On the Gospel of John, Part 24: The Nature of the Beast

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
CHR20190614-John24.mp3 — Downloaded 3832 times


At the beginning of our last podcast I had presented a lengthy discussion regarding the recent assault on free speech being conducted by YouTube, the world’s only viable free video-sharing service, and some of the challenges which we face asserting our free speech rights on the Internet even when we host our own content. At that time I could not have known that I would face the prospect of troubles with my own hosting provider only five days later. As I write this, I have just received an answer to my defense of Christogenea against the claims of a certain non-White Social Justice Warrior who thinks that my website is unlawful because it offends him. I had already been shopping for new servers, only to get a head start if my defense did not prevail. Christogenea does nothing to violate the Acceptable Use Policies of its service providers, but quite frequently, those policies are often fluid and subject to change on short notice according to the whims of corporate lawyers.

There are a couple of start-up video sharing platforms that advertise themselves as free-speech alternatives to YouTube. One is Bitchute, and another is called Brighteon. But both of these have also already censored their users. Brighteon received pressure from its upstream providers over postings of the New Zealand shooting video, and had to remove it from their servers, thereby being forced to censor their own users. On some occasions censorship is merited, such as when it violates state or federal law. For example, one of the characters at the Daily Stormer complained that his open threats of violence against a certain tribal group were censored, but those threats were violations of the laws in every American jurisdiction, and certainly overseas. So Bitchute and Gab were probably trying to save a fool from himself.

I remember when the World Wide Web, which by popular misconception is considered by itself to be the Internet, was first opened to the public in 1993. Soon thereafter I had my own first website, but did not need a domain name because at that time Internet Service Providers were offering dial-up customers free websites in sub-folders on their own web servers. For a few years, the Internet was like a video game version of the proverbial Wild West, where anything went and if anyone didn’t like it, they just didn’t have to watch. Within a year, spam was ubiquitous in email and newsgroups, and it quickly became a plague. The Internet evolved around competing concepts. The first was the ideal of freedom of expression and free and open access to information, and the second was purely economic interest.

By early 1995 there were tens of thousands of Internet business start-ups, none of which lasted very long because they never made any money and development costs were much higher than they are now. But a few companies did last, and today those few companies practically control the Internet itself. However, it was no game of chance that companies like Google and Amazon had endured even when they did not make any money for years. That was only made possible because a relatively small group of very wealthy or financially influential people tolerated losing large sums of money as a sacrifice so that they could eventually control the Internet.

Evidently, Google was started in 1995, when its founders were students at Stanford University working on a government-funded project, which they took home with them and turned into a company. A lot of early Internet and computer software companies got their start that way. The domain Google.com was registered in 1997, and they incorporated in 1998, but they did not make their first profit until 2001. A more startling example is Amazon.com, which was founded in 1994, went public in 1997 although it had not yet made any money, and all together it lost money for over ten straight years before it had ever made a profit, which it finally did in 2004. Over some of those years, especially from 1999 to 2002, Amazon lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The founders of Yahoo also started at Stanford, in 1994, incorporated in 1995, went public in 1996, and then began acquiring other and older companies simply by issuing stock, a method by which they first became profitable comparatively early, in 1997. Purchasing companies for stock is sort of like being able to create your own money, with the collusion of investment banks, which, in turn, is essentially like gambling with the futures of others. Yahoo had an operating loss of 2.57 million dollars in the quarter which ended September of 1996, and finally made a profit through acquisitions in the same quarter in 1997, where it made a profit of $220,000. Then Yahoo continued to issue new stock and gobble up other Internet-based companies until it became the most valuable company in the world, for a time, in January of 2000. But it was all an artificial bubble created by hype over the relatively new medium, and the workings of the investment banks which underwrote the stock and kept the company afloat. Yahoo helped Google dominate Internet search engines by employing and promoting it until 2004, when it dropped Google in favor of its own engine.

Facebook was a late-comer, founded in 2004. But for years it had no profit, and very little revenue. It operated at a deficit, which was often a rather large deficit, spending hundreds of millions of dollars injected into the company by venture capitalists and corporations like Microsoft, in exchange for stock that valued the company as high as $15 billion in 2007. So a company valued at $15 billion dollars had not yet in made a dime in over three years. Later, in 2008, Facebook employees were selling their own stock stock at rates which valued the company at only $4 or 5 billion, but were nevertheless highly profitable for those employees. Facebook didn’t generate a positive cash flow until September of 2009, around the same time that the company began acquiring other Internet ventures in exchange for stock shares, and profitability was not consistent until 2013. Reportedly, well over half of Facebook’s revenue comes from advertising on its own website in America.

