Critiques of Bertrand Comparet Sermons


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


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

CHR20200110-HigherCalling.mp3 — Downloaded 1734 times

 

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.

There is one popular belief that is probably found in every Christian denomination, which is that people who are generally “good” in their patterns of behavior go to heaven, and people who are “bad” in their patterns of behavior, or who have been especially “bad” at one time or another, are in danger of going to hell forever. To that, the Roman Catholic Church added the concept of purgatory, as priests needed an angle by which to extort men out of their money, convincing them that their loved ones were stuck and couldn’t quite make it to heaven without the intervention of the priests.

Being raised Catholic to some degree, as a young man I had the same general understanding regarding these teachings on salvation, except that I don’t think I ever really believed, or perhaps only never cared about, the claims concerning purgatory. So when I found Christian Identity, sermons such as this made an impression which led me to inquire into these things more carefully, and when I began to actually study the Scriptures, especially in their original languages, the conclusions which I reached remained in general agreement with Comparet’s position on this issue, and perhaps the differences we may have are due only to semantic differences.

What is Religion?

CHR20191220-WhatisReligion.mp3 — Downloaded 1889 times

 

What is Religion?

When I first came to Christian Identity, I gave much thought to the meaning of the word religion. Perhaps this sermon by Bertrand Comparet, titled What is Religion?, had helped to stimulate that process. The primary definition of the word religion in the Oxford Dictionary is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” But although that is what it has come to mean, I believe the original sense of the Latin word from which it was derived has a much deeper meaning, and that this deeper meaning is relevant to our Christian Identity profession. The Latin word religio was used in a manner much like we use the word religion today. But the related word religo is a verb meaning to tie back or tie up, and religatio is a tying back or up. So, according to The New College Latin & English Dictionary, the word religiosus, which is probably the closest antecedent to our word religious, was used to refer to something which was “subject to religious claims, under religious liability.” Liability is “the state of being responsible for something”, so there is the connection to the meaning of the root word religo, in the sense of being tied or bound to a thing.

This in turn brings several Scriptures to mind. First, in Matthew chapter 18, we read in the words of Christ: “15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church [assembly]: but if he neglect to hear the church [assembly], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Then, after admonishing His disciples about sin and guilt and the need to reject men who do not accept correction along those lines, Yahshua Christ had also said “18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” So binding and loosing are related to Christian fellowship and community, or communion, and that in turn is based on an abstention from sin and a keeping of the commandments of God. Paul’s example of such loosing is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, where he encouraged the assembly at Corinth to ostracize a fornicator from their community.

A Critical Review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I COME AS A THIEF

ChrSat20180616-Comparet_I-Come-Thief.mp3 — Downloaded 5074 times

 

A Critical Review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I COME AS A THIEF

Here we are going to present a critical review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I Come as a Thief. Doing this, we may be especially hard on Comparet for his failed view of eschatology, but before we criticize him we will also admit that, if we had lived in his same era, we too may have fallen into the trap which he did, believing that the end of the age was going to come to its conclusion in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and a nuclear conflagration and invasion of the United States by Communist hordes.

But we now see that the Communist hordes were here all along, and they have already come to control practically everything of note in America. They are called Jews, and have deceived us with party politics and capitalist internationalism while making our Western nations safe for Marxism and a flood of non-White so-called immigrants. These devils were still under much deeper cover in the 1960’s when Comparet was writing, and even he did not see what was truly going to come.

However when we set aside the errors in Comparet’s eschatology, he is still correct in his principal, and that is because he did his best, in spite of the temptations to imagine the future, to adhere to the prophecy already given in Scripture, in both the Old Testament and in the words of Yahshua Christ. So even though the play on the world stage did not take the course that Comparet thought it might, his conclusions are certainly valid and his sermon worthy of review. So he begins:

A man cannot be a podiatrist and trim your toe corns without passing an examination to prove that he is competent to provide this service. But, any fool can become a legislator, and a lot of fools do become one. Consequently our laws, as a rule, are the products of unskilled labor. In trying to draft a statute, it isn't too difficult to word it so that anybody who is trying in good faith can understand it. The big problem is to word it so that somebody who is trying in bad faith, to misunderstand it, can't do so.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 4, Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with Commentary

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 4, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we described the meaning and the use of the word catholic by early Christian writers, and we demonstrated that originally the term described the reception and acceptance of the Christian faith, as coming from the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, the Scriptures which were handed down by the apostles of Christ. In that original sense, we then asserted that Identity Christians are the true catholics, since of all of the modern Christian denominations, only we understand that both testaments, and both covenants, apply exclusively to ourselves. And of course, saying Identity Christians we include only White Europeans, the only people for whom the apostles intended the Gospel.

