by William Finck © 2007

Updated March 3rd 2012 for an audio presentation

Many of those who wisely reject the universalism of modern denominational churchianity unjustly blame the writings of Paul of Tarsus for the errant positions being trumpeted by those mainstream theologians. However these critics of Paul fail to realize, or at least admit, that the errors of universalism are founded in like manner upon misinterpretations of statements found in the Gospels and other New Testament scriptures, as well as in certain passages found in Paul’s letters. One pericope in the gospels which has often been misinterpreted in such a fashion is John 1:11-13, which shall be discussed at length here. Once the New Testament is translated in a proper historical and scriptural context, while maintaining the integrity of scholarly Greek exegesis, it is certain that not only the gospels, but also the letters of Paul and other New Testament scriptures are certainly not universalist, but are rather exclusivist, separatist, containing a consistent message borne only to those nations which had in ancient times descended from the Old Testament Israelites. Those nations are found in the Aryan nations of Europe, and such is fully demonstrable from both history and scripture, and especially from Paul’s letters.

Download the podcast here.

The Immigration Problem and Biblical Prophecy

By: William Finck ©2007

Updated for podcast November 5th, 2011 (PDF also updated).

I originally wrote this essay a couple of election cycles ago, when the issue of immigration was big news in the media. When the media starts talking about illegal immigration, it is usually only to portray those who resist it as backwards and racist. The results today, noticed at least five years after this paper was originally written, show that perspective to be the correct one. Here I have updated this paper somewhat, in order to discuss more recent events and to improve on its perspective.

With the practical marginalization of the somewhat more conservative “tea party” movement in the United States, after it was co-opted by the jewish-controlled media, and with public dissatisfaction over the failed usury-based economy growing, the spotlight has now turned to the new Bolsheviki, the “occupy” movement. The “occupy” movement, led by jews and sexual deviants, filled with the disgruntled unemployed and a motley collection of vagrants who have evidently never even occupied themselves, is obviously another false solution brought to us by those same international bankers who brought us the likes of Rush, Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Sarah Palin.

According to Clifton Emahiser's records, this essay was first written by William Finck some time just before June, 2005. It was updated and elaborations were made in a podcast in November, 2019, under a similar title available here: From Yahshua to Jesus: the Evolution of a Name

By William Finck, © 2006

Many today are struggling with this very question. What other subject could be of more importance than the very name of our Creator? Maybe the following article will solve some of your uncertainties. If one wishes to find information on the term “Yahweh” it is somewhat hard to find. One reason is because in most encyclopedias it is listed under “Jehovah.” Also, in later up-to-date encyclopedias the information is rather suppressed. The following is a rather thorough, but not perfect, article on this subject found in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica printed in 1910. We will not use the entire article as toward the end they get mired in the errant criticisms of the 1800’s humanists. Otherwise this article brings to light many historical facts on the topic. But like all testimony, it must be scrutinized! (Footnotes have been changed to paragraph notes at the end of each paragraph by the use of superscript numerals inside of brackets [ ] ):

JEHOVAH (Yahweh1), in the Bible, the God of Israel. “Jehovah” is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word adonay, “Lord,” which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures. In such cases of substitution the vowels of the word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the consonants of the word which is not to be read. The consonants of the word to be substituted are ordinarily written in the margin; but inasmuch as Adonay was regularly read instead of the ineffable name Jhvh, it was deemed unnecessary to note the fact at every occurrence. When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah. It is an unprofitable inquiry who first made this blunder; probably many fell into it independently. The statement still commonly repeated that it originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; Jehova occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century. [1This form, Yahweh, as the correct one, is generally used in the separate articles throughout this work.]

So many men look at the oppressive behemoth which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, and then foolishly place the blame for the creation of this monster and its offspring upon Paul of Tarsus, as if he ever developed such a thing. In doing so, these men are only repeating the romish church’s lies by which it claims an apostolic founding, and giving them credence as if they were true, which they certainly are not!

The history of these articles is given in the Preface. This section will indeed see further improvement as time allows. The entire article is now posted here. Enjoy! - WRF

By: William Finck  ©  2007

Luke 16:1-13, or the parable of the unrighteous steward, is perhaps one of the most misunderstood pericopes in the Bible. The reason for its being so misunderstood is, I believe, due to the poor translations of the text found at verses 8 and 9 of the pericope, and the entire parable must be presented and discussed here, yet these two verses shall be examined most thoroughly. I have translated Luke 16:1-13 thusly:

SIN AND THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

And, Who Are The Modern-day Sadducees?

By: William Finck    © 2007

A strange “flesh is evil” or “the devil is the flesh” theology has developed among some sects labeling themselves as “Christian Identity”. With this twisted theology, since all men sin (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8), and since, as the A.V. has 1 John 3:8, “He that committeth sin is of the devil”, then all men must be of the devil! Then, taking Paul’s discourse concerning the trials of the flesh out-of-context (Rom. 7:13-25), some claim that our only enemy is the flesh. All of this certainly seems to run parallel to the typical “White-liberal” guilt-complex and self-hatred ideologies found in certain socio-political segments over the past couple of centuries: that men are evil, and especially White men. Little do they realize that Yahweh Himself created the flesh of Adamic White man, and then added His Spirit to it (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7), and that Yahweh blessed those men and women whom He created (Gen. 1:28; 5:2; 9:1). Therefore the “flesh is the devil” theologians indirectly blame Yahweh Himself for all the world’s evil! Their theology is akin to that of “Calypso Louie” Farrakhan and the radical black “Nation of Islam”: they teach their willing listeners that the White man was created by an evil mad - black - scientist!

Yet further on in Romans, in chapter 8, we find that Paul warns us that it is other forces which we must beware of, not the flesh but “... angels ... principalities ... powers ...” and “... any other creature [creation]” which would seek to separate Adamic White man from Yahshua Christ (Rom. 8:38-39). Paul clarifies this elsewhere, at Eph. 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” While all of the errors of the “devil is the flesh” crowd cannot be addressed here, we shall endeavor to examine John’s comments concerning sin, found in his epistle known as 1 John. Before beginning, however, a few of the prophecies concerning Israel and sin must be noted:

The word χριστός (christos, Strong’s #5547) is defined by Liddell & Scott: “verbal Adjective of χρίω, to be rubbed on ... II. of persons, anointed: ΧΡΙΣΤΟ´Σ, ὁ, the Anointed One, the CHRIST, as a translation of the Hebrew Messiah, N.T.” The root verb, χρίω (chrio, #5548), is “... to rub or anoint with scented unguents ... to anoint ...” (L&S). So we see that when used of persons the adjective χριστός simply means anointed. Yet wherever the A.V. translators found the word, either as an adjective or used as a Substantive (a noun, usually with the Article), they, whether by habitual repetition or plain ignorance, translated the word as Christ. Therefore Christians have been led to believe that the word always refers to Yahshua Christ Himself. Most translations done since have simply followed the A.V. in this respect, and so have the lexicographers, including Liddell & Scott as is evident above. Because of this situation, and the intended demonstration of this essay, all of the translations below shall be my own unless otherwise noted. Comparing the passages supplied here with those found in the A.V., and using a concordance such as Strong’s, the reader should be able to assess the validity of the following assertions.

The verb χρίω, to anoint, is found at Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38 and Heb. 1:9, all pertaining to Christ. Elsewhere in the N.T. we see this verb used in the same manner of the children of Israel, at 2 Cor. 1:21. Indeed the Corinthians were descendants of Israelite tribes, from whence came the Dorians, who settled in Greece over a thousand years before Christ’s birth. Note the text at 1 Cor. 10:1-11 for instance. Likewise, a related noun, χρῖσμα (chrisma, 5545), was used by John, speaking of Israelite Christians. The A.V. translated this word as “unction” at 1 John 2:20, and as “anointing” twice at 2:27.

By: William Finck ©2007

As recorded in the gospels, Yahshua Christ talked often about different aspects of the law, and the law of divorce was no exception. In Matt. 5:17-48, Yahshua is recorded as having delivered a general sermon on the law, of which divorce is a part and is mentioned at vv. 31-32. Later, in a conversation recorded at both Matt. 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-12, Yahshua was specifically asked about divorce, and in this case the Old Testament law concerning divorce is referred to, found at Deut. 24:1-4. This law is not found in Leviticus, and surely was not – as Christ infers – added to the kingdom law in Deuteronomy because Yahweh approves of divorce: He certainly does not. Rather, it seems to have been added in order to confront an inevitable reality: disobedience and the hardness of men’s hearts, that unwanted wives may seek a redress if one is needed, and a means to remarry, being legally freed from their former obligations and so not in fear of being charged with adultery once found with another man. The intent here, however, is not to discuss common husband-wife divorce. The proper Christian perspective on that topic is found at 1 Cor. 7: 10-11, where Paul correctly follows Yahshua’s instruction on the matter. Yahshua Christ also mentions His teaching concerning divorce at Luke 16:18, yet the context of His conversation is quite different there and reveals that in this instance, neither was He speaking about common husband-wife divorce.