Historically, most small businesses fail within a year simply because they fail to attract enough customers to make any money in their first year. In the real world, a business that loses money every month for years would never be able to survive. But it was not so with the Internet. On the Internet, it is the investment banks who chose the winners and losers, and who make sure the employees of certain companies get paid even when those companies are bleeding cash. These are the same bankers who have had undue influence over every other aspect of our lives since 1913. These are the same bankers who have come to control our entire political process, who choose all the candidates on both sides of the political aisle, and who for that reason have won every election without ever having run for office.

My point in discussing this is to show the lengths to which certain companies were able to go in order to ultimately gain control over entire sectors of the Internet. These companies all lost money, large sums of money, year after year, and managed to grow as they were losing money while at the same time most, if not all, of their competitors were dying. There are probably a few other examples. Twitter, founded in 2006, reported its first profitable year in 2018. What brick-and-mortar business could lose money every year for 12 years and continue to function? Somewhere there are interests with a lot of money to spare who make these sacrifices because they understand that the ultimate reward is to maintain control of the flow of information to a large majority of the global population. They had control of television, they had control of the radio, and now they had to control the internet in order to maintain control of the flow of information.

Amazon is not merely an Internet store, and Google is not merely a search engine. They have each developed immense network infrastructures which are probably more complex and extensive than most Internet Service Providers and hosting companies, even than most communications companies, and they have a large presence in many countries around the world, including China. So they have each become service providers themselves, and they are upstream providers for many smaller companies. This gives them control over a large portion of the Internet in a sector where their most significant competitors are Microsoft and IBM. Now they each also constantly develop new services to take greater advantage of their infrastructure and to broaden the number of markets they can engage in, while always finding new ways to obtain and control information.

International business is generally amoral, and to the bankers religious, cultural and racial differences are an inconvenience where the only concern is to increase revenue. Leftists are generally immoral, and to them other races and heathen cultures are a smorgasbord where the only concern is carnal gratification. So the traditional Christian who desires to preserve his own unique heritage, race and culture is always going to be despised by both businessmen and Leftists. When freedom of expression and an open exchange of information are contrary to the success of commercial interests, they become less desirable ideals and therefore they must be reinterpreted to accommodate business. To them, freedom of speech is a right to spam, or a right to trample traditional values, and the expression of inconvenient ideas must be eliminated from the public and labeled as “hate” so that they do not interfere with business, which is also happens to accommodate the leftists. Therefore, Liberalism is the natural bed-partner of international commerce.

Where organizations such as the SPLC and “Hope Not Hate” move to suppress our God-given rights, our supposedly Civil Liberties, it is only because they are the unofficial police agencies and party apparatchiks for international business, for the same cabal of bankers who have sought to dominate the Internet for themselves. It is fairly well-known that the “Hope Not Hate” group is almost entirely funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros. Often, when large internet service providers or hosting companies move to suppress Civil Liberties, it is because they themselves are beholden to the same bankers and businessmen. The other side of the coin is negative media exposure, of which they are also in fear. It is difficult for us to compete with the deep pockets of left-wing billionaires, but that alone is certainly not going to make us concede.

Christogenea uses Cloudflare for its DNS provider, which I felt was a necessary move after a seemingly relentless series of DDOS attacks were suffered a few years ago. So a supposed “abuse” complaint was made to Cloudflare, and they forwarded the complaint to my hosting company, who contacted me with a copy of the message they received from Cloudflare. The following complaint was originally received by Cloudflare from an individual named Aaron Sankin:

“I’m a reporter working on a story for Gizmodo. My piece is looking at the companies that host sites of organizations that have been accused of spreading hate. The website at this URL is operated by one of the groups on my list, which is a combination of lists of hate groups provided to me by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hope Not Hate, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and the Counter Extremism Project.

I’m interested in reaching out to the hosting provider of these companies, which is currently being masked by Cloudflare’s anti-DDoS technology. I spoke with Cloudflare’s General Counsel, Doug Kramer, who suggested I use the abuse reporting system to determine the hosting provider of each of these sites.”

