Commentaries and Podcasts

Pitfalls Found in Biblical Research Materials, Part 1 with Clifton Emahiser

Last August Clifton Emahiser, being 90 years old at the time, had taken a bad fall in his home. At that time he realized that he really could not live alone safely any longer, and we brought him here to Florida to stay with us. In the meantime, just before his accident Clifton had sent me three new short essays to proofread, which I never got to until now. So we will begin trying to make that up to him with this evening’s presentation. Here we have Clifton Emahiser with us once again, to present and discuss one of those short essays, which he had titled The Pitfalls Found In Biblical Commentaries, Lexicons & Dictionaries.

It seems to me that Clifton may have planned for this to be another multi-part series, since while the title is broad in scope, here he mainly focuses on the rather recently-developed denominational doctrines of Futurism and Preterism, and how they have affected modern Christian thinking which is reflected in their inclusion in certain popular Study Bibles and Commentaries. While Clifton has treated this topic in the past, here it is presented in a somewhat different context, and he goes further to show how recent these and other ideas about Scripture have been developed by certain denominations.

So now we shall present Clifton’s essay, along with our own comments and discussion:

The Pitfalls Found In Biblical Commentaries, Lexicons & Dictionaries, by Clifton Emahiser

While some of these Biblical helps are better than others, even the best have some serious errors! For instance some Bible cross-references can lead one astray, so let’s consider some of the better center-references found in a few Bibles:

If you have a King James Version Bible with the proper center reference, you can very readily prove Two Seedline teaching with it, for it will take you from one supporting verse of Scripture to another almost endlessly on the subject. (Not that the King James Version is an especially advisable Bible to use for study, as it is alleged to contain approximately 27,000 translation mistakes.)

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 6, Israel in the New Testament, by Bertrand Comparet, with Commentary

Here we are going to present, critique, and hopefully elaborate on Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Israel in the New Testament. These programs are intended to both honor and elaborate on the works of Bertrand Comparet, and to offer any corrections which are necessary, because all men are prone to making errors, and no man can avoid that fate. We are doing this as part of our series on Christianity in the Old Testament because the two subjects are actually a single subject. Comparet himself referred to this sermon in his original presentation of Christianity in the Old Testament. Regardless of the propaganda which is spewed by the denominational churches, both the Old and New Testaments represent racially-based covenants made with the same group of people. One may pick-and-choose passages in the New Testament in order to attempt to dispute that, but those passages are being taken out-of-context when such interpretations can be clearly shown to conflict with many plain statements made in either Testament which refute the validity of any universalist interpretation.

To the sincere Christian, Judaism should have no standing or consideration whatsoever. The promise of a future new covenant was made explicitly in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The condemnation revoking the old covenant was spelled out explicitly in both Hosea and Zechariah. The Jews as a people have never fulfilled any of the many promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerning the children of Israel. They will never fulfill them, because the Old Testament is a Christian book. With all certainty, it can be shown in history that the Keltic and Germanic peoples have their origins in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia, and that they did indeed fulfill all of those promises. They also accepted the new covenant that was explicitly promised for Israel, and they accepted Yahshua Christ the Messiah of Israel, who came “to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”, as Paul of Tarsus attests. This is the basic premise of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, it is a true premise, and now we shall commence to hear it from him:

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 5, Concluding Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with Commentary

Here we shall finally conclude our presentation and commentary on Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Christianity in the Old Testament.

After Comparet had presented a lengthy survey of Christian professions made in the Psalms and how they were interpreted as being Christian in nature by the apostles of Christ, Comparet returned to one of his earlier themes, to correctly assess the nature of the Old Testament feasts in relation to the phases of the ministry and the expected return of the Christ. So Comparet appropriately explained that the Spring feasts of the Old Testament calendar were related to the First Advent of the Messiah, and that the fall feasts relate to the expected Second Advent.

