Christogenea Internet Radio Podcast Archives


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


Click here for a simplified listing of titles and links for Biblical commentaries and related podcasts.

Click here for a simplified listing of titles and links for Historical commentaries and other podcasts.

Use this link for our podcast RSS feed: https://christogenea.org/podcasts/mp3feed. Christogenea cannot meet either Google's or Apple's "politically correct" content standards, so we have not listed our feed at the iTunes or Google stores. However the link to our RSS feed will still work in iTunes or in an Android podcatcher app.

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

ChrSat20200418Weisman10.mp3 — Downloaded 1723 times

 

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.

Now I will also add, that if only the genealogy of the chosen line was given, as Weisman also insisted, then why are any other genealogies supplied at all? We see the descendants of Cain are recorded for several generations in Genesis chapter 4, so Weisman is found to have lied about that as well as he himself had attested that Cain was not chosen in the sense of being Adam’s heir and successor. So once again, he is also found to be contradicting himself.

On the Gospel of John, Part 49: The Open Tomb

CHR20200417-John49.mp3 — Downloaded 1285 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 49: The Open Tomb

Presenting our commentary on the account of the final events in the crucifixion and death of Christ as they are described in John chapter 19, we focused on the meaning and implications of the exclamation of Christ where He had said that “It is finished!” In doing that, we hope to have sufficiently elucidated what it was that had been finished at the cross as it had been written in the prophets and explained by the apostles. However doing that, we also neglected any discussion of other aspects of the event, not all of which were recorded by John, so it may be fitting to do that here.

In relation to earlier portions of John chapter 19, we have already discussed and correlated the various descriptions of the fate of Judas Iscariot, the dream of Pilate’s wife, and other things which Matthew had included in his account of the events of this day. Then we discussed at length the culpability for the crucifixion of Christ, and we also discussed the account of Luke which relates that Pilate had sent Christ to Herod Antipas before finally relenting to the demands which the Jews had made for his crucifixion. It is very likely that Herod was elsewhere in the Praetorium, or in the district of the city where it was located, so that entire event may have taken place in a very short time. Sending Christ to Herod, it is evident that Pilate had hoped that Herod would resolve the situation and satisfy the demands of his fellow Jews by another avenue, however Herod had instead merely sent Christ back to Pilate, thereby assuring that He would indeed be crucified as it was Pilate’s last chance to avoid having Him executed.

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

ChrSat20200411Weisman09.mp3 — Downloaded 1539 times

 

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.

Secondly, he failed to explain, that if the “sons of God” were the sons of Cain, as he insisted, and if he believes that Cain was a son of Adam, as he also insisted, and if the sons of Cain were in the image of God, as he had further insisted, why that would be a sin so grievous as to cause God to destroy all the descendants of Seth for race-mixing, since Seth was also in the image of God, being in the image of Adam his father? Weisman never explained how this was a sin, but we have on many occasions explained precisely how it was a sin.

Thirdly, but not finally because there were other errors as well, Weisman lied about the definition of the word nephilim, which certainly can mean fallen ones. By presenting Gesenius’ admitted preference as if it were the only authoritative definition, Weisman purposely lied by not citing Gesenius’ entire definition. Presenting Gesenius’ entire definition of nephil, we saw that Gesenius himself explained that it could mean fallen one, or at least, faller, and that it was often interpreted in that manner, as Gesenius also admitted, but Gesenius himself chose to follow the Jews, whom he mistakenly called “Hebrews”, who insisted that it meant fellers instead, and we believe that helped to obfuscate the truth.

Last week I promised to provide a scan of page 556 of Gesenius’ lexicon which contains the definition for nephil, and apologize for adding it late, as I did not do that until Tuesday morning.

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

CHR20200410-WholeArmor-Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 2158 times

 

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

ChrSat20200404Weisman08.mp3 — Downloaded 1851 times

 

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, a presentation and review of a sermon by Wesley Swift

CHR20200403-Swift-DayofDeliverance.mp3 — Downloaded 2015 times

 

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.