The same complaint was filed for both the main Christogenea website and for the Emahiser sub-domain. I would not doubt if I am faced with more such complaints in the weeks and months to come, as there certainly seems to be a large increase in efforts to remove conservative and traditional Christian voices from the Internet. On the surface, this Aaron Sankin character seems to be an individual actor, but in light of all the Youtube channel cancellations and other leftist agitation in Social Media websites, he may certainly be part of a larger effort.

Notice that the letter threatens negative media exposure if the hosting provider continues to offer services to a website which, in his own words, is a “group” which is “spreading hate”. But first, Christogenea is not a group, it is only the academic endeavor of a single individual who also happens to preserve the writings of a few men that are now deceased. Secondly, none of the sources for this claim that Christogenea is a “hate group” are government agencies. While some of them have official-sounding names, they are all merely private organizations with openly leftist political ideals which have an interest in suppressing the civil liberties of conservatives and traditional Christians. Even Twitter recently refused to participate in an event promoted by the so-called Counter Extremism Project, questioning their sources of funding.

Here I will paraphrase my response to this letter:

I do not understand this complaint, or this slander of "spreading hate". Christogenea.org is a traditional Christian website. It does not advocate violence. It does not advocate any activity [which is] illegal under the laws of the United States of America. If there is a specific complaint, I will be happy to look into it, but this seems to me to be some sort of blanket smear from someone who may not like our conservative Christian profession.

I have been a [company] customer for 6 years, and have always cooperated when there were problems. This particular complaint seems to be a political smear, with which the SPLC and "Hope not Hate" has persecuted Christians in the past, even organizations as popular as the Family Research Council. As a Christian, I do not respect their opinions, and as an American, I am not compelled to. If there is any violation of United States law or specific [company] policies I will be happy to do my best to resolve it.

After I answered them, I went to my hosting company’s acceptable use policy and was relieved to find that the following clause was still intact, as I have been a customer for over 5 years, and sometimes changes in these policies go unnoticed: “[our company] supports free speech on the Internet, and will not suspend or cancel a customer's account simply because it disagrees with the views expressed by the customer.”

Not really knowing whether the company would continue to uphold its own policy, as I have been burned by several companies in this same way in the past, I ordered another server from a different company as a precaution, because sometimes it takes a few days to procure a server when you do not already have a relationship with a company, as I have also learned in the past. I was prepared to order two more servers, to meet our current requirements, but it was not necessary, since late yesterday I received the following answer from a support manager:


I responded to Cloudflare, you are protected under the First amendment right of free speech, people are not forced to the website so you are free to say what you want, if they do not agree or find it distasteful then they can simply not go to the site. I also took a look around, nothing violent here. We will close out the case. Thanks!

This was a relief, and I am quite pleased that my hosting company still cares about free speech, and is principled to follow its own policy rather than cowering to the ridiculous demands of a leftist agitator.

The promotion of violence is against the law in most countries, and in all American states. But now, because it is compatible with certain political agendas, some things are misinterpreted as a promotion of violence, when indeed they are not. I have already mentioned that Brighteon was forced to remove the New Zealand shooting video from its servers, as certain governments around the world claim that posting it “promotes violence” and “glorifies the shooter”, among other similar claims. But if that is the case, why are there any Hollywood movies, evening news reports, television programs or documentary films depicting acts of violence? They should all be removed from public access immediately. All video games depicting the shooting of living creatures, or at least moving creatures, should be removed from public access immediately. All books and novels depicting or describing such acts should be removed from public access immediately. This is just one aspect of the hypocrisy of liberalism, which is shared by international business.

Another hypocritical method of suppression is to label someone an “antisemite”. There is no such label used for the protection of any other racial group or tribe. For examples, American colonists were never labeled as “antinativites”, and Zionist Jews are not labeled as “antiarabites”. Even Southern slave-owners were never labeled as “antinegroites”. The charges of antisemitism are especially pervasive on the internet because most of the landlords over electronic properties also happen to be Jews, and Jews may be even more greatly overrepresented in electronic media than they are in conventional media. Since it certainly seems that Jews generally support agendas such as the proliferation of sodomy and gender confusion, Zionism, open borders for all countries except Israel, and the trampling of all religions and principles except Judaism, it is no wonder that more and more people are expressing opinions which are hostile to Jews.

