Zionism is Not Biblical: The Broken-Bottle Nation

William Finck
CHR20230127-BrokenBottle-Emahiser.mp3

Zionism is Not Biblical: The Broken-Bottle Nation

There are many references to Jerusalem, to the “daughter of Jerusalem” or to the “daughter of Zion” in the words of the prophets, but it should not be taken for granted that they always refer to the city or mountain in ancient Judaea, or especially to modern Jerusalem. Rather, it is evident in the Old Testament that “the daughter of” something such as a city or a nation is a reference to the people who are produced by that city or nation, or their circumstances, regardless of where they are at the time when they are described. One example of this is where Tyre, the merchant city, is called the “daughter of Tarshish” in Isaiah chapter 23, evidently because Tyre became a very wealthy city by engaging in trade with Tarshish, which is evident in the historical books of Scripture.

Another example of this is found in Isaiah chapter 62 where we read: “11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. 12 And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.” There the phrase “daughter of Zion” is a metaphor describing the “holy people”, the “redeemed of the Lord”, and also “a city not forsaken”, because they would be redeemed. These are all references to the people themselves, the people being a “holy city” regardless of where they are, and the people being the “daughter of Zion” regardless of where they are. So when they were called these things, Isaiah was told that Yahweh had proclaimed these words “unto the end of the world”, where the word for world is ארץ, or erets, which means land. More frequently, the same phrase is translated “the ends of the earth” because the children of Israel were also prophesied to be spread out to the ends of the earth in their captivity.

Come Out From Among Them

William Finck
CHR20230106-ComeOutFromAmongThem.mp3

Come Out From Among Them

Two of my favorite passages from the ancient Greek Tragic Poets, both of whom wrote in the 5th century BC, express eternal truths: “The bastard is always regarded as an enemy to the true-born” (Euripides, Hippolytus, 962-963) and “Stain clear water with mud and you will never find sweet drink” (Aeschylus, Eumenides, 694-695). The citation from Euripides is indeed about relationships between people. Cain and Abel are the first historical manifestation of that in Scripture. But the second citation, from Aeschylus, is actually in relation to law. Citing the Loeb Classical Library edition of Aeschylus translated by Herbert Weir Smyth, in Eumenides the Apollo character is depicted as recalling “the first trial ever held for bloodshed” in Athens, and an appeal for its judges to judge justly. So in a poetical allegory we read “Reverence, indwelling in my burghers, and her kinsman Fear, shall withhold them from doing wrong by day and night alike, so be it they do not themselves pollute the laws with evil influences; stain clear water with mud and thou shalt never find sweet drink.”

It should not surprise us to find Christian principles imbued in certain ancient Greek literature, as we have often discussed the similarities in the ancient Greek and Hebrew cultures in other contexts. It certainly is a Christian principle, that Christians should never seek to pervert, undermine, corrupt or transgress the commandments of the law out of fear of God. So we read, for example, in Deuteronomy chapter 6: “2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.” A little further on in the chapter we read: “24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. 25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.” In both Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 12 there are commandments neither to add nor to remove anything from the books of the law.

The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, and Adultery!

William Finck
CHR20221217-ClergyFraud-Emahiser.mp3

The Clergy Claims God Committed Fraud, and Adultery! A Review of a Paper by Clifton Emahiser.

Here we are going to present, critique and hopefully be able to elaborate upon a paper by our dear friend Clifton Emahiser, which, according to his own records, he had written in April of 2007. It has been 23 months since we have reviewed any of Clifton’s work, so it is well past time that we gave him a visit.

There are lies which Christian churches have taught for over 1,800 years, and when these lies are examined against Scripture, there is no way in which they could possibly be true or Christian, since the Scripture tells a completely different story. So all who perpetuate those lies in the name of Christ are basically accusing Him of fraud, and that is the point which Clifton shall make here. But they are also accusing Him indirectly of other sins, such as adultery, and here we shall endeavor to explain that as well. These lies are a system of Bible interpretation which we generally describe as “replacement theology”, which we can begin to identify in the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” as early as Justin Martyr and the middle of the 2nd century of the Christian era. Justin lived as an adult and wrote his several works about one hundred years after the death of Paul of Tarsus.

