Commentaries and Podcasts

This European Fellowship Forum ran for nearly four hours, during which we discussed a host of subjects. Among them, but not necessarily in this order:

• The challenges with understanding the Bible from the perspective of its original historical context
• The war in Ukraine and the concept of Greater Khazaria
• The recent arrests in Germany of Reichsbürger advocates, an Imperial Burger vs. Imperial Citizen
• The government as "god", libertarian freedom vs. freedom from sin
• Feminism and polygamy in a world after the fall of Mystery Babylon
• Brittney Griner, male or female? The image I saw last night turned out to be false.
• Female sports and male participation therein
• Ruth
• The meaning of the concept of a name in the ancient world
• The meaning of John 21:23 in relation to the apostle himself
• The Christian expectation of suffering, and not necessarily prosperity
• The life of Christ as an example for men

... and more.   

My thanks to all of our friends who participated, even if they did not all necessarily speak. Praise Christ!

This evening we have a conversation with Michael Tubbs, the Chief of Staff and Florida State Chairman of the League of the South. We have been honored to work with Michael these past five years, and this is our first opportunity to speak to him here at Christogenea.

Here Michael tells us about how he had first joined the League of the South, his discovery of Christian Identity, his experience at Charlottesville and several other  related subjects. 

The SCOTUS decision which I could not remember during the discussion, in which anti-Sodomy laws were struck down, is Lawrence v. Texas, which was in 2003, and even more recent than I had thought. Until 1961, every American State had anti-Sodomy laws.

The 1967 SCOTUS decision which struck down anti-race-mixing laws throughout the South is Loving v. Virginia. Other States had already repealed such laws. 

At left is a picture of Michael Tubbs and I taken at Lee Circle in New Orleans in May of 2017.

Some of the subjects discussed throughout the program:

The ADL / InfoWars / Kanye West / Nick Fuentes / Donald Trump / Elon Musk media-driven circus, and why Christians should have no care for any of the clowns. Perhaps “Kanye didn’t kill Yeself” might be a t-shirt in the near future (/sarcasm).

Why there is not going to be another great White organization or leader who can be effective on a national or international scale. The next, and the only valid, great White leader is Christ.

The Christian duty to advocate for truth amongst other Whites in real life, and the misuse of social media. Christians should focus on developing and fostering local communities of like-minded people. This was the strategy of the earliest Christians as they awaited the fall of Jerusalem, and Rome.

The unconquerable Adamic spirit and the inability of the enemies of God to destroy the Adamic man, regardless of what happens in this world. The salt of the earth.

The evils of globalism and the rewriting or fabrication of the history of non-White nations, and now White, mostly by Communists. The disproportionate burden of taxes and the social services infrastructure on White taxpayers. Proposed reparations payments to negros by the State of California is a communist agenda.

Answering some who would obfuscate the purpose of Yahweh God in the flood of Noah: Does the Bible promote the nurture of bastards? Further discussion on the eternal Adamic spirit, which has been the subject of recent podcasts at Christogenea.

The humanism and paganism which underlie supposedly Christian rituals, and the fact that Christians are not expected to conduct rituals by Christ or His apostles. The pagan aspects of other Church doctrines or traditions. The non-authority of Christian so-called “priests”, a concept which did not exist before the 4th century.

And more...

In Partnership with Yahweh, A Critical Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Not counting his commentary series on the Revelation, which we do not plan to critique here, there are nearly 130 sermons posted at the Bertrand Comparet archive at Christogenea. Now, over these past few years, we have already critiqued about a third of them, and we have greatly expanded on more than a few, such as his sermons on Ruth and Esther, and especially his sermon on Christianity in the Old Testament. Our first critique of his work was his sermon on Esther, which we discussed over three of our own presentations in the Spring of 2015, and we have presented commentary on about three dozen of his other sermons since then.

To us this undertaking is important, because for so many Identity Christians, Bertrand Comparet’s work provided a foundation for their understanding of Scripture and was instrumental in helping them to develop a basis for the substance of their faith. Therefore, if we take our faith seriously, that basis must be continually contemplated, measured against Scripture, and if one tenet or another is not upheld by Scripture then we must allow ourselves to be corrected. As we read in the 119th Psalm: “12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. 14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. 15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. 16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.”

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 4 - Our Rebuttal to a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

We have now taken three of these presentations to both present and critique the entirety of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, which is contrary to our own view of Scripture, and, at least in our own opinion, we have discredited all of his arguments and all of his witnesses as either being inaccurate or as being irrelevant to the subject of eternal life. As we have seen, all of Comparet’s examples from Scripture concerned only temporal punishment or salvation, whereas he was errantly using them in a context which disputed the basis for eternal salvation.

But it is not sufficient merely to deconstruct what we believe are some of Bertrand Comparet’s errors, without offering support for our own position. So we also offered an allegory as we closed our arguments against him, that since he was a lawyer and we have cross-examined all of his witnesses, now we would present our own case. As we proceed, we shall also provide proof texts which inform us that these are indeed two separate issues, that eternal salvation and temporal salvation are two different subjects. It would be a joy to have Comparet here to cross-examine our witnesses, but of course that is not possible.

So here we shall present our own point of view, and our own witnesses which inform us that it certainly is enough merely to be an Israelite in order to attain eternal salvation. But that alone does not mean that there will be any reward in that salvation, so in our rebuttal we added the question, But enough for what? We will discuss that here as well, even if the full implications are not revealed to us in Scripture. As the apostle John wrote in chapter 3 of his first epistle, “2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” In this area especially, we cannot claim to know anything more than what John had known.