One recent victim of YouTube account cancellations complained that there was no equivalent word to describe what Jews perceivably do to White Christians, which is to mock Christianity and to denounce any positive aspect of a concept of White racial distinction. But there is such a word, it is nearly 1,800 years older than the term antisemite, and it is found in the Christian Bible in the epistles of John. That word is antichrist. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic and other organized churches do not understand the term, but it is easily comprehensible in the context of John’s epistles. The apostle clearly wrote that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is an antichrist. To understand what John meant by the term Christ, one must refer to his Gospel in chapters 1 and 4, where he wrote that it is the equivalent of the Hebrew term Messiah. John used the term antichrist in the plural, and speaking of his own time had written that “even now are there many antichrists”, by which he must have been referring especially to Jews.

We are not “antisemites”, we are anti-antichrists. We do not have to accept the Jewish slander of antisemite, which is a peculiar term that is used as a psychological ploy to immunize Jews against any and all criticism. But as Christians, we are commanded by our Lord to stand against the antichrists. Most of our critics come from among these particular antichrists, and therefore we understand that they are only acting in accordance with their inherent nature. We cannot change their minds, and we should not try, as their apostasy is congenital.

It is twice recorded during the course of His ministry that Yahshua Christ had overthrown the tables of the money-changers, expelling them from the temple of God. This is found in the Gospel of John, early in His ministry in chapter 2, and again in Matthew during the final week before His crucifixion, in chapter 21. Perhaps the Internet will not be entirely safe for Christians until it too is cleared of the money-changers in its temples, or at least until Christians learn that they must avoid their temples altogether. It is already difficult to find Internet hosting companies who have not adopted the model terms of service provisions which have been fabricated and which are promulgated by the Jewish publicity agency known as the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), and which are quite purposely ambiguous and oppressive of free speech. If the Jews continue their ambition for absolute domination of the Internet, ultimately we will not have any free speech at all, as company after company cowers to their demands, for fear of the Jews.

Now we shall continue our commentary:

On the Gospel of John, Part 24: The Nature of the Beast

Still preaching in the temple on the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles, six months before His crucifixion, Yahshua Christ disputed with the Jews as to whether God was their father. The Jews, the world’s ultimate and original hypocrites had claimed that Abraham was their father, and they had also claimed that God was their father. They had already threatened to kill Christ for His claim that God was His Father, and John also recorded in his later chapters that as they planned to have Him crucified they raised that charge once again. But it evidently did not bother them to make that same claim for themselves.

As we discussed at length in Part 23 of this commentary, subtitled The Devil has Children, Yahshua Christ had acknowledged the claim by the Jews to be children of Abraham, but He denied their claim to be children of Yahweh God. In the Christian scriptures, it is attested that Adam was a son of God, in Luke chapter 3, and that the Athenians were children of God, in Acts chapter 17. The children of Israel are consistently identified as children of God throughout the Old Testament, from as early as Exodus chapter 13 and Deuteronomy chapter 14. It is evident in history and in ancient inscriptions that the Athenians descended from Javan, who is named as a son of Japheth the son of Noah in Genesis chapter 10. So if Adam was a son of God, by extension so were all of the children of Noah. But of all these, Yahweh God Himself only gave to the children of Israel the recognition and position of sons, which in the New Testament is called adoption, but the original Greek word means only sonship.

So while other Adamic nations besides Israel were considered to be children of God in spite of their not having the law, the prophets, the covenants, or the sonship, and all of the Israelites are expressly considered to be children of God, these Jews were not, as Christ explicitly denied them their claim. Since the Athenians to whom Paul had spoken were pagan, and since even the Old Testament Israelites were pagan, status as a son is not a religious status. The only thing the Athenians and the Israelites had in common was their common descent from Adam, the son of God.

The only explanation which allows us to properly understand this situation is the historically verifiable explanation, that at least many of the inhabitants and rulers of Judaea and of the temple, and those who disputed with Christ here, were Edomites, and not Israelites, as we see is manifest in the histories of Flavius Josephus, and in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Therefore these Jews who dispute with Christ are also those whom He Himself described in Revelation chapter 3 as being “of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Judaeans, and are not, but do lie”.