The Day The Word Became Flesh, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

William Finck
CHR20210115-WordFlesh-Emahiser.mp3

Note, January 28th, 2021: The version of these notes edited after the presentation evidently did not save properly, and have now been corrected. The original document has just been replaced, 12:35 PM EST. - WRF

After many discussions this past week in the Christogenea forums and chats, I thought that perhaps it is an appropriate time to present:

The Day The Word Became Flesh, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

Countless men have attempted to understand the Genesis account of Creation, which begins with a statement that “God created the heaven and the earth”, and then the first actual utterance ascribed to God is “Let there be light”, before it goes on to describe His actual creation of the heaven and preparation of the earth for habitation. Several verses after the proclamation “let there be light”, we see the sun, moon and stars were created, which are the only sources of light perceived by man, other than earthly sources such as fire or man-made light. Therefore, from the Genesis account alone, we cannot know what that light of Genesis 1:3 is, where God had said “let there be light”, and where He first distinguished day and night, even before the sun, moon and stars were created.

But these are certainly not contradictions in the Genesis account, and in spite of the fact that many fundamentalists of the past have insisted that the Creation account is absolutely literal and even “scientific”, it should rather be apparent to Christians that the events of Creation were explained in a manner by which the full meaning and truth of at least some of its statements would not become apparent until the revelation of the Gospel of Christ. Neither is the Creation account complete, as it does not describe the creation of things which are not regularly manifest on the earth, such as wicked spirits or angels, whether they be good or evil. As it is expressed in Matthew chapter 13, since Christ came to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world, the entire account of creation was certainly not included in Genesis, or things could not have been kept secret.

The “Little Horn” of Daniel chapter 7, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

William Finck
CHR20201120_LittleHorn-Emahiser.mp3

The “Little Horn” of Daniel chapter 7, a review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

In his monthly Watchman’s Teaching Letters for 2002, Clifton Emahiser had sought to explain elements of the books of the prophet Daniel and the Revelation in an endeavor to refute the fallacies of what we call Futurism and Preterism, and to demonstrate the importance of the historical, or Historicist interpretation of prophecy as a key to understanding the Word of Yahweh our God. Doing that, Clifton had many other digressions as he progressed, and he discussed the two different descriptions of a “little horn” in Daniel in different ways. This shorter paper, The "Little Horn" of Daniel 7:8, was compiled from those studies.

Among denominational Christians, there are many foolish ways to interpret Scripture, and many ways to describe or label them. There is futurism, full preterism, partial preterism, millennialism or chiliasm, amillennialism or chillegorism, premillennialism and postmillennialism, and some of these overlap or encompass one another. There are even panmillennialists, who apparently believe that in the end, eschatology is not important at all because evidently, they also believe that everyone gets a participation trophy from God.

The Unforgivable Sin

William Finck
CHR20200703-UnforgivableSin-Emahiser.mp3

The Unforgivable Sin

See also a companion program, The Unpardonable Sin

We know from the New Testament as well as the Old that the sin of fornication, which describes several sorts of sexual indecency, such as prostitution, also includes race-mixing. One place where this is clearly evident is at Jude 7, where we read that fornication is the pursuit of strange, or different, flesh. Then in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul of Tarsus had used the same word and warned the Christians at Corinth not to commit fornication, referring them to a race-mixing event for which the ancient children of Israel were severely punished, which is found in Numbers chapters 24 and 25. In the words of Christ Himself, He proclaims that He will kill the children of those who commit fornication, as He punishes the sinners themselves, in Revelation chapter 2. Fornication is one of the acts expressly prohibited by the apostles in Acts chapter 15, and Paul admonished different sorts of fornicators in his epistles.

Why have the churches abandoned these teachings? Until the 1970’s the Southern Baptist Convention opposed such fornication. But eventually, and primarily because the government had ultimately forced the issue, in part by threatening to revoke tax-exempt status, the Baptist churches all relented, and so had all other churches. This was facilitated by a 1967 SCOTUS decision named, rather ironically, Loving vs. Virginia. In the history of the early American colonies, laws barring miscegenation were generally not needed since most Christians would never do such a thing. But there were always exceptions, and in diverse places such laws became necessary in order to maintain a Christian society. After the so-called “Civil War”, many States did find such laws to be necessary, and they stood for a hundred years. By devout Christians, it was considered natural, normal and godly to maintain one’s own race and not to mingle with others. Those laws were not made because of some sort of unfair “racism”, but rather they were made because men loved God and sought to keep His Commandments, as Christ insisted that they do.

The Unpardonable Sin

William Finck
CHR20200612-UnpardonableSin-Emahiser.mp3

See also a companion program, The Unforgivable 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.

