Commentaries and Podcasts

The Bible is not two different books. The most radical, and correct, meaning of the word catholic is “down whole”, and the earliest Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian had used it to describe the reception of the whole of the faith, meaning the reception of both New and Old Testaments, as opposed to the rejection of one or the other by the Jews or by sects such as the Marcionites. One cannot properly understand the Gospel of Christ without first understanding the will of God which was expressed in the words of His prophets.

Neglecting the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, which clearly was not a part of John’s original gospel, it is evident that on the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Yahshua Christ was teaching in the temple, as John begins to describe the events of that day in chapter 7 (7:37). Then, upon His having been confronted by His adversaries, we see Christ reveal their true nature in the lengthy exchange which He had with them, as it is recorded in John chapter 8. So upon departing from them, He is found outside of the temple where He then healed a man who was blind from birth.

On the Gospel of John, Part 25: How the Blind Can See

As John chapter 8 came to a close, the enemies of Yahshua Christ had wanted to stone Him, since He exposed them for what they truly were: children of the devil and not true children of Abraham. Doing this, Christ did not confront them not on the basis of their genealogy, a knowledge of which had evidently been suppressed by the Herodians, nor did He confront them on the basis of the events in the recent history of Judaea, and the Edomite takeover of Judaea. Rather, Christ confronted them on the basis of their character, as it was their character which most effectively revealed their genealogy. If they were truly Abraham’s children, they should have exhibited a nature which is congenial to God, which Abraham had also done. Yahweh knows those who are His, as Paul informs us in 2 Timothy, and they should each have a disposition patterned after the character of the man which Yahweh had created. Even when he sinned, Adam did not dispute his punishment, and in the subsequent generations his sons continued to seek after the very same God who had prescribed that punishment. But Christ had informed His enemies that their apostasy was congenital, that it was due to the circumstances of their origins because Yahweh was not their father. So in that manner it was said elsewhere in the Gospel, such as in Luke chapter 6: “43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.”

Therefore it is the nature of the beast, of those which are bastards, to contend with God, and the Jews who were contending with Christ knew exactly what He had meant when He told them that God was not their father, where they responded and said “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” When Christ answered this, He told them that they were liars, and that their true father was the devil. As we also discussed, Malachi had prophesied of this very thing, even of this very conversation, and his prophecy also explained that the reasons for the division among the priests was that they had transgressed the covenant of Levi, and that Judah had “married the daughter of a strange god”, a prophecy which was fulfilled in history as the remnant of Judah from the time of John Hyrcanus had begun converting Edomites and other Canaanites, systematically circumcising them and subsuming them into the citizenship of Judaea.

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.

This week, YouTube has abruptly deleted the channels of the League of the South, Dennis Wise – who had at least four different channels, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent, Rosette Delacroix, and many others who we would consider to be a part of what we may call the hard right. They even deleted some channels operated by people and organizations who we may think are actually rather innocuous and centrist mainstream Christians. As of this writing, the Christogenea and William Finck channels on YouTube have not been canceled, only because I generally do not publish any of my content there. However the accounts of several others who had published a significant amount of material from Christogenea have also been canceled.

Hard right thought, which is to us pure Christian Nationalist thought, tempers centrists and those marginal Christians who are willing to compromise with evil by reminding them continually of what is sin, and that alone helps to keep them from drifting even further to the left. Hard right thought helps to keep the perceived political center from sliding off into Sodom and Gomorrah. When such thought is removed from public view, when it is barred from public forums, especially because it is labeled as so-called “hate speech”, then the centrists and the compromisers feel more comfortable in tolerating the sins of the devil for the sake of their own peace and comfort. The devil knows what he is doing. Now a relatively small handful of internet media companies have become so big that they are the de facto public forums of the modern world. But because they are privately owned, they reserve a right to determine what is acceptable on their property. So they are slowly shutting all expression of traditional Christian thought and morality out of public view.

On the Gospel of John, Part 22: Best Witness

In the Christogenea New Testament, the text from John 7:53 through John 8:11 is not found, but it is certainly not missing. We have maintained the traditional verse numbering accompanying our translation, but John chapter 7 ends with verse 52, and John chapter 8 begins with verse 12. This is done purposefully, and it is for only one reason: that this pericope [a section or passage of scripture] is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts, those known to predate the 5th century, and neither is it found in many of the manuscripts from the 5th century and later. According to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, in both the 27th and 28th editions, verses up to 7:52 and beginning with 8:12 survived in both of the 3rd century papyri P66 and P75, but they do not contain any of the text from this pericope. The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus (א) can be viewed on line at the Internet website codexsinaiticus.org, and in John chapter 8 the text flows quite naturally from 7:52 to 8:12 with no indication of any break in the context. So there is no evidence in the Codex Sinaiticus for any of this passage from John 7:53 to 8:11. This is the way in which we have chosen to read John, but of course, the Codex Sinaiticus has no chapter or verse numbers, which were first added to copies of the Scriptures in the 16th century.

On the Gospel of John, Part 21: Criminal Enterprise

There are men who sin, and there are men who are inherently sinners. Men who sin may be forgiven, but men who are inherently sinners have no chance for forgiveness, as Christ Himself had said, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 7, “16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Likewise, when John the Baptist was announcing the coming of the Christ, he said, in Luke chapter 3, “10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” The allegorical trees of Scripture are not typically individuals, but instead, they are family trees, they are genetic lines of people.

So in others of His parables, Christ described wheat and tares, the tares having been sown in the beginning of the world by the devil, and sheep and goats, the goats having the same destiny as the devil and his angels, and good and bad races, or kinds, of fish, the bad kind of fish being destined to be burned in the fire. One group is always collectively destined to be saved, and the other group is always collectively destined to be destroyed, based not upon their mere behavior, but upon their character and origin. If the tree is bad, it cannot possibly produce good fruit. Christ had called Judas a devil not for anything which Judas had done, but because it was his inherent nature, and that nature was the ultimate reason why he had later betrayed Him.

How timely it was, that as I wrote this presentation, I learned that Christogenea was mentioned in an ADL report on hate, their favorite word. The anti-Christs are indeed the personification of hate, but Yahweh the God of Israel hates them, and they will have their day soon enough.

In Part 19 of this commentary on the Gospel of John, which we had subtitled No Friend of the Devil, we made a lengthy presentation from Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians hoping to explain where Paul had described not only the true essence of Christian communion, but also the danger of accepting those who are not worthy of communion into Christian fellowships. The ministry of Yahshua Christ is an example for us of that very danger, although within the Provenance of God, it worked to His advantage. Yahshua had given His Bread of Life discourse in an assembly hall in Capernaum, and even His students had a hard time understanding its meaning. So He responded and said “The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life. 64 But some from among you are they who do not believe.” John then inserted a parenthetical remark into his account where he wrote: “For Yahshua knew from the beginning who they who do not believe are, and who it is who shall betray Him.” Next he recorded the conclusion given by Christ Himself where He said: “For this reason I said to you that no one is able to come to Me unless it should be given to him from the Father.”

As we had also discussed in John chapter 2, Yahshua Christ, being God incarnate, knew the inherent nature of men when – or even before – He encountered them, so the apostle wrote at the conclusion of an encounter between Christ and the officials at the temple in Jerusalem that “24… Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” Christ would not subject Himself to the authorities in the temple because He knew that they were inherently evil. Now here, at the end of John’s description of the events which followed the Bread of Life discourse, we see that many of the people who had followed Christ had at this point departed, ostensibly because they could not understand or believe Him, while Peter explained why he and others would not depart. By saying “they who do not believe” John was also referring to people who did not possess an inherent capacity for belief, as we shall see Christ Himself describe in John chapter 10. So Christ had asked His disciples: “Have I not chosen you twelve? Yet one from among you is a false accuser [or a devil]!” There John informed us that He was speaking in reference to Judas Iscariot, and it is evident that the devil remained for other and nefarious reasons, but not because he believed.

On the Gospel of John, Part 19: No Friend of the Devil

In the last two presentations of our commentary on John chapter 6, we explained The Parable of the Feeding in the Wilderness, and The Parable of the Bread of Life, as these events in the ministry of Christ certainly served as allegories for the future impact and effect which His ministry and Gospel would have on the so-called “lost sheep” of the children of Israel, “that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad”, as we may read from the apostle himself in John chapter 11. Those “children of God that were scattered abroad” which John had in mind were certainly not Jews.

Discussing the Parable of the Bread of Life, we criticized the mystical ritual and beliefs which the early Roman Catholic Church had developed as the so-called Sacrament of Holy Communion. Defending this, the Church also defends and attempts to legitimize its professional priesthood, a 4th century novelty which was never mentioned or described by the apostles or the first several generations of early Christian writers. To us, the true Christian sacrament is sacrifice on behalf of one’s brethren, and the true communion is what is shared in common among brethren. So now we shall conclude our commentary on John chapter 6 by first offering our translation and some commentary on 1 Corinthians chapter 11, which is arguably the most significant of the passages upon which the Roman Church had based its ritual. Here we are concerned with Paul’s words beginning with verse 20 of that chapter:

On the Gospel of John, Part 18: The Parable of the Bread of Life

So far in our commentary on the Gospel of John, I have asserted that the encounter of Yahshua with the Samaritan woman was a parable, and that the feeding of the multitude in the wilderness was a parable. There are other things which we can claim to be parables, saying that they must stand for something or other, but we may only be offering conjecture. I do not like to conjecture, and hope to always admit if any of my interpretations are mere conjecture. So I must answer the question: why do I interpret certain events in the Gospel as parables? Before answering, it must be said that merely because I would claim that an event is a parable does not mean that the event did not actually occur. According to the writers of the Gospels, Yahshua Christ truly did feed multitudes in the wilderness, which we must believe if we are Christians who in turn must accept the Gospel accounts as being truthful. Yahshua Christ also met with a Samaritan woman, and we must trust that John accurately described the conversation which He had with her.

But if a real-life event in the deeds of Yahshua Christ is also a microcosm of the fulfillment of prophecy; if the event represents an aspect of prophecy being fulfilled, and if at the same time it also foreshadows the overall fulfillment of prophecy as it appears in the Word of Yahweh in the Old Testament, then the event itself is also an allegory representing the assurance that the word of Yahweh will be fulfilled, and therefore it is a sort of parable. So I would assert that the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the time in which it occurred was representative of the future reconciliation of the so-called “lost sheep” of the tribes of ancient Israel to Christ, and the feeding of the multitude in the wilderness was representative of the spiritual feeding of those same “lost sheep” as the apostles of Christ brought His Gospel to the nations of Europe and the Near East, which is where the so-called “lost tribes” were found at that time.