Critics and Criticisms

A Christogenea commentary On the Gospel of John has recently been completed. Many passages simply do not say what the modern churches think they mean! Don't miss this important and ground-breaking work proving that Christian Identity is indeed fully supported by Scripture.

Don't miss our ongoing series of podcasts The Protocols of Satan, which presents many historical proofs that the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are real, and that they have been fulfilled in history by the very same people who dispute their authenticity. Our companion series, The Jews in Medieval Europe, helps to explain how the Protocols have been fulfilled.

 Our recent Pragmatic Genesis series explains the Bible from a Christian Identity perspective which reconciles both Old and New Testaments with history and the political and social realities facing the Christian people of Yahweh God today.

A Commentary on the Epistles of Paul has recently been completed at This lengthy and in-depth series reveals the true Paul as an apostle of God, a prophet in his own right, and the first teacher of what we call Christian Identity.

Don't miss our recently-completed series of commentaries on the Minor Prophets of the Bible, which has also been used as a vehicle to prove the historicity of the Bible as well as the Provenance of God.

Visit Clifton Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Ministries at for his many foundational Christian Identity studies.

Visit the Mein Kampf Project at and learn the truth concerning some of the most-lied about events in history.

Christogenea Books: Christian Truths in Black and White!
Visit our store at

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 22: The Devil as a Psychobabbler

ChrSat20200711Weisman22.mp3 — Downloaded 996 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 22: The Devil as a Psychobabbler

In Chapter 5 of his book, Weisman had attempted to smear our Christian Identity profession with claims that it came from Witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah. But of course, all of these were actually Jewish, or heavily influenced by Jews, so he could have simply claimed that we got it from Jews. However we have proven throughout this series that our profession does indeed come from Scripture, and we have cited many Christian and non-Jewish sources to support it which are far older than the sources cited in Weisman’s allegations. Therefore all of these Jewish or Jewish-influenced philosophies actually began with basic truths and perverted them into lies, and as we also saw, their resulting lies are not at all similar to what we believe and demonstrate that the Bible teaches.

Now Weisman attempts to discredit us with another plainly Jewish tactic, which is a so-called “psychological study”. Since he denies the truth of Scripture, and even goes so far as to state that Christ was merely following along with Persian and Babylonian dualism, as well as reducing God Incarnate to the level of a common slanderer, he must imagine other and wicked reasons for the existence of our doctrine just like he claimed that there were other and wicked sources from which it originated. Here, Charles Weisman certainly is playing the role of a devil, which is a false accuser.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 21: Weisman’s Smear Tactics

ChrSat20200704Weisman21.mp3 — Downloaded 1207 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 21: Weisman’s Smear Tactics

Earlier in our review of his book, discussing his comments on page 23, we showed how statements by Weisman revealed that he himself did not believe that either Christ or His apostles had represented truth, as well as some of the later prophets, such as Zechariah. That was where he said that “The concept of a second god which caused evil in the world was primarily formed during the Exile (585-515 B.C.), being the result of Babylonian and Zoroastrian influence.” His statements in support of that claim ignored references to Satan, demons and devils which are found throughout the Old Testament, and then claimed that such passages in the New Testament are mistranslated or misinterpreted. Then further claiming that the serpent was “nullified by Christ”, he denied many statements of the apostles and of Christ Himself in His Revelation. So it became apparent that Weisman is not even a Christian.

Now here in this chapter, Weisman corroborated that conclusion once again, where he compared the labeling of certain people as serpents, devils and vipers in the New Testament to examples of the often unrighteous demonization of men throughout history, and said that “Since the Jews have long been the self-sworn enemy of Christendom, they have been portrayed by many Christians throughout history as being of a devilish origin. It is a small step, then, to make them out to be the literal descendants of the devil or satan.” Doing that, Weisman unabashedly demoted Yahshua Christ to the level of a common slanderer, rather than recognizing that God Incarnate was bringing the light of Truth to men. So once again, Weisman proved to us that he is no Christian.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 20: Witches, Warlocks and Weisman

ChrSat20200627Weisman20.mp3 — Downloaded 1442 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 20: Witches, Warlocks and Weisman

Over the past 19 parts of this series addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, discussing his first four chapters of his book, we hope to have fully established the truths of our Seedline profession, and the fact that Charles Weisman misrepresented many things, and even made many outright lies, in order to attempt to refute those truths. Now we will continue to present the rest of Weisman’s book, as he wrongly believes that he has refuted our position and now he attempts to slander it, evidently hoping to forever discredit our doctrines. As we undertake this endeavor, we will try to avoid repeating much of the basis for our beliefs here, as we have already elaborated greatly on all of the basic reasons for believing in what is usually called Two-Seedline. But so that we can defend against his charges here, we may have to repeat some things we believe, and will try to do so without too much elaboration.