The Athenians were able to recover their democracy, but it was in a modified form, and ultimately they were defeated by the Macedonians in 338 BC and a short time later had, in effect, lost it forever. However when tyrannical laws are imposed on Americans in the name of security, the process never seems to be reversed, the culprits are never punished, and the government grows more and more powerful. Now, with the Coronavirus scare and the accompanying fear-porn that has paralyzed the nation, the lemmings who readily sell their freedom for security may finally end up completely enslaved. But Wesley Swift already saw that as an ongoing process in 1965, when he gave this sermon.

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

ChrSat20200328Weisman07.mp3 — Downloaded 1693 times

 

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.

So where we left off, we will repeat the last item in Weisman’s list of examples, because we did not discuss it sufficiently:

  • Oppressive governmental authorities are the devil (Eph. 6:11,12; Rev. 2:10).

And this too is a lie, because it is an oversimplification. First, the children of Israel had sinned collectively, as it is described in 1 Samuel chapter 8, because they were to have no governmental authority at all, and when they insisted on a king, Yahweh told them that they had rejected Him as king, and therefore they would suffer under earthly kings. That suffering was not a decree of punishment, but rather, Yahweh was only telling them what the natural outcome of their decision was going to be.

However oppressive governmental authorities by themselves are not the devil. What Yahweh told the children of Israel would happen to them under a king, in 1 Samuel 8:11-18, had happened under Saul, David, Solomon, and all their successors. But David and Solomon were not devils, and neither were their governments.

On the Gospel of John, Part 48: What is Finished?

CHR20200327-John48.mp3 — Downloaded 1340 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 48: What is Finished?

In our last presentation describing The Jewish Murder of the Messiah of Israel, we left John’s account of the crucifixion of Yahshua Christ with the exclamation by Christ that “It is finished!” and the resulting explanation by John that “turning the head He surrendered the Spirit.” While many commentators speculate upon what Christ had meant where He said that “It is finished”, John himself tells us just before he described the exclamation where he wrote: “With this, Yahshua seeing that He had already finished all things, in order that the writing would be completed, He says: ‘I thirst!’ 29 A vessel full of vinegar sat there. Therefore they brought to His mouth a sponge full of vinegar wrapped in hyssop.”

So where Christ had said “it is finished”, John understood that to mean that all things which were written in the books of the prophets concerning what would happen to the Christ were fulfilled. Christ Himself had expressed that same thing the evening before, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 26 where He spoke to His disciples at the time of His arrest, and particularly to Peter who had tried to prevent His arrest, and He said “54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” Then Matthew also wrote: “55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. 56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.

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

ChrSat20200321Weisman06.mp3 — Downloaded 1726 times

 

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.

On the Gospel of John, Part 47: The Jewish Murder of the Messiah of Israel

CHR20200320-John47.mp3 — Downloaded 1879 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 47: The Jewish Murder of the Messiah of Israel

As we presented the first part of John chapter 19 and the account of the trial of Christ before Pontius Pilate, which we had titled Gods and Emperors, we also found a need to discuss at greater length the issue of culpability for the crucifixion of Christ. This is because there is much propaganda in presumably Christian literature which places the preponderance of guilt for the crucifixion of Christ on Pontius Pilate, or on the Romans in general, when Christ Himself, and His apostles after Him, had clearly placed that guilt on the Judaeans. So it is a wonder to us, that the Jewish propaganda which has forever attempted to shift the blame onto Pilate is so strong that now even so-called Christian scholars, or so-called scholars who claim to be Christians, no longer believe their Bibles or the veracity of the only surviving eye-witness accounts. Instead, they believe the lies of the Jews who with cunning and sophistry have imagined that they can escape the ultimate punishment which awaits them for their act of Deicide, as well as their continued acts of rebellion against that very same God whom they had slain, which they have perpetrated throughout history.

The phenomenon of Bolshevism was not new in 1917. It has erupted continually throughout history, and it is always instigated by the same people who today are known as Jews. The Bolshevik Revolution was not Russian, and the French Revolution was not French. The result of both was the oppression of Christianity and the attempt to introduce an atheistic utopia. While at least most of the Reformers were not Jews, the Jews of Europe certainly also had a significant role in assuring the success of the Reformation, and Martin Luther was allied with them until he recognized their treachery, after which he tried to warn the world, but by then it was too late and the world did not heed his warning.

Pages