Commentaries and Podcasts

>TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 71

In our last presentation we discussed many of the countless similarities which the Hebrews had with ancient Greek culture, demonstrating the fact that Hebrews and Greeks held many common beliefs, even if one side was from a pagan perspective. Now we shall discuss the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe, mostly Latin, Greek and English. Those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related. But before we get into that discussion, we shall discuss a prophecy where Yahweh God had promised that He would speak to his people in a language other than Hebrew, and that language must have been Greek.

96) Why the New Testament was written in the Greek language, and most quotations from the Old Testament were made from the Greek Septuagint.

There are rumors that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, which is also sometimes called Syriac, but that is a lie. The oldest known manuscripts of any portion of the New Testament in Aramaic dates to the 5th century, and several known translations into Aramaic from Greek were created even later, such as the Philoxeniana in the early 6th century or the Harklensis in the early 7th. There was a Syriac harmony of the Gospels called the Diatessaron made in the late 2nd century by Tatian which has not survived. But that was an attempt to rewrite the four Gospel accounts in harmony, and should not be reckoned as actual Scripture. There are also related claims that Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic, and not Hebrew. But often, the apostles mention their native tongue, and they always called it Hebrew, and not Aramaic. Syriac and Hebrew are distinguished in Isaiah chapter 36, which records events that occurred about 700 BC. In that account it is evident that Hebrew speakers could not normally understand Aramaic, or Syriac. There may have been differences between the Hebrew of the first century and that of Isaiah’s time, but it was nevertheless Hebrew, and the apostles must have known better what language they were speaking than modern commentators.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 70

Here we shall depart from our Biblical proofs in order to discuss the similarities which the Hebrews had with ancient Greek culture. This will demonstrate that Hebrews and Greeks held many common beliefs, even if one side is from a pagan perspective. While we shall not get to it in this presentation, next we shall discuss the similarities between the Hebrew language and the languages of Europe. Those similarities go far beyond the fact that the nations of Europe use a Hebrew/Phoenician alphabet, as many of the most basic words are so similar in sound and meaning that they must be directly related.

95) Israelite and Greek Culture were the Same.

There were many parallels between ancient Hebrew and Greek religious beliefs and customs that cannot be explained if the cultures were not related. Here we shall revisit material I had compiled for a June, 2010 presentation titled Greek Culture is Hebrew. The focus here is on the Tragic Poets, namely Aeschylus and Euripides, both of whom wrote in the 5th century BC. Aeschylus is esteemed to have been born in 525 BC, and Euripides in 480 BC, which makes him a contemporary with Herodotus.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 69

In our last presentation of these 100 Proofs, we endeavored to show that there are certain men whom Yahweh God could not have cleansed, and whom He had never intended to cleanse because, as it is prophesied in the Old Testament, He only intended to cleanse the children of Israel of their sins. So for that same reason, in the presentation preceding that we had discussed what Yahweh God had cleansed on the cross of Christ, which must have been the children of Israel whom He had explicitly promised to cleanse in the words of the prophets. So if God had only cleansed certain men, and only men of Israel as He had promised, it must be evident that there were men who were not cleansed by Him, and as we argued here last week, it is for that reason that Judas was not clean, and that Paul of Tarsus spoke of “disgusting and wicked men” who were never candidates for conversion to Christianity but against whom Paul had prayed for protection. Furthermore, of such men are the unclean whom Paul had told his readers to come out from among, particularly in 2 Corinthians chapter 6, where he was paraphrasing the words of the prophet Isaiah. Since the Scripture describes the cleansing of men with the blood of the Lamb, that will be the subject of our next discussion.

93) The Blood of the Lamb

An allegorical description of the crucifixion of Christ as the blood of a lamb is found in 1 Peter chapter 1, where we read: “18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” When Peter wrote those words, he was addressing Christians of the Roman provinces of Anatolia, having described them as sojourners, where he also informed them that they were elect “according to the foreknowledge of God.” Then he encouraged them, that upon their trials they could look forward to “9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 68

In our last presentation of these 100 Proofs, we discussed the critical importance of the words of the prophets to interpretations of Christianity, as attested by both Christ and the apostles. Then we discussed what Yahweh God had cleansed on the cross of Christ, which must have been the children of Israel whom He had promised to cleanse in the words of those same prophets. So if God had only cleansed certain men, as He had promised, it must be evident that there were men who were not cleansed by Him, men who could not be cleansed, and that shall be our subject in this presentation. Some portions of the following two proofs were already discussed in our proof on all of the mistranslations found in the letters of Paul, however they merit separate treatment because they each stand as proofs on their own, that the Israelites were White as they demonstrate that the Gospel was intended exclusively for the White Europeans to whom the apostles had evangelized.

91) Men who Could Not be Cleansed

In John chapter 13 there is a detailed description of the event which is popularly called the Last Supper, and the apostle explained how Christ had washed the feet of all of the disciples. So as He proceeded to do that, we read in part: “8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.”

