sheep and The Goats, by Bertrand Comparet

On tape this was actually only a ten-minute sermon, but we may make it a 75-minute discussion. I have included a copy of the original sermon below. As with all of the Comparet sermons transcribed by Jeanne Snyder and then digitized by Clifton Emahiser, some editing and changes were made, so none of these are word-for-word from Comparet, but they are close enough to be accurate representations of what he said. But I cannot even know if the audio version which I have is the same as what Jeanne had originally transcribed.

I remember first learning about Christian Identity from a small collection of books that did not say much at all about those races which were outside of the Scriptures, or at least, which were not direct subjects of the Scriptures. There was E. Raymond Capt’s Abrahamic Covenant, Bertrand Comparet’s Your Heritage, Robert Balacius’ Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance, even William Cameron’s The Covenant People. Cameron is more famous for his work on The International Jew for Henry Ford’s paper, The Dearborn Independent, but few people familiar with that also know that Cameron was an Identity Christian. At that early time I also read quite a few things from Wesley Swift, and also from Richard Kelly Hoskins, Howard Rand, Frederick Haberman, and at least half dozen other Identity writers.

Back then I also subscribed to a paper called The Jubilee, printed somewhere in the Pacific Northwest, I think in Oregon, which in each issue had run an article by Ted Weiland. So in hindsight, it is not a wonder the paper was rather soft on the race issue, and even then I recognized Weiland’s universalism. So I never read more than a couple of his articles, and I never renewed the subscription. But after reading a few dozen or so Identity books and a host of other materials – although I don’t remember exactly how much I read, as this was back in 1997 and early 1998 – I began to realize that there were vast differences of opinions among various Identity writers concerning certain very important subjects.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 2, The Basis in Law

There were extemporaneous sections of this podcast which are not included in the notes below, but what is found here is what I was able to prepare in advance in preparation for this presentation.

Here we shall continue our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. Last week we began in chapter 2, “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”, and we still have not located a copy of the book containing the first chapter, so we shall pick up where we left off. As I also already said, once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.

But first, before we began addressing Weisman’s book, in our last segment of this presentation we had a basic discussion which I hoped would answer many of the questions which TruthVids often receives from people who are new to Christian Identity. So perhaps we may need to follow up on that and make any further clarifications before we return to addressing Weisman.

Last week we explained how Weisman lied where he had asserted that the partaking of fruit was never used in Scripture to describe the act of sexual intercourse, and we showed evidence to the contrary from the Song of Solomon, and also from the Epic of Gilgamesh which was contemporary to the time of Abraham and Moses.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 1, Fruit in the Garden of Love

Most of this program was extemporaneous, however I did prepare some notes in advance which address points in Weisman’s book, with which I have contentions and which I thought were significant enough to present here. So those notes shall be included below in the form in which I wrote them. A PDF copy of Weisman’s book, which we obtained from the Internet Archive, is also linked below.

Introduction:

Here we are joined by Truth Vids, where we shall have a discussion of many points addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. The copies available on the internet are all missing pages 2 and 3, so I do not know what Weisman wrote under the subtitle “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Looking through Clifton’s library for a copy, which there is a very good chance that he has, I have not yet located one. Today, most of our discussion will be limited to the second chapter of Weisman’s book, which is subtitled “A Scriptural Analysis”. Once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.

Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland

Here I have decided to take a short break from my commentary On the Gospel of John, and have a little fun at the expense of a clown named Ted Weiland, a name which is probably too familiar to many of our listeners. But I guess some people will now wonder why I insist on doing this. The truth is that unlike many of the other men whom we have criticized over the years, most of whom we deeply respect in spite of any perceived flaws in their work, Weiland is still alive and well and spouting his nonsense under the pretense of being an Identity Christian, while he has willfully ignored all of our inquiries and criticisms. Weiland is actually a self-righteous universalist who would in effect eradicate Identity from Christianity altogether. But Weiland is also one of the ring-leaders of an entire circus of such clowns, which includes Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman, Jory Brooks and others. Two years ago I would have included Dave Barley in this list, but I have learned that he has openly recanted his former universalism, which is certainly to his credit. However while they are not quite as odious, Barley and Lawrence Blanchard and a few others still have subtle elements of universalism in their doctrines and scriptural interpretations.

Weiland had a book disputing our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 titled Eve, Did She or Didn’t She? I never read it, but Clifton has a copy on one of the shelves here somewhere and if I ever do, I might have yet another presentation to write. But for that Clifton had criticized Weiland frequently in his Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline series, and when I presented that here in podcasts throughout 2017, I hope to have expounded upon those criticisms. That series of papers was written by Clifton throughout 2002 and 2003. Then later, as I have also explained elsewhere, our friend Tony Gonyer had written Weiland a letter in 2005, and that letter compelled me to also write to Weiland, which I did in August of that year. Weiland never responded to my letter, and Clifton had it published on the Israelect.com website, where he added some citations from Weiland which were representative of the things with which we took issue. Since I have come to control Israelect.com I redirect many of the papers there to where they are posted at Christogenea. Now since I have been released from prison, since very late 2008, I have encountered Weiland many times in social media, and I have confronted him each time in a kindly manner, but he has only scoffed at me and he has refused to discuss any of these issues with me. For that he certainly does deserve the label clown.

The Higher Calling, a review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Perhaps it is fitting that each time I begin a review of a sermon by Comparet or Swift, or an essay by Emahiser, that I do so with reflections on my own early Christian Identity studies. However I had originally embarked on my studies because I was compelled by sermons such as these from Comparet or Swift, and I was helped along the way by Emahiser.

This sermon, however, is important to me because it shows that regarding one critical issue, I have always generally agreed with Comparet, while many other Christian Identity pastors or teachers and their followers have different opinions which are not so well-grounded in Scripture. Often, those who have disagreed with me on this issue have even attributed to Comparet a position which he did not hold. That critical issue is the fact that all Israel shall be saved.

That “all Israel shall be saved”, the Bible states rather plainly, as it is found in both the letters of Paul in Romans chapter 11 and in the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 45. The Scriptures also lead us to make the same implication in many other places. But in spite of that, many Identity Christians argue against it, and even despise us for holding to the assertion. However we would assert that their doctrines are remnants of their denominational baggage, and they are not founded in Scripture.