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: 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.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 4: Portrait of the Wicked

CHR20200626_Wisdom04.mp3 — Downloaded 1329 times


On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 4: Portrait of the Wicked

The Wisdom of Solomon is timeless. Its portrayal of the wicked is probably much more relevant today than when it was written.

In our last presentation of this commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, we already began to introduce the second chapter of the work, and discussed aspects of its opening verses, as they provide a conclusion to ideas which were introduced in chapter 1, as well as an introduction to what is described throughout this chapter. I had also presented and briefly discussed this second chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon in Part 45 of my commentary on the Gospel of John, which was titled Gods and Emperors. That is because this chapter, as a whole, may be seen as a Messianic prophecy, and this first half draws a portrait of the wicked which also very well describes the attitudes and behavior of the men who had opposed Christ during the time of His ministry, and also mentions some of the same sentiments or practices of the wicked for which Christ had rebuked them. Then the later half of this chapter draws a portrait of a just man whom the wicked would persecute for his righteousness, and that also very well describes Christ Himself. Being wrapped in passages which discuss death and resurrection at the beginning of the chapter, and professing that God created man to be immortal at the end of the chapter, it is manifest that the whole of this chapter is indeed a Messianic prophecy.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

ChrSat20200620Weisman19.mp3 — Downloaded 1675 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Here we shall finally finish our presentation and discussion of Chapter 4 of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which he had titled The Role of Cain. Doing this, we shall attempt to summarize many of the things we found throughout our discussions, as Weisman consistently misread passages, purposely ignored the context of passages, twisting and even lying about Scripture in his attempts to deny the veracity of Two-Seedline. With our investigation of this one chapter having begun in part 9 of this series, we hope to have refuted Weisman comprehensively.

In our last presentation, we had left off where Weisman mischaracterized the relationship of Kenites with Israel at the time of king Saul, where he said “The Kenites were friendly to the Israelites.” There we had shown that from the time that Balaam prophesied about the Kenites in Numbers chapter 24, to the time of Saul, a period of nearly 450 years, there is only one mention of a single Kenite, and that referred to Heber, who was a Midianite smith in the days of Deborah and Barak, perhaps 400 years before the time of Saul. The Kenites not being mentioned again until for some unknown reason Saul had warned them to depart from Amalek, we see that Weisman had no basis for that statement. This is representative of the poor interpretations of Scripture offered by Weisman throughout this book.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 3: The Remedy for Sin and Death

CHR20200619_Wisdom03.mp3 — Downloaded 1125 times


On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 3: The Remedy for Sin and Death

In the first two presentations of this commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon we hope to have refuted many of the criticisms of the work, which set out to prove by its language and vocabulary that it was not written until the first century before Christ, or according to some claims, even later. Those same critics usually repeat the unfounded claim that it must have been written by some Alexandrian Jew. However as we discuss the actual content of the work, we hope to make it evident that such claims are also false.

One avenue of investigation in our answering the critics of Wisdom was left open where earlier we had described a source which claimed that fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In an article found at an internet ministry this claim was made and a book was cited, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by one Gleason Archer, which was first published in 1974. We ordered a used copy of that book, which we expected to be the same 1985 edition of the work as was quoted by the article in question, but it was not. Instead we received a “revised and expanded” 1994 printing. This newer printing does not mention the Wisdom of Solomon, and we surmise that the article was citing an appendix to the book, because the pagination is different, which is a catalog of books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We may further pursue this, but Wisdom is not listed in the 1994 version of the catalog.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

ChrSat20200613Weisman18.mp3 — Downloaded 1719 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

Here once again we shall continue with our series of presentations Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and this is part 18 of our endeavor. We believe that all along the way, through each of the first 17 parts of this series, we have shown that Charles Weisman depended upon an ignorance of history – purposeful or not – coupled with many misinterpretations of passages, seemingly intentional misreadings of passages, and even outright lies, in order to convince his readers that Two-Seedline teachings are in error.

We last left off with Charles Weisman’s claim that the serpent of Eden was the first murderer, the “murderer from the beginning” mentioned by Christ in John 8:44. Making that claim, Weisman evidently hoped to decouple interpretations of Matthew 24:34-35 from John 8:44, which together, along with an understanding of the history of Judaea over the decades leading up to the ministry of Christ certainly do prove that He was indeed speaking to descendants of Cain. We have shown conclusively that within the Biblical context, the serpent of Eden could not have been the first murderer, and that Cain alone was the first murderer.

This is also plainly evident in the words of the apostle John. In 1 John chapter 3, speaking within the context of Cain’s having killed Abel, John wrote “15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” Cain and Abel were John‘s example by which to set the context for that statement, and therefore Cain was the first murderer. In that same place that John informs us that Cain was “of that wicked one”, we see that Cain was the first murderer, as the serpent certainly was not Adam’s brother, and certainly did not bring death into the world by causing Adam to sin. As we also explained, Adam was punished for hearkening to the voice of his wife, not the voice of the serpent. Adam was not deceived, and therefore he alone was responsible for his sin.

The Unpardonable Sin

CHR20200612-UnpardonableSin-Emahiser.mp3 — Downloaded 5131 times


The Unpardonable Sin

While the Dindu Apocalypse has apparently subsided, at least for a time, with each new wave of negro aggression it seems that a greater number of White Christians become aware of the fact that the differences which we have with negros are certainly more than skin deep. However the spineless and effeminate capitulation of so many liberal politicians and cuckolded law enforcement officials is ultimately only going to further embolden the beasts, and it is inevitable that a complete breakdown of the rule of law will become manifest in many places in America and in the other nations of Christendom. That is the true objective of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements, to wear down the resolve of Christians, to destroy the constructs of Christian governance, and to plunge us all into anarchy, a process which has always resulted in tyranny. This is one aspect of world history that sadly, far too few White people understand: that the rule of law in the modern world is a product of Christendom, and those who hate Christ have always wanted to see it destroyed and replaced with laws of their own. If they are successful, the result will inevitably lead to a new tyranny of the Left, and the long-sought victory of global Communism. Any kindness which they are shown, they perceive as weakness, and it opens up new avenues for them to exploit. The controlled media and global corporations are on their side, all of the liberal and progressive politicians are on their side, and all of them have actively helped them advance this agenda. The Coronavirus lockdowns and recent riots over the death of a career criminal are only the newest phases in an age-old war against Christendom. The timing of these events was not a coincidence.

But this is not new to us. We have not reached these conclusions recently. We have known and have been writing about these things for over twenty years. Of course, as we often point out, Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet and others wrote about them sooner. Even if we do not always know what form it will assume, when the next attack is launched against our Christian society we certainly do know who is behind it, and we know who is on the side of our enemies. Where the Satanic war against the Camp of the Saints is prophesied in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, for us there are no allies and there are no neutral parties. All the nations are gathered, and one is either a sheep or a goat. There is no third choice.

However for the last twenty years, many supposed Identity Christians have claimed that we are mean-spirited, or worse, because of our position towards the non-Adamic so-called races. This is in spite of the fact that we were told that the Good Shepherd distinguishes the sheep and the goats on sight, and separates them in that same manner. So to this day, very often it seems that we are still only a divisive minority even within Christian Identity. But we are confident that they who despise us need to repent, that in spite of their supposed knowledge they still share in the sins of the world. So until other Identity Christians agree with us on these important issues, and profess that agreement, we will always be divisive, we will always choose to quarrel, and purposely so.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

ChrSat20200606Weisman17.mp3 — Downloaded 1833 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

We have tarried with Charles Weisman’s prolonged disputations revolving around John 8:44 and Matthew 23:34-35 for several of these presentations, and we are still not through all of Weisman’s arguments in relation to these passages. Some of those arguments revolve around the question of who killed the prophets in the Old Testament. In that passage from Matthew chapter 23, Yahshua Christ declared that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacharias will come upon a particular race. We would assert that according to the laws of God, that race must be guilty for the crimes for which it is going to be punished, or if the charge is false, then according to the law the individual making the charge must suffer the penalty. We cannot imagine that Christ our God was making false charges or acting contrary to His law.

In the actions of men and nations, there is collective guilt, and there is individual guilt. When one nation wars against another, the men who actually do the shooting are compelled by their rulers, and generally not motivated to commit murder on their own volition. If the war were unjust, the rulers would be guilty individually, although the nation which did their bidding would share collective guilt. Therefore Peter, in Acts chapter 2 addressing men of Judaea in reference to Christ had said “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. The wicked hands were not those of the Romans, but the Jews, those who stood in the Praetorium demanding of Pilate that He be crucified, leaving him no other alternative. But the nation as a whole shared a collective guilt for the deed as they had suffered (tolerated) wicked rulers.

In 1 Kings chapter 18 we read: “4 For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.” So we see individual guilt for the murder of those prophets had been placed upon Jezebel. But then we read in a prayer of Elijah in 1 Kings chapter 19: “14… I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.” There we have a profession of collective guilt on the children of Israel for what Jezebel was primarily guilty of as an individual.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 2, The Introduction of Wisdom

CHR20200605_Wisdom02.mp3 — Downloaded 1479 times


On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 2, the Introduction of Wisdom

In the opening presentation of our commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, we provided and refuted many of the popular academic opinions of the work and the frequently-repeated criticisms concerning the nature of its text, by which the provenance and veracity of the work have long been challenged. So although we have already provided commentary on the opening verse of the text, which we also hope to continue here, we realized that some of the newer material discussing the Wisdom of Solomon had further-developed criticisms which must also be addressed. So before continuing, we shall do that here.

In the introduction to its own presentation of the Wisdom of Solomon, the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) claims under the subtitle “Character of the Greek” that “There is widespread recognition that the [Wisdom of Solomon] was composed in Greek… The book is an example of a protreptic work (προτρεπτικὸς λόγος), an exhortation to adopt a particular philosophy, and it deploys literary genres familiar from Hellenistic rhetorical texts including the diatribe… the ‘problem’ genre… and the comparison (σύγκρισις…) Correspondingly… the book is written in a good Greek style and shows none of the characteristics of translation Greek.”

Yet it is commonly exhibited that the Book of Proverbs is also “an example of a protreptic work… an exhortation to adopt a particular philosophy”, and further, that the literary diatribe is a common feature of the writings of the Hebrew prophets. Some examples of Classical Greek literature have been recognized as having the attributes of the genre more recently identified as the Problem Play, such as the 5th century work of Euripides titled Alcestis, as are other early works, as well as the Book of Job which is found in the Bible, which we can certainly esteem to date to as early as the 12th or 13th centuries BC, however it definitely predates the Classical Greek period. Lastly, the σύγκρισις, or synkrisis, is a literary form of comparison, and it has been identified as a feature of both the gospel of John and some of the epistles of Paul, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews. But forms of the so-called σύγκρισις are also found in the Hebrew Old Testament. So none of these features of grammar are exclusive to Hellenistic writings, and these charges against the Wisdom of Solomon are meaningless because these things do not prove it to be a product of the Hellenistic period.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

ChrSat20200530Weisman16.mp3 — Downloaded 1658 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

In our last presentation in this series, which was subtitled The Blood of Abel, we left off where Charles Weisman discussed the episode in Matthew chapter 23 where Christ had told His adversaries that their race would be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, which, discounting the interpolation in verse 35 we believe refers to the father of John the Baptist. We do not believe that it referred to the Old Testament prophet Zechariah as Christ had laid direct blame for the murder of this Zacharias on his adversaries, and not merely on their ancestors, where He said “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Here we will continue that discussion of Cain and those who are responsible for the death of Abel and the prophets, as we are not finished with the portion of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book which concerns that subject.

Speaking of Abel, in Hebrews chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus had written: “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” We have already discussed at length the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and provided Scriptures supporting the plausibility of our argument that the only reason Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is that Yahweh would not acknowledge Cain himself, Cain not even having been eligible to make such a sacrifice. But the only reason that Abel’s sacrifice was better lies in the mere fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice, by which he had asserted that he was indeed the eligible son.

On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 1: Addressing the Critics

CHR20200529-Wisdom01.mp3 — Downloaded 2128 times


On the Wisdom of Solomon, Part 1: Addressing the Critics

Here we are going to examine an apocryphal book of Scripture which I have often cited in my commentaries on various books of the New Testament, and especially in the recently-completed commentary On the Gospel of John. This book I have always accepted as being canonical in spite of the fact that evidence of its great antiquity is very scant, and no original Hebrew version of the work is known to have existed. But rather than judging the book according to the words and deeds of the world, I have chosen to judge it based on its contents.

This book is the Wisdom of Solomon, which I will often identify simply as Wisdom here. It was accepted as canon in the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, but it was rejected and relegated to apocryphal status by Protestants, who certainly seem to have followed the Jews in this regard. The Wisdom of Solomon was included alongside the other books of Wisdom of the Old Testament in the 4th century Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) and in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus (A), but it is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

At least one source, an online denominational ministry, has published an article on the Scrolls which claims that fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were found among the scrolls, citing A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by one Gleason Archer, which was first published in 1974. But I have not yet been able to verify this claim, since it is not supported by the first edition of Archer’s work. In the author’s Appendix 4 there is an Inventory of Biblical Manuscripts from the Dead Sea Caves, as he titled it, which has no reference to Wisdom. But the book was revised and updated in 1996, and I have not yet been able to access that edition, as this information is new to me. [I have already ordered a copy of the book.]

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 15, The Blood of Abel

ChrSat20200523Weisman15.mp3 — Downloaded 1625 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 15, The Blood of Abel

Here we shall once again continue with our rebuttal to Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and we are still in the middle of Chapter 4, which is titled The Role of Cain. Our last presentation in this series brought us to the middle of page 35, and we have tarried quite awhile addressing his arguments under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil. Doing this, so far we hope to have made it fully evident that Charles Weisman is guilty of three primary and crucial mistakes in his method of interpreting the Scriptures.

First, he has consistently misread verses, and especially important verses such as Genesis 6:4, John 8:44 and Matthew 12:34, where in each instance he had failed to realize what the passage actually means, and based his arguments on his own poor, or perhaps purposefully wrong interpretations. Secondly, making those interpretations he also twisted the meanings of the plain words of Scripture in the same manner as the Gnostics and universalists who have for ages insisted that father does not mean a literal ancestor, or that children are not literal offspring in Scripture. Yet when we examined the passages of Scripture which he himself had used as examples, we showed that the literal meanings of the words make perfect sense once they are understood in the actual historical context of Scripture, and in the context of the words of the prophets. Thirdly, Weisman himself has thus far refused to even consider the historical context of the New Testament, an understanding of which clearly refutes his own insistence, made without any supporting evidence, that all of the adversaries of Christ were Israelites. We have proven from the pages of Josephus as well as from the epistles of Paul and the words of Christ Himself that Weisman is wrong in making that insistence.