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 67

In recent presentations in this series we hope to have answered the questions, What is the Church?, and What is a Saint?, from a proper Biblical perspective: that the Church is the collective of the children of Israel in the world, that a church is properly a gathering or community of those same people as Christians, and furthermore, that those same people are also the Saints, regardless of whether they profess to be Christians. Saints are not something which a pope designates: saints are the people whom Yahweh God has already separated, or distinguished, from all of the world’s other peoples. Then, since Christ and His apostles had used these terms in relation to White Europeans, we see that the ancient Israelites must have been White, because it was in the Old Testament that both the Church and the Saints were designated by Yahweh God, and Christ was the embodiment of promises made to them which are found throughout the words of the Prophets.

89) The words of the Prophets

Here I may have researched statistics on how many times the prophets were cited in the New Testament, which is well into the hundreds, but instead I chose to focus on illustrating a handful of significant examples.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 66

As it may have become evident throughout recent portions of this series of our 100 Proofs, proving that the Israelites were White goes far beyond examining Old Testament verses which describe or allude to the color of their skin. Rather, if the apostles of Christ had brought the Gospel to the White nations of Europe exclusively, and if time and again we can demonstrate that they themselves had believed that they were bringing the Gospel to the people who were descended from those Israelites who were scattered abroad in ancient times, then each aspect of that belief, as the apostles themselves had expressed it, is also a sure proof of our assertions. So last week we described What is a Church, and this week we will discuss a related subject, which is What is a Saint?

88) What is a Saint?

In the Old Testament one Hebrew word which is typically translated as saint is qadesh or qadosh, קדש or קדוש, and it refers to someone or something which has been sanctified or separated for a particular reason. Sometimes, unfortunately, another word translated as saint is chaciyd or חסיד, but that word really only describes someone who is merely faithful or pious. In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word translated as saint is always from the Greek word ἅγιος, which Liddell & Scott define primarily as “devoted to the gods”, although in the Bible we would say God, or properly, Yahweh. But after that definition, even they go on to provide the typical Church definitions of the word, sacred or holy, without any further explaining those definitions in relation to the primary meaning.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 65

In our last presentation we continued our discussions of themes found in the epistles of Paul of Tarsus with the Scope of the Covenant and the Family of the Faith, as they certainly do consist of the White European nations to whom he had brought the gospel of Christ. Now we shall continue with a discussion of the word church, and what is the true church as it is described by Scripture and in the definitions of the word used which has traditionally been translated as church. A church certainly is not a collection of mere believers congregating in some building. That is actually something which is better described by the word synagogue, rather than church.

87) What is the Church?

Portions of this presentation are taken from an essay at Christogenea which is titled Misconceptions Concerning Paul and the Church.

Here we are not going to digress at length on what a Christian church is not, except to mention that priests, in the sense of an officer of a church organization, are not found in Christian writings until the 4th century AD. In the New Testament, every man is a priest of God in the sense that he serves God by loving his brethren and keeping the commandments. But once Christianity began to be accepted by Rome, a new class of Christian priests developed, and pagan temples began to be converted for use into church buildings. Once the emperor Justinian created the office of pope, eventually nuns, orders of monasteries, a college of cardinals, and a hierarchical, centralized organization which conducted or supervised the ordination of priests and bishops all developed. While many of these institutions were useful or helpful in medieval society, and did things which are useful to us today, none of them are necessarily Biblical or required by Christianity. They are actually antichristian in several ways, because they set up authorities over men which the Scriptures do not advocate or support, and in some cases even refute or condemn.

The Ordering and Chronology of the Ministry and Epistles of Paul, Part 2: The Prison Epistles

As I had explained in the opening presentation in this short series, I had hoped to gather into one place my interpretations of the time and place of the writing of each of the epistles of Paul of Tarsus, as well as a general chronology of the events recorded in the Book of Acts. I had also originally hoped to do that in a single presentation, but it was just not possible. So while we have discussed what I have called Paul’s “travelling epistles”, now we shall discuss the time and place, and also the circumstances, of the writing of the 6 epistles that were written while Paul was a prisoner. Once again, for much of this presentation I am drawing on information which I had already presented in our commentaries for each of the epistles of Paul and in our earlier commentary on the Book of Acts. There are also some new perspectives.

This is important to us for several reasons. First, it is an important reference tool, because in my opinion no other such reference exists which has a truly accurate chronology of the events of the ministry of Paul, the writing of his epistles, and the Book of Acts. As I had also said, there is much misinformation in many popular and supposedly authoritative academic sources concerning the ministry of Paul and the writing of his epistles, and it is convenient to have our own opinions of these things in one single article, or perhaps more accurately, one single source of reference.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 64

Once again, over our last few presentations here we have been discussing themes found in the ministry and epistles of Paul of Tarsus which help to establish that the White European nations to whom he had brought the gospel were indeed the same nations which had descended from the ancient children of Israel. So we have already discussed Paul’s commission from Christ, how Paul had applied that commission, the subjects of Biblical redemption, Israel having been estranged from the covenants, the adoption of Israel and the ministry of reconciliation. All of these things prove that Paul of Tarsus was taking the Gospel of Christ to Israelites, descendants of ancient Israel who were by that time known by many other names, as he toured Europe. Now we shall continue with Paul’s explanation of the scope of the covenants, and his references to the family of the faith, which is not a reference to mere believers joining some church.

85) The Scope of the Covenant

We discussed this subject in Proofs 35 and 36, in Part 12 of this series, in relation to both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Now we shall speak of them again, but this time from the perspective of the ministry of Paul because his confirmations of these prophecies stand as a proof as to why he had taken the Gospel of Christ to the White nations of Europe.

The Ordering and Chronology of the Ministry and Epistles of Paul, Part 1: The Travelling Epistles

Here I hope to gather into one place my interpretations of the time and place of the writing of each of the epistles of Paul of Tarsus. Here we shall discuss the travelling epistles, a name which I am giving to Paul’s first 8 epistles in order to distinguish them from the other 6 which were written while Paul was a prisoner. So for this endeavor, I have collected at least most of the information from what I had already presented in our commentaries for each of the epistles of Paul and in our earlier commentary on the Book of Acts, all of which spanned about a hundred and fifty-five podcast presentations from April, 2013 through December, 2017. This I believe is important as a reference guide, first because we have had a skeleton article on the Ordering and chronology of the epistles of Paul in the References section at Christogenea since August of 2015 which I have long hoped to complete. But more importantly, there is much misinformation in many popular and supposedly authoritative academic sources concerning the ministry of Paul and the writing of his epistles, and it is convenient to have our own opinions of these things in one single article.

Doing this it will seem as if we are taking it for granted that Paul had written all fourteen of the epistles which are commonly attributed to him. But the truth of that assertion should become even more evident as we proceed here, giving our reasons detailing both when and from where each of the epistles were written, and, in certain cases, also as to why they were written. Furthermore, while for different reasons the Christogenea New Testament generally presents Paul’s epistles in the traditional order found in other Bibles, we made exceptions, especially with Hebrews and placed it before the four personal epistles which were addressed to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. That we did in order to make a statement confirming our belief that Paul was indeed the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. But here we shall begin with the earliest epistle which Paul had written, and proceed in the chronological order in which we believe he had written them all.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 63

In our last few presentations here we have been discussing themes found in the ministry and epistles of Paul of Tarsus which help to establish that the nations to whom he had brought the gospel were indeed the same nations which had descended from the ancient children of Israel. So we have already discussed the substance of Paul’s Commission from Christ, how Paul himself had applied his commission, the subjects of Biblical redemption and what Paul had meant by the phrase strangers from the covenants. Now we shall continue with the subject of adoption, as that word, as it appears in English Bibles, is only found in Paul’s epistles, and it has a very specific application.

83) The Adoption of Israel

Just as the denominational churches try to extend the redemption which Yahweh had explictly promised to the children of Israel to other races and nations, they do that same thing with this concept of adoption. However the word only appears in Paul’s epistles, three times in Romans, and once each in Galatians and Ephesians, and Paul himself states explicitly that the adoption is for Israel, in relation to Israelites who are his own kinsmen “according to the flesh”. There is not a single statement in Scripture which suggests that the adoption of which Paul had spoken could possibly be attained by anyone who is not of his flesh, who could somehow imagine that he may magically become an Israelite.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 62

In our last two proofs, we discussed Paul’s commission as an apostle from Yahshua Christ, which states that he was to bear the Name of Christ “before both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.” Doing this, we demonstrated how Paul had interpreted that commission as being to the twelve tribes of Israel, and also how he fulfilled it, by bringing the Gospel of Christ to the nations of Europe. Now we shall discuss other aspects of Paul’s epistles which also prove these things, that Paul brought the Gospel to Europe because he knew with all certainty that Europe is where the children of Israel had been scattered abroad, as well as Anatolia and other areas to the north of Palestine. But the scope of these subjects are not all limited to Paul’s epistles.

81) The Subjects of Redemption

There are often assertions made by denominational churches that Jesus came to redeem all of mankind, or all men, as a reference to every single biped that has ever existed, regardless of race or any other aspect of a man’s existence. Then they use the same concept to force Christians to accept people of all races, and even grievous sinners such as sodomites or fornicators. But is that assertion really true? Did Jesus come to redeem all of mankind? Or do the Scriptures inform us explicitly that Christ came to redeem only certain or particular men. And if the Scriptures inform us that Christ redeemed only a certain race or family of men, how can the churches change that on their own? Who gave them the authority, if it is not found in the Word of God?