Here Weisman attempts to slander our Seedline doctrine by associating it with witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, the rabbis of Judaism, and ultimately, the Kabbalah. But even this order of his own illustrations is deceptive, as we have demonstrated in our series on The Jews in Medieval Europe that Freemasonry was in large part founded on the Kabbalah, but the Kabbalah was not written until the 12th century, or perhaps the 13th, by a Jew in Spain. Of course, much of it was based on older systems, namely the Talmud and Medieval Neoplatonism, but the work has no authentic ancient authority. In turn, the Kabbalah is the link to witchcraft and alchemy in Medieval Europe, and in the time of John Dee the alchemists, who were all practitioners of Kabbalah, became Speculative Masons, and ultimately were admitted into the guilds of the Freemasons, whereafter Masonry became a tool in the hands of the Jewish Kabbalists by which to inculcate Christians into Jewish teachings and the accomplishment of Jewish objectives.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

ChrSat20200620Weisman19.mp3 — Downloaded 1512 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Here we shall finally finish our presentation and discussion of Chapter 4 of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which he had titled The Role of Cain. Doing this, we shall attempt to summarize many of the things we found throughout our discussions, as Weisman consistently misread passages, purposely ignored the context of passages, twisting and even lying about Scripture in his attempts to deny the veracity of Two-Seedline. With our investigation of this one chapter having begun in part 9 of this series, we hope to have refuted Weisman comprehensively.

In our last presentation, we had left off where Weisman mischaracterized the relationship of Kenites with Israel at the time of king Saul, where he said “The Kenites were friendly to the Israelites.” There we had shown that from the time that Balaam prophesied about the Kenites in Numbers chapter 24, to the time of Saul, a period of nearly 450 years, there is only one mention of a single Kenite, and that referred to Heber, who was a Midianite smith in the days of Deborah and Barak, perhaps 400 years before the time of Saul. The Kenites not being mentioned again until for some unknown reason Saul had warned them to depart from Amalek, we see that Weisman had no basis for that statement. This is representative of the poor interpretations of Scripture offered by Weisman throughout this book.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

ChrSat20200613Weisman18.mp3 — Downloaded 1519 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

Here once again we shall continue with our series of presentations Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and this is part 18 of our endeavor. We believe that all along the way, through each of the first 17 parts of this series, we have shown that Charles Weisman depended upon an ignorance of history – purposeful or not – coupled with many misinterpretations of passages, seemingly intentional misreadings of passages, and even outright lies, in order to convince his readers that Two-Seedline teachings are in error.

We last left off with Charles Weisman’s claim that the serpent of Eden was the first murderer, the “murderer from the beginning” mentioned by Christ in John 8:44. Making that claim, Weisman evidently hoped to decouple interpretations of Matthew 24:34-35 from John 8:44, which together, along with an understanding of the history of Judaea over the decades leading up to the ministry of Christ certainly do prove that He was indeed speaking to descendants of Cain. We have shown conclusively that within the Biblical context, the serpent of Eden could not have been the first murderer, and that Cain alone was the first murderer.

This is also plainly evident in the words of the apostle John. In 1 John chapter 3, speaking within the context of Cain’s having killed Abel, John wrote “15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” Cain and Abel were John‘s example by which to set the context for that statement, and therefore Cain was the first murderer. In that same place that John informs us that Cain was “of that wicked one”, we see that Cain was the first murderer, as the serpent certainly was not Adam’s brother, and certainly did not bring death into the world by causing Adam to sin. As we also explained, Adam was punished for hearkening to the voice of his wife, not the voice of the serpent. Adam was not deceived, and therefore he alone was responsible for his sin.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

ChrSat20200606Weisman17.mp3 — Downloaded 1673 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

We have tarried with Charles Weisman’s prolonged disputations revolving around John 8:44 and Matthew 23:34-35 for several of these presentations, and we are still not through all of Weisman’s arguments in relation to these passages. Some of those arguments revolve around the question of who killed the prophets in the Old Testament. In that passage from Matthew chapter 23, Yahshua Christ declared that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacharias will come upon a particular race. We would assert that according to the laws of God, that race must be guilty for the crimes for which it is going to be punished, or if the charge is false, then according to the law the individual making the charge must suffer the penalty. We cannot imagine that Christ our God was making false charges or acting contrary to His law.

In the actions of men and nations, there is collective guilt, and there is individual guilt. When one nation wars against another, the men who actually do the shooting are compelled by their rulers, and generally not motivated to commit murder on their own volition. If the war were unjust, the rulers would be guilty individually, although the nation which did their bidding would share collective guilt. Therefore Peter, in Acts chapter 2 addressing men of Judaea in reference to Christ had said “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. The wicked hands were not those of the Romans, but the Jews, those who stood in the Praetorium demanding of Pilate that He be crucified, leaving him no other alternative. But the nation as a whole shared a collective guilt for the deed as they had suffered (tolerated) wicked rulers.