Then in parts two and three, we began a presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon on the Christian nature of the Old Testament. Doing this, we hoped to expand somewhat on Comparet’s original sermon, while adding our own opinions and outlining the reasons for our differences wherever we may disagree with him.

One topic we expanded on in part three of this series was the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. While Comparet described it as a foreshadow of Christianity from his own perspective, and said little that we had any serious disagreement with, our Christian faith is often condemned on this account, that a man would sacrifice his own son. So for that reason we were compelled to expand on Comparet’s sermon to a large degree.

Our pagan adversaries often complain that human sacrifice is Jewish in nature. We agree, that human sacrifice is evil. However we took the time to demonstrate that human sacrifice is also pagan, and that ancient pagan literature has many instances of human sacrifice which was looked upon favorably and even blessed by pagan gods. We gave as examples the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon, the king of the Danaans, and the sacrifice of nine of his own sons to Odin by the ancient Swedish King On, or Ane. We also illustrated the fact that these heathen kings sacrificed their own children for their own personal gain. But Abraham, sacrificing Isaac, had nothing to gain. Everything promised to him was to come through Isaac, his only heir. So which of these ancient sacrifices are Jewish in nature? In the end we must admit that the heathen sacrifices are worthy to be called Jewish, but Abraham’s sacrifice was selfless, a token of his obedience to his God rather than to his own lusts for money and power.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 3, Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with Commentary

 

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 3, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the portions of this sermon which we have already presented, Bertrand Comparet addressed some of the logical fallacies which are held by those who somehow think that the Old Testament and the New are separate books addressed to different groups of people. Then he presented some of the prophecies which should prove beyond doubt that the New Covenant was to be made with the same people who were at one time subject to the Old Covenant. In this context, he then discussed Genesis 3:15, Genesis 4:1, and the sacrifices of Cain and Abel described subsequently in Genesis chapter 4. From there he cited the Book of Job, and a Christian profession made by Job himself concerning his resurrection after death and his Redeemer, an obvious reference to Yahshua Christ. While we could not agree with some of Comparet’s assertions concerning the meaning of Genesis 4:1 or the age of the Book of Job, his elucidation of the Christian promises in these passages are certainly correct.

Now as we proceed with Comparet’s sermon, he continues by discussing a rather controversial topic, which is the call to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. There are many people who protest the connection of the Old Testament to our Aryan race for reason of the accounts of human sacrifice which it contains, and especially for the near-sacrifice by Abraham of his own son Isaac. We would assert that these people, including men who are supposed history experts such as David Duke, are highly illiterate. The following paragraph is from a presentation of Clifton Emahiser's paper, Born Under Contract, which I made here in June of 2016. I was addressing neo-pagans specifically, however the criticism applies just as well to so-called traditional Christians who also cast aspersions on the Old Testament:

Many of the neo-pagans who despise Christianity use Abraham’s offering of Isaac as an excuse. Yet the same neo-pagans would extol the virtues of their pagan gods, or properly, their pagan idols. They are ignorant of their own pagan traditions. In the Greek Epic and Tragic poets, there is a popular account, that Agamemnon the great king of the Greeks had sacrificed his own daughter Iphigeneia, whom he sent for under the pretext of a promise of marriage to Achilles. He placed her on an altar and sacrificed her to Artemis in exchange for the hope of having fair winds for the voyage to Troy, so that the Greeks could launch their attack against the city. The Eddas of Snorri also include references to human sacrifice, such as that of the Swedish king who sacrificed nine of his sons to Odin in an agreement to prolong his own life, which is a story found in the Ynglinga saga.

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with Commentary

 

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, a presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we had a long introduction of our own which asked the question What is a Catholic? Doing that, first we gave a brief exhibition from history and the prophets in order to help explain why it matters. Then we endeavored to provide a definitive answer from both the Greek meaning of the word καθολικός and from the earliest Christian writers. From there, we provided much evidence that originally, the word was applied to the origination and the acceptance of the Christian faith, and not to its application. A true and original Catholic accepts both Old and New Testaments in relation to himself and his people, and understands that both testaments are Christian testaments. At the same time, we would assert that a true Catholic can only accept both testaments if he or she is one of those people with whom were made those “catholic covenants”, as Irenaeus called them. In order to substantiate our arguments, we mentioned the Book of Odes from the Codex Alexandrinus. We had provided a commentary on that book here three months ago. Then we cited the early Christian writers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. And then, to establish what it was that the ancients saw as the world, we cited both Irenaeus and Martin Luther.

Lastly, we made a brief exhibition showing ancient attitudes towards the negro, citing two historical sources: the first century BC historian Diodorus Siculus, and the first century AD Christian work titled The Shepherd of Hermas. There we quoted a passage from the 9th Similitude of the 3rd Book, which was subtitled “Building of the Militant and Triumphant Church”, and which explains that blacks are an unredeemable and lawless race. Therefore it should not be a stretch to imagine that a truly militant, and ultimately triumphant Christian is one who stands against race-mixing, the likes of which we see all around us this very day. In the first centuries of Christianity, blacks were excluded from the “world”, and they must continue to be excluded. However knowing the Scriptures we must also exclude all other races, which were not a part of the “world” from the time of Christ to the time of Luther. So, we said that: Christianity is only for White Europeans, and Niggers certainly are unredeemable. And any of our White brethren who do not repent, and who have not yet been blasphemers or traitors, had certainly better repent soon or they are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with the Niggers. All blasphemers and traitors to our race and our God are already headed in that very direction.

Now, we stand by these words. However saying these things, some of our critics have accused us of diverging from our teaching of absolute salvation for the children of Israel, and have even accused us of embracing the so-called “works salvation” similar to that of the denominational churches. But our critics are fools, because nothing is further from the truth. We have not capitulated on anything which we have taught in the past concerning our Adamic race and salvation. Rather, our critics are simply too dull to realize that making that statement last week, we used the term Lake of Fire as an allegory to represent temporal destruction, which is what it is. Not temporary destruction, but temporal, meaning worldly as opposed to spiritual. The student of Scripture should understand that non-Adamic people do not have the spirit of God in them, and therefore they are “twice dead”, as the apostle Jude had called certain infiltrators among Christians of his time, where the apostle Peter called them “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed.”

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 1, an Introduction: What is a Catholic?

 

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 1, an Introduction: What is a Catholic?

Here we are going to discuss Christianity in the Old Testament, and this evening’s program is going to serve as an introduction to the subject. As we commence with subsequent parts of the series, we shall present a critical review of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Christianity in the Old Testament. Because of its length, which is comparatively extraordinary for Comparet, the review will take at least a couple of presentations to complete, depending on how many of our own comments we choose to interject. But a lengthy introduction is necessary, because even before we begin, there are a couple of related subjects that I feel there is urgent need to discuss, and as I discuss these things, I am going to prove one bold assertion: that Identity Christians are the original and true catholics, even though what we call Christian Identity as we know is only about a hundred and eighty years old, counting it from the time that it began to develop with British exploration and archaeological discovery within the British empire. The discoveries which the British and others made in that era led to Christian Identity.

So many people are convinced for so many years that the Old Testament and the New Testament are different books, representing different covenants, and with different peoples. Nothing could be further from the truth, and as we have said in the past, this belief is absolutely contrary to the words of the books themselves. We shall soon see that the earliest Christian writers, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Lactantius, all agree with us in this regard.

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

ChrSat20180303-WhatDifference.mp3 — Downloaded 29536 times

 

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

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

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

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

Pages