Here we shall continue our presentation and critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, but doing so I will probably have to repeat myself at least a few times. That is because Comparet opened his sermon by criticizing Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 11, where Paul had properly paraphrased the prophet Isaiah and said “all Israel shall be saved”, yet Paul was speaking of the salvation of the spirit and eternal life, within the context that temporal salvation may not be attained, whereas all of the examples by which Comparet attempts to refute him relate only to the temporal salvation of the flesh or the nation. Disagreeing with Paul where he said “All Israel shall be saved”, Comparet mentioned not one of the many promises of eternal salvation, resurrection, or redemption from death and the grave which are found in either the Old or New Testaments. He only mentioned Isaiah 45:17 while criticizing Paul, and neglected to note Isaiah 45:25, or perhaps he may have realized that he could not have justly criticized Paul.

But Comparet was a trained attorney, and an attorney is never going to introduce evidence which hurts his case. Here he has tried to make a case that Paul of Tarsus was wrong, and that all Israel shall not be saved, and it is our endeavor to defend Paul and his statement. So now, as he continues, while there are indeed many good ideas found throughout his sermon, he only provides examples, some of them quite lengthy, of temporal punishment and temporary deliverance. But those examples do not relate to any of the promises of eternal salvation found in Scripture, and it seems as if, at least in this sermon, Comparet completely failed to distinguish between the two, and to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 2

As we had seen in Part 1 of our critique of Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite?, he had clearly taken Romans 11:26 out of the context of the epistle itself so that he could critique Paul, and he even accused Paul of having misquoted scripture. Then he denied the veracity of Paul’s statement that “All Israel shall be saved” where he compared it to Isaiah 45:17, while he ignored Isaiah 45:25. While for many other reasons we may love Bertrand Comparet, this approach to scripture is what even he himself had professed to have rejected, and he must be corrected. If we truly believe Yahweh our God, and if we love Yahshua Christ, then we shall seek to reconcile and understand all of Scripture, without ever assuming that one verse can cancel out another, or that we can arbitrarily pick a favorite and ignore others.

In Romans chapter 9 Paul began by praying for his kinsmen according to the flesh, those who truly were of Israel, as opposed to the Edomites in Judaea for which he had then contrasted Jacob and Esau. Continuing at the beginning of Romans chapter 10, he continued his prayer where he addressed his Roman readers and said “1 Brethren, truly the preference of my heart, and supplication to Yahweh is for preservation on their behalf. 2 I attest to them that they have zeal for Yahweh, but not in accordance with full knowledge.” So there he was still speaking of his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, of those true Israelites in Judaea for which he had prayed in chapter 9.

Apparently VLC on Windows, which I have used to apply metadata for years, has been ruining podcasts. But only some listeners had problems while others did not. So once again, I have resampled and uploaded a new file, as of 11:30 AM on the 22nd. Thank you for your patience! 

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 1

The medieval Roman Catholic paradigm relating to salvation and heaven, or judgment and hell, has been ingrained into all modern Christian theology to such a degree, having been imbued into our thought from perhaps as long ago as 1,800 years, that it may be one of the most difficult errors of Roman Catholicism to overcome. But it really cannot be overcome at all, until one learns the proper differences between the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, and can identify the good race of fish in the parable of the net. While Bertrand Comparet did know those differences, in my opinion he nevertheless had not fully thought them out in other areas of Scripture, and especially in this area. But we can forgive him, since the subject of salvation and the common perception concerning salvation is probably the deepest rabbit hole in Scripture. No matter how many times one may read the promises to the fathers and the words of Christ, there is always that one verse by which one may imagine that a child of God may ultimately and eternally be cast into the pits of hell, or the Lake of Fire.

Another discussion with our European friends and others.

Here we bantered about how to keep the Israelite feast days, how, why and a little about when; free will and sin; the recent experiences of some people falling ill with fatigue, and several other subjects. We also spoke of judgment, the law of God, and preservation, and had a brief report from a friend in the Donbas region.  
 

Can the ways of man be the Way of God? Can man understand the ways of God? Yes, according to the Scripture, by being obedient to the commandments of the law. 1 Kings 8:57-58; Isaiah 55:7-9; 63:16-17; 66:3; Ezekiel 18:24-32. This is why Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, although I did not mention that verse in the discussion.

This evening we spoke with some of our friends about whether there would be law in the Kingdom of God, King James Only Identity Christians, the nature of the Melchizedek priesthood and the differences in the Patriarchal chronology between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, and many other subjects. I may have metioned that while the patriarchs may have lived much longer than we do today, they also had children much later than we do today, so proportionately there is a similar balance.

On a couple of occasions, Joe from the Christogenea Forum mentioned the Corrupted Priesthood of the second temple in relation to Genesis chapter 4, for which I had looked back at my Malachi commentary. Now I realize that I may have discussed that connection even more deeply than I had in the commentary, as I merely gave it a notice. So Joe elaborated on the subject quite well as it helps to corroborate Clifton's assertions in his paper The Battle for the Priesthood.

Walttheof mentioned the story of Og of Bashan's having survived the flood of Noah, which is actually according to a ridiculous interpretation found in the Aramaic Targums. There I may have reconciled our mean opinion of that account with our citation of the Targums in relation to Genesis chapter 4. Yet where we have cited the Targums, I have not held them as being authoritative. Rather, I have in the past explained that they only represent attempts by early writers to understand and reconcile the Scriptures, even if they sometimes fail.

Many other subjects were discussed, and even some current events. We thank everyone who participated!