The World of Hate vs. Love, John 15:19

William Finck
CHR20200515-Hate-vs-Love-Emahiser.mp3

The World of Hate vs. Love, John 15:19

After bringing our Commentary on the Gospel of John to its completion, I thought perhaps it is appropriate to take a moment to hear from Clifton Emahiser. I am considering a commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, alternating with my planned commentary on the epistles of John, and do not yet know which book I want to begin with first. Since beginning my New Testament commentaries with Matthew in 2011, I have been alternating between Old Testament and New, so I will probably continue after that pattern.

Here I am going to present and comment on a paper by Clifton Emahiser, titled Who’s Who in the World of “Hate” versus “Love”, for which Clifton used as its basis the words of Christ in John 15:19. According to Clifton’s records, this essay was written in April of 2012. While it may not be entirely possible for me to do, especially as Clifton himself had made the original presentation, I am going to at least try to present this in a way which makes it palatable for denominational Christians.

One hurdle we have in bringing people to understand our Christian Identity profession is where Judeo-Christians, or perhaps they would be better called denominational Christians, believe that God is love, as the apostle John had taught in 1 John chapter 4, but then they somehow misconstrue that teaching to believe that God is only love. The result is that these people then make Love their god, rather than love the God of the Bible. It is a form of idolatry by which they may as well be worshipping Venus, the pagan goddess of love, rather than Christ.

Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland

William Finck
CHR20200131-Emahiser-on-Weiland.mp3

Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland

Here I have decided to take a short break from my commentary On the Gospel of John, and have a little fun at the expense of a clown named Ted Weiland, a name which is probably too familiar to many of our listeners. But I guess some people will now wonder why I insist on doing this. The truth is that unlike many of the other men whom we have criticized over the years, most of whom we deeply respect in spite of any perceived flaws in their work, Weiland is still alive and well and spouting his nonsense under the pretense of being an Identity Christian, while he has willfully ignored all of our inquiries and criticisms. Weiland is actually a self-righteous universalist who would in effect eradicate Identity from Christianity altogether. But Weiland is also one of the ring-leaders of an entire circus of such clowns, which includes Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman, Jory Brooks and others. Two years ago I would have included Dave Barley in this list, but I have learned that he has openly recanted his former universalism, which is certainly to his credit. However while they are not quite as odious, Barley and Lawrence Blanchard and a few others still have subtle elements of universalism in their doctrines and scriptural interpretations.

Weiland had a book disputing our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 titled Eve, Did She or Didn’t She? I never read it, but Clifton has a copy on one of the shelves here somewhere and if I ever do, I might have yet another presentation to write. But for that Clifton had criticized Weiland frequently in his Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline series, and when I presented that here in podcasts throughout 2017, I hope to have expounded upon those criticisms. That series of papers was written by Clifton throughout 2002 and 2003. Then later, as I have also explained elsewhere, our friend Tony Gonyer had written Weiland a letter in 2005, and that letter compelled me to also write to Weiland, which I did in August of that year. Weiland never responded to my letter, and Clifton had it published on the Israelect.com website, where he added some citations from Weiland which were representative of the things with which we took issue. Since I have come to control Israelect.com I redirect many of the papers there to where they are posted at Christogenea. Now since I have been released from prison, since very late 2008, I have encountered Weiland many times in social media, and I have confronted him each time in a kindly manner, but he has only scoffed at me and he has refused to discuss any of these issues with me. For that he certainly does deserve the label clown.

What’s in a Name?

William Finck
CHR20191115-WhatName.mp3

What’s in a Name?

Identity Christians are sometimes perceived as Judaizers, at least those of us who often prefer to use certain Biblical Hebrew terms in place of more modern English or Greek terms. This is especially true where it comes to the use of certain Hebrew names and titles for the God of Israel, or for Christ. But to me, it is much more dangerous heresy to be a Judaizer in the implementation of certain doctrines and concepts that are really only derivatives of the Old Covenant reliance on ceremonies and rituals, rather than to be called a Judaizer on account of a preference for a couple of names or words. To Judaize is one thing, but to lay claim to a heritage which rightfully belongs to many White Europeans, and which never actually belonged to Jews, is something totally different.

So here we are going to present, and hopefully expand on, a paper written by Clifton Emahiser titled Which Is It, "Lord" Or "Yahweh"? But Clifton really did not write this paper. He only wrote the first paragraph, and the rest was simply a reproduction of an article from the 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. Then he sent this to me to proofread, in the Spring of 2004, and doing that, I made some brief comments which he then added as a conclusion to the article. Making this presentation, I will rearrange some of those notes this evening, and I will certainly also add many others.