When Yahshua Christ informed the Jews that God was not their Father, they insisted in turn that they were not “born of fornication”, revealing to us that they knew exactly what He had meant by His assertion. But in fact, as we had also discussed at length, these very attitudes and circumstances were prophesied in relation to Judaea and Jerusalem in the Book of Malachi, in chapter 2 where we read a dialogue and the priests, who are evidently not all Levites, are described as having asked “10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” The answer, as well as the assertions of Christ here, reveal that we do not all have a common origin, and we are not all children of the same God, as Malachi next wrote that “11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.”

Judah married a Canaanite woman, and later it is revealed in the prophets, especially in Jeremiah chapter 2 and Ezekiel chapter 16, that the presence of Canaanites in Jerusalem and in Israel was a significant reason for the apostasy of the people. But Judah was granted mercy by Yahweh, ostensibly for the sake of the promises to Jacob, and later he had legitimate sons of Tamar. Esau had also married Canaanite women, and Paul wrote that he found no room for repentance. He ended up forfeiting his birthright because he was a profane man and a fornicator, as Paul explained in Hebrews chapter 12.

So ostensibly, the prophet Malachi was using Judah the patriarch as a type for what would eventually happen to the people of Judah in his own time: that they would also marry the daughter of a strange god, which is an allegory for their having absorbed the Edomites into Judaism. In Romans chapter 9, where Paul prays only for his “kinsmen according to the flesh, those who are Israelites”, and blames the apostasy of his own time on the fact that “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”, he goes on to contrast Jacob and Esau, referring to the descendants of one as “vessels of mercy”, and of the other as “vessels of destruction”. By this, Paul corroborates the history of Josephus, and the reasoning of Christ here, that His adversaries are of the seed of Abraham, but Yahweh could not be their Father.

As Paul also explained in Hebrews chapter 12, one is either a son or a bastard. While the adversaries of Christ had denied it, the children of Esau were indeed born of fornication, as they were mixed with the blood of the Canaanites, Kenites and Rephaim, and therefore they were and are bastards. For that same reason, we have seen in John chapter 6 that Judas Iscariot was described as a devil. Here in John chapter 8, Yahshua Christ explicitly told these Jews that they were “of their father the devil”, who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Cain was a liar when he said “am I my brother’s keeper?” since he certainly should have been his brother’s keeper, and Cain was a murderer when he slew him. Cain, who was actually only Abel’s half-brother, as Genesis chapter 3 is a parable for sexual impropriety and fornication, was descended from the seed of the serpent, which we are informed in Revelation chapter 12 is indeed the devil and satan. This is the origin of today’s Jews, as they descended mostly from those Edomite converts of second and first century BC Judaea who had always and vehemently rejected Yahshua Christ.

This is the nature of the beast, the Edomite Jewish beast: Christ never told them that they were devils because they sought to kill Him. Rather, He told them that they sought to kill Him because they were devils. This is evident in the context of the entire discourse here, but especially where He said things such as “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” They were of the offspring of Abraham, but as Paul professed in Hebrews, bastards are not truly sons. Then He said: “If God were your Father, ye would love me”, rather than “If ye would love me, God is your Father”, something which He never said.

Then in verse 44, as it is in the King James Version, He said: “44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Cain was a murderer, because there was no truth in him.

The English word congenial means “(of a person) pleasant because of a personality, qualities, or interests that are similar to one's own.” It is said to have been derived from the Latin words con, or with, and genius, which in Latin is the personification of one’s natural inclinations, according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition.

The English word congenital is “(of a person) having a particular trait from birth or by firmly established habit.” That last part is a modern innovation, as the word basically means present from birth. It is derived from the same Latin word con, and genitus, a word closely related to genius which simply means born. Once it is realized that genitus and genius are both derived from the same Latin word gens, which is a race or family, the relationship between these words is revealed all the more, and it is better understood why genius is “the personification of one’s natural inclinations”.

Genius is the personification of the natural inclinations that one inherits from the race, or races, of his parents. So if one is a bastard, he is going to have the natural inclinations of two different races. But if one is a true-born son, he is going to have the natural inclinations which Yahweh our God had instilled in his first father, Adam. That is why a bastard can never enter the house of the Lord. That is why, as Aeschylus once said, the bastard is forever an enemy of the true-born son.

So to be congenial with someone is to share similar qualities and to be agreeable, and it is a congenital condition. Therefore men naturally love their kindred, who have similar characters and qualities. These adversaries of Christ were not congenial, and Christ Himself tells them that the reason for their lack of congeniality is congenital. For that same reason, in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, Paul of Tarsus described the Jews as “those who killed both Prince Yahshua and the prophets, and banished us, and are not pleasing to Yahweh, and contrary to all men.” Hostility to God is a congenital disorder, and for that reason a hundred generations of Jews, and more, have consistently remained hostile to God. While any man can sin, this particular race the Jews can evidently do little but sin, and because of their inherent nature, they cannot keep themselves from their wicked deeds.

Now we continue from that point, where Christ had told His adversaries that they were of their father the devil, from John 8:45, where He continues to address them:

45 Now because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Who from among you censures Me [P66 wants ‘Me’] concerning wrongdoing? If I speak truth, for what reason do you not believe Me? 47 He who is from of Yahweh hears the words of Yahweh. For this reason you do not hear, because you are not from of Yahweh!”

Where Christ challenges them and says “Which of you convinceth me of sin?”, as the King James Version reads verse 46, He is asking them to come forward as individuals and testify as to what sin He may have committed, since they are accusing Him. The Codex Bezae (D) wants the entirety of verse 46, and also the last portion of verse 47 where it says “you are not from of God!” That clause, for which we have “you are not from of Yahweh”, may have been rendered “you are not sons of Yahweh”, as when it is speaking of people, the word sons is inferred by the Greek preposition ἐκ. This we have already discussed at length in relation to verse 44 of this chapter.

So once again, Christ tells them that Yahweh was not their father, and for that reason, even their apostasy is congenital. While the sheep can be led astray into apostasy, these men cannot help but to be in apostasy as it is natural to them, and a fact of their birth. So bastards cannot ever possibly hear and obey God, while sons – and daughters – have an opportunity to obey God in Christ, which all along was the very purpose of the Gospel.

48 The [the MT has “Then the”] Judaeans replied and said to Him: “Do we not speak well, that You are a Samaritan and You have a demon?”

The Judaeans despised the Samaritans, since even if they were Israelites they no longer had their genealogies in order to establish that. Many of the Judaeans were not Israelites, but, according to Eusebius, Herod had burned their genealogies so that noone could question who they were.

They will accuse Him more frequently of having a devil, meaning that they were accusing Him of being possessed by a demon, in the later chapters of John. But in John chapter 10, where the accusation is made, the people who witnessed the healing of the man who was blind from birth refuted the notion that a devil could open the eyes of the blind.

In the New Testament there are two different words which are, unfortunately, both translated as devil. Of these the first is διάβολος, or false accuser, the same word which is used to describe Judas Iscariot in John chapter 6, and the true father of these men here in John chapter 8. So a διάβολος can be a person, a walking, talking, breathing devil. For this Peter wrote in his first epistle, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”, and James in chapter 4 of his own, “ 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” Likewise, Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 3 warned that a man who is a novice should not be recognized in a position of leadership “lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” The second word translated as devil is δαιμόν, or sometimes it appears in its diminutive form, which is δαιμόνιον, and which is a demon, a wicked spirit such as the type that sometimes vexed men by possessing them. This word we always translate as demon in the Christogenea New Testament.

Likewise, in the Old Testament we find these same two types of devil. First there is the Hebrew word sa’iyr (Strong’s # 8163). This is the origin of the Greek, and ultimately English word satyr, which was originally a half man, half goat creature in the wilderness, or sometimes in the bedrooms of women, since the satyr was also a sexually insatiable party animal. Some accounts describe the satyr instead as half man, half ape.

The second type of devil is the shed (Strong’s # 7700), a spirit or shadow or ghost, which is a demon. In the Old Testament, the devils to which the children of Israel had made idolatrous sacrifices were sometimes satyrs, as in Leviticus 17:7, and sometimes shedim, as in Deuteronomy 32:17. In the Enoch literature, demons are the disembodied spirits of bastards, as we may see in the Dead Sea Scroll which is designated 4Q204, where there is a command to “Exterminate all the spirits of the bastards and the sons of the Watchers”, and which seems to have been speaking prophetically of the same events which are described in Revelation chapter 19 of the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Again, in the Dead Sea Scroll which is designated 4Q510, a fragment of what is called the Songs of the Sage, in a part of Fragment 1: “...declare the splendour of his radiance in order to frighten and terrify all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Lilith, owls and jackals … and those who strike unexpectedly to lead astray the spirit of knowledge, to make their hearts forlorn…” In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul of Tarsus had derided idolatry as the “worshiping of angels”, evidently referring to the fallen angels from whom bastards and bastard spirits are derived. For that reason, Yahshua Christ informs His Edomite bastard adversaries that God is not their father.

For that same reason, the apostle John had written a warning of these in his first epistle, in chapter 4: “1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” John was speaking of embodied spirits, of men “gone out into the world”, and not of disembodied spirits. They were the source of idolatry in the ancient world, and they are the false prophets who would seek to corrupt Christianity, the converso-Jewish infiltrators, the Benny Hinns and Joel Osteens of the world, as the apostle Jude had warned in verse 4 of his epistle: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

So bastards are devils, and these bastards, these children of fornication, as even they themselves understood Christ to be referencing, were indeed devils, and the children of their father the devil. It is their inherent nature to contend with God and man, for which reason Christ later warns His apostles, again referring to the congenital traits of men, “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” This is the nature of man and beast: the character is dependent upon the origin.

A man may tell a Jew the truth and the Jew will slander him, rejecting the truth. Christ told His adversaries the truth, and they wanted to kill him for it. So they dehumanized Him by accusing Him of being possessed by a demon, the best way in which they knew to dehumanize a man at that time. Today they have different tactics: they call a man “Nazi” and accuse those who tell the truth of “spreading hate”, and that alone proves our point, that these are bastards and demons are the children of the same beasts which killed Christ and persecute His apostles. So we surely do know the nature of the beast. Again, Yahshua refutes them:

49 Yahshua replied: “I do not have a demon! Rather I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50 Now I do not seek credit for Me; it is He [or perhaps not quite as literally, ‘there is One’] seeking and judging.

The word credit is from δόξα (Strong’s # 1391), which Liddell & Scott define primarily as an expectation, or an opinion or judgment, and then as “the opinion which others have of one, estimation, reputation, credit, honour, glory”. In the King James Version, δόξα is usually glory. It is credit here, in contrast to the verbal forms of τιμή (Strong’s #’s 5091 and 5092) which appear as honor or dishonor in the negative (Strong’s # 818) in verse 49.

Once again we are found in a situation where by honoring God, men are slandered. The same congenitally diseased people with the same tactics that they used against Christ, are at the top of our society once again this day, and attempting to silence every voice of opposition and true Christian profession in this same manner. Pharisees and Sadducees, ADL and SPLC, there is no difference between them except the time.

51 Truly, truly I say to you, if one [D has ‘whoever’] would keep My Word, he would [א has ‘shall’; P66 has an alternative verb, εἰδῶ rather than θεωρέω] not see death for eternity [forever, or ‘for the age’]!”

This is why we must seek to obey our God, because the reward is for eternity. Not that the body wouldn’t die, but that the Spirit lives forever, as Paul indicated in 2 Corinthians chapter 5: “1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens…. 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”

Those who are born of God are “born from above” and will ultimately keep His Word, as His purpose is that “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” This is in reference to all of the children of Israel, those who are born from above, as Paul cited this passage in Romans chapter 14 and then explained, “12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

In response, rather than even attempt to comprehend what He had meant, His adversaries strengthened their attempt to dehumanize Him:

52 Then [P66, א, B, C and W want “Then”; the text follows P75, D, 070 and the MT] the Judaeans said to [P75 and 070 have “the Judaeans say that”] Him: “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham died, and the prophets, yet You say ‘If one would keep My Word, he shall not taste of death for eternity’? 53 Are you greater than our father [D and W want ‘our father’] Abraham, who died? [P66 and D have the end of the clause to read “… Abraham? Because he died!”] And the prophets died! What do You make of Yourself?”

This series of arguments seems to indicate that it was indeed the Sadducees, from whom were the high priests and their closest associates, who Yahshua was disputing with here. As Luke had explained in Acts chapter 23, where he also corroborates the descriptions found in the works of Josephus: “8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” As it is described in Acts chapter 5, the same Sadducees were seriously agitated by the healings and exorcisms which were being made by the apostles, “17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, 18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.”