In 1 Kings chapter 18 we read: “4 For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.” So we see individual guilt for the murder of those prophets had been placed upon Jezebel. But then we read in a prayer of Elijah in 1 Kings chapter 19: “14… I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.” There we have a profession of collective guilt on the children of Israel for what Jezebel was primarily guilty of as an individual.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

ChrSat20200530Weisman16.mp3 — Downloaded 1502 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

In our last presentation in this series, which was subtitled The Blood of Abel, we left off where Charles Weisman discussed the episode in Matthew chapter 23 where Christ had told His adversaries that their race would be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, which, discounting the interpolation in verse 35 we believe refers to the father of John the Baptist. We do not believe that it referred to the Old Testament prophet Zechariah as Christ had laid direct blame for the murder of this Zacharias on his adversaries, and not merely on their ancestors, where He said “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Here we will continue that discussion of Cain and those who are responsible for the death of Abel and the prophets, as we are not finished with the portion of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book which concerns that subject.

Speaking of Abel, in Hebrews chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus had written: “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” We have already discussed at length the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and provided Scriptures supporting the plausibility of our argument that the only reason Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is that Yahweh would not acknowledge Cain himself, Cain not even having been eligible to make such a sacrifice. But the only reason that Abel’s sacrifice was better lies in the mere fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice, by which he had asserted that he was indeed the eligible son.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 15, The Blood of Abel

ChrSat20200523Weisman15.mp3 — Downloaded 1475 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 15, The Blood of Abel

Here we shall once again continue with our rebuttal to Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and we are still in the middle of Chapter 4, which is titled The Role of Cain. Our last presentation in this series brought us to the middle of page 35, and we have tarried quite awhile addressing his arguments under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil. Doing this, so far we hope to have made it fully evident that Charles Weisman is guilty of three primary and crucial mistakes in his method of interpreting the Scriptures.

First, he has consistently misread verses, and especially important verses such as Genesis 6:4, John 8:44 and Matthew 12:34, where in each instance he had failed to realize what the passage actually means, and based his arguments on his own poor, or perhaps purposefully wrong interpretations. Secondly, making those interpretations he also twisted the meanings of the plain words of Scripture in the same manner as the Gnostics and universalists who have for ages insisted that father does not mean a literal ancestor, or that children are not literal offspring in Scripture. Yet when we examined the passages of Scripture which he himself had used as examples, we showed that the literal meanings of the words make perfect sense once they are understood in the actual historical context of Scripture, and in the context of the words of the prophets. Thirdly, Weisman himself has thus far refused to even consider the historical context of the New Testament, an understanding of which clearly refutes his own insistence, made without any supporting evidence, that all of the adversaries of Christ were Israelites. We have proven from the pages of Josephus as well as from the epistles of Paul and the words of Christ Himself that Weisman is wrong in making that insistence.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 14, The Bad Figs

ChrSat20200516Weisman14.mp3 — Downloaded 1754 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 14, The Bad Figs

Over our last two presentations in this series we have covered perhaps only two pages of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and have had a few long digressions. But we hope to have shown that in relation to many words found in the New Testament, Weisman had used the same methods of interpretation which had crept into the early universalist church, which were adopted from Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy, but which are not at all Christian.

So last week, in Part 13 of this series, subtitled Children of Wrath, we addressed a claim by Weisman that where Christ referred to His adversaries as children of the devil, He was only speaking metaphorically and telling them that they were mere followers of the devil. Making that argument, the first flaw is that he seems to have purposely ignored the fact that Christ was speaking in reference to Cain, and not to the serpent of Genesis. So if Christ was implying that His adversaries were mere followers of the devil, why would He make a reference to Cain as their father, and not to the serpent itself?

So while he made that assertion, Weisman then sought to show that being “children of the devil” was only a metaphor by comparing the phrase to similar metaphors which appear in the epistles of Paul or in the gospel accounts. Among these are the phrases children of wrath, children of light, children of the world, child of hell, children of disobedience and son of perdition. So we began to examine each instance that Weisman had cited, and a few that he did not cite, where these and similar phrases appear. Doing that, we found that these phrases certainly were used by the writers of Scripture to describe a class of people other than the children of God, a class which has no offer of mercy, forgiveness or redemption, nor any part in the promises of God. Weisman failed to examine those phrases in their original Biblical contexts, and therefore he expected his readers to take for granted his implication that they are all just metaphors describing people who are merely disobedient, rather than people who in fact could never really be obedient in the first place because they are literally not of God.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 13, Children of Wrath

ChrSat20200509Weisman13.mp3 — Downloaded 1716 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 13, Children of Wrath

In our last presentation addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, we began to answer his contention where he said that “The Jews… that Jesus was talking to in John 8 were true Israelites. They were not hybrids like those called ‘Jews’ today, and they were not the seed of the serpent or of Cain.” Later in this fourth chapter of his book, Weisman states, speaking of the words of Christ, that “Words may be spoken figuratively, symbolically, allegorically, