The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, and Adultery! A Review of a Paper by Clifton Emahiser.

Here we are going to present, critique and hopefully be able to elaborate upon a paper by our dear friend Clifton Emahiser, which, according to his own records, he had written in April of 2007. It has been 23 months since we have reviewed any of Clifton’s work, so it is well past time that we gave him a visit.

There are lies which Christian churches have taught for over 1,800 years, and when these lies are examined against Scripture, there is no way in which they could possibly be true or Christian, since the Scripture tells a completely different story. So all who perpetuate those lies in the name of Christ are basically accusing Him of fraud, and that is the point which Clifton shall make here. But they are also accusing Him indirectly of other sins, such as adultery, and here we shall endeavor to explain that as well. These lies are a system of Bible interpretation which we generally describe as “replacement theology”, which we can begin to identify in the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” as early as Justin Martyr and the middle of the 2nd century of the Christian era. Justin lived as an adult and wrote his several works about one hundred years after the death of Paul of Tarsus.

But the lies do not reflect the teachings of the apostles. It is fully evident in various statements in the epistles of James, Peter, and especially those of Paul, that those epistles were written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, who at that time were found in Europe, Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia. As Flavius Josephus and other historical sources attest, since the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations and until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem there were chiefly only a remnant of three tribes in Judaea during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, who had ever called themselves Judaeans. That remnant represented a small portion of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. A greater portion of those three tribes were taken into Assyrian captivity, or had never returned from those who were later taken into Babylonian captivity.

The Ordering and Chronology of the Ministry and Epistles of Paul, Part 2: The Prison Epistles

As I had explained in the opening presentation in this short series, I had hoped to gather into one place my interpretations of the time and place of the writing of each of the epistles of Paul of Tarsus, as well as a general chronology of the events recorded in the Book of Acts. I had also originally hoped to do that in a single presentation, but it was just not possible. So while we have discussed what I have called Paul’s “travelling epistles”, now we shall discuss the time and place, and also the circumstances, of the writing of the 6 epistles that were written while Paul was a prisoner. Once again, for much of this presentation I am drawing on information which I had already presented in our commentaries for each of the epistles of Paul and in our earlier commentary on the Book of Acts. There are also some new perspectives.

This is important to us for several reasons. First, it is an important reference tool, because in my opinion no other such reference exists which has a truly accurate chronology of the events of the ministry of Paul, the writing of his epistles, and the Book of Acts. As I had also said, there is much misinformation in many popular and supposedly authoritative academic sources concerning the ministry of Paul and the writing of his epistles, and it is convenient to have our own opinions of these things in one single article, or perhaps more accurately, one single source of reference.

But there is one further reason. Once it is realized that we can indeed know where Paul was throughout nearly his entire ministry, that it can all be accounted for in the records of his epistles and in Acts, then we also know where Paul was not. Paul of Tarsus never wrote an epistle to the Egyptians or to the Arabians, or to any other race, and he never visited or preached among them either. There is no Roman Catholic universalism in the ministry or the epistles of Paul, and taking the words “all men” out of context and twisting them into a universalist interpretation is not sufficient evidence. But on the other hand, Paul of Tarsus was never in Britain or Spain, although he had expressed a hope that he may reach western Europe, and the so-called “29th” or “Lost” chapter of Acts is a complete hoax which was perpetrated in recent centuries and used to patronize and to deceive many British Israel and American Christian Identity adherents. We do not need lies to support our assertions or the basis of our faith.

Globalism is Judaism, a review of a pair of sermons by Bertrand Comparet

Actually, Globalism as it is practised these last few decades is Satanism, it is Communism, and it is also Judaism, but in reality those last three terms are merely synonyms. However in these two sermons which we are about to present and critique, Bertrand Comparet himself did not use the terms globalism or Judaism, and in fact, he only mentioned Jews once in one of them, where he associated them with communism. Nevertheless, he certainly was describing and addressing them all. So here we are going to discuss two of Comparet’s sermons, both of them relatively short, which are titled Like All the Nations and The Covenant with Death. When we are done, we hope to have elucidated the fact that international treaties with aliens and non-Christians certainly are a covenant with death, and from the observable state of world politics today, the assertion is proven beyond dispute.

Because it has been so long since I read Jeanne Snyder’s publication of Comparet’s sermons, which is not necessarily complete, in preparation for this program I visited the Comparet project at Christogenea to search out what Bertrand Comparet had said about Adolf Hitler. That is because, of all the notable political figures of the 20th century, it was Adolf Hitler more beyond other who had stood against Globalism. He saw Globalism as a vehicle of both Jewish Capitalism and Jewish Marxism, and correctly understood that all of these are just different arms of the same beast. Hitler had understood that the Jew, an international creature, has forever sought to subvert every nation, and was effective at that subversion through the command which he has of international finance. For that same reason, he also understood that the Jew is the destroyer of the integrity of all creation, and especially of our White Christian race.

While Comparet was certainly no National Socialist, at least in the mainstream sense that the enemies of God like to label as Nazi, surprisingly he did not express antipathy for Hitler, but rather seemed neutral and objective, and neither did he accept the charges of genocide known by the Jewish trademark Holocaust. In fact, speaking of the second world war in his sermon Babylon’s Money, Comparet said “The worst things that Hitler was ever accused of doing, and they were lies, weren't half as bad as what we did as a matter of government policy.” Then, even better, he went on to explain that “You know what the Jews want to do to Christian civilization, I don't have to give an hour's sermon on that subject, and you should know these facts by now.” We wish he had given an hour’s sermon on the subject, as I am certain Comparet was before his time on that issue as well. There are glimpses in some of his other sermons. Then he continued and said: “We have allowed these Jews to get this power over us. Yahweh warned us never to let a Jew live in our land. I will say this for Hitler, if he did what he is accused of doing; he wasn't doing anything wrong at all. He was obeying the laws of Yahweh when he started cleaning these blood-sucking parasites out of Germany.”

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

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

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

Nearly all of these labels mean nothing to us, as they only represent insidious refinements of three basic ideas. To describe them briefly, futurists maintain that all so-called “end times” prophecy is yet to take place, generally over a seven-year span at some distant time in the future. But preterists believe that all prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD, and therefore I can only assume that they also think that ever since then Jesus has been hanging around in some sort of limbo helplessly waiting for us to come to Him. But historicists understand that prophecy has been unfolding all along, and as time has passed it has been incrementally fulfilled. As various of the apostles had testified on more than one occasion, we are already in the so-called “end times”, or the “last days”, ever since the first incarnation of the Christ. These descriptions may not be perfect or satisfy everyone, but they are generally accurate.