54 Yahshua replied: “If I would honor Myself, My honor is nothing! It is the Father who is honoring Me, whom you say that ‘He is our God’ [א, B and D have ‘whom you say that He is your God’’ the text follows P75, A, C, W, 070 and the MT, and P66 which varies slightly].

If Yahweh was their God, they would of course have loved Christ, since first they would have heard and understood the truth of the Word of God which He represented, and secondly they would have recognized the miracles which He was able to perform, which testified for Him, that He was from God. So he tells them:

55 Yet you do not know Him, but I know Him. And if I should say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you! But I know Him and I keep His Word.

For this very reason, much later John had written in chapter 2 of his first epistle: “18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. [Just as Paul describes, they were not truly Israelites, but Edomites.] 20 But ye have an unction [an anointing, Christians being the truly anointed people] from the Holy One, and ye know all things [through the Gospel]. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ [which is, the Messiah]? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father….” Reading the King James Version here, we omit the rest of verse 23, which was only added to the text in italics.

One cannot be of God or have any relationship with Him, or have any chance of salvation, if one denied that Yahshua is the Christ. Of course, John was writing in relation to his own time and place, and out of that context the words cannot have a practical application. Christ knew that there would be men who would not believe Him, as he professed in John chapter 12, and said that the Word would ultimately judge them.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day, and he has seen and is delighted.”

As we have already discussed, in verse 37 of this chapter Christ had acknowledged the claim of His enemies to be offspring of Abraham, as the Edomites were, but He denied them their claim that they were children of God, which the Edomites, being bastards, could not be.

Where John writes “and is delighted”, the King James Version has “and was glad”, the verb is in the Aorist tense, which refers to an ongoing action that is not necessarily completed. A few months later, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 22, Christ admonished the Sadducees once again and said to them: “31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” The children of God do not die, but rather, after their bodies die they have eternal spirits which live on. For that, Christ says “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Likewise, we may read in chapters 2 and 3 of the Wisdom of Solomon that “2:23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. 24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it. 3:1 But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. 2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, 3 And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace.” So Christ explained, that Abraham was in that peace, and rejoiced to see His day.

57 Then the Judaeans said to Him: “You do not yet have fifty years, and You have seen Abraham? [P75, א and 070 end the clause to read ‘and Abraham has seen You?’]

While it is possible that these men may have been Pharisees, and there were Pharisees present at the beginning of the discussion which is evident in verse 13, the arguments against Christ here are more consistent with the beliefs of the Sadducees, who, rejecting all things spiritual, and rejecting the notion that God had any role or any care in the affairs of men, couldn’t possibly have understood how it was that Christ could have seen Abraham, or how Abraham may have seen Christ.

58 Yahshua said to them: “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham came to be [D wants ‘came to be’], I am!”

Yahshua Christ, the Word made flesh, certainly is Yahweh God incarnate, as He says in the Revelation: “13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last”, and as Yahweh said in Isaiah, in chapter 44: “6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” and again in chapter 48: “12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.” Being the Word made flesh, before He was made flesh in the person of Yahshua, He could only have been the Word, Yahweh God the Spirit, as Christ Himself said in John chapter 4, “God is a Spirit”.

Here His enemies must have understood Him well enough to once again want to kill Him for His profession, even though nothing which He said had actually transgressed the law:

59 Then they took up stones in order that they would cast them at Him, but [D and W want “But”] He hid and departed from the temple.

At the end of this verse, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Majority Text append the words “and going through the midst of them He passed by thusly”, which accounts for the clause found in the King James Version. The Codices Ephraemi Syri (C) and 070 append “then He departed going through the midst of them and passed by thusly”. Our text follows the papyri P66 and P75, and the Codices Sinaiticus (א), Vaticanus (B), Bezae (D) and Washingtonensis (W).

Today they no longer say “He has a demon!” Instead, they say “He is a Nazi!” or “He is an antisemite!” They were devils then, and they are still devils today. They were false accusers then, and they are false accusers today. They had an agenda then, and they have that same agenda today. It is all congenital, and they will never truly be congenial, as it is the nature of the beast.

As we open John chapter 9, Yahshua Christ is seen in the street outside the temple, evidently later that very same day. There he heals a blind man, and the sequence of events is just as important for us to understand as the events themselves, where we may truly learn how the blind can see.

This concludes our commentary on John chapter 8.


CHR20190614-John24.odt — Downloaded 398 times