From there, and in relation to a name which is present in the Old Testament but which is obscured in the English translations, Comparet’s sermon necessarily goes on to describe what Satan truly is in Scripture, in relation to the name Azazel which is found in the Hebrew of Leviticus chapter 16, but which is translated only as scapegoat in our King James Version. To properly understand the significance of the Day of Atonement in the fall feast schedule, Comparet rather adeptly finds it necessary to explain the significance of Azazel, and that also requires a proper understanding of the meaning of the term Satan....

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 4, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we described the meaning and the use of the word catholic by early Christian writers, and we demonstrated that originally the term described the reception and acceptance of the Christian faith, as coming from the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, the Scriptures which were handed down by the apostles of Christ. In that original sense, we then asserted that Identity Christians are the true catholics, since of all of the modern Christian denominations, only we understand that both testaments, and both covenants, apply exclusively to ourselves. And of course, saying Identity Christians we include only White Europeans, the only people for whom the apostles intended the Gospel.

Then in parts two and three, we began a presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon on the Christian nature of the Old Testament. Doing this, we hoped to expand somewhat on Comparet’s original sermon, while adding our own opinions and outlining the reasons for our differences wherever we may disagree with him.

 Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 3, a continuing presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the portions of this sermon which we have already presented, Bertrand Comparet addressed some of the logical fallacies which are held by those who somehow think that the Old Testament and the New are separate books addressed to different groups of people. Then he presented some of the prophecies which should prove beyond doubt that the New Covenant was to be made with the same people who were at one time subject to the Old Covenant. In this context, he then discussed Genesis 3:15, Genesis 4:1, and the sacrifices of Cain and Abel described subsequently in Genesis chapter 4. From there he cited the Book of Job, and a Christian profession made by Job himself concerning his resurrection after death and his Redeemer, an obvious reference to Yahshua Christ. While we could not agree with some of Comparet’s assertions concerning the meaning of Genesis 4:1 or the age of the Book of Job, his elucidation of the Christian promises in these passages are certainly correct.

 Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, a presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we had a long introduction of our own which asked the question What is a Catholic? Doing that, first we gave a brief exhibition from history and the prophets in order to help explain why it matters. Then we endeavored to provide a definitive answer from both the Greek meaning of the word καθολικός and from the earliest Christian writers. From there, we provided much evidence that originally, the word was applied to the origination and the acceptance of the Christian faith, and not to its application. A true and original Catholic accepts both Old and New Testaments in relation to himself and his people, and understands that both testaments are Christian testaments. At the same time, we would assert that a true Catholic can only accept both testaments if he or she is one of those people with whom were made those “catholic covenants”, as Irenaeus called them. In order to substantiate our arguments, we mentioned the Book of Odes from the Codex Alexandrinus. We had provided a commentary on that book here three months ago. Then we cited the early Christian writers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. And then, to establish what it was that the ancients saw as the world, we cited both Irenaeus and Martin Luther.

Lastly, we made a brief exhibition showing ancient attitudes towards the negro, citing two historical sources: the first century BC historian Diodorus Siculus, and the first century AD Christian work titled The Shepherd of Hermas. There we quoted a passage from the 9th Similitude of the 3rd Book, which was subtitled “Building of the Militant and Triumphant Church”, and which explains that blacks are an unredeemable and lawless race. Therefore it should not be a stretch to imagine that a truly militant, and ultimately triumphant Christian is one who stands against race-mixing, the likes of which we see all around us this very day. In the first centuries of Christianity, blacks were excluded from the “world”, and they must continue to be excluded. However knowing the Scriptures we must also exclude all other races, which were not a part of the “world” from the time of Christ to the time of Luther. So, we said that: Christianity is only for White Europeans, and Niggers certainly are unredeemable. And any of our White brethren who do not repent, and who have not yet been blasphemers or traitors, had certainly better repent soon or they are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with the Niggers. All blasphemers and traitors to our race and our God are already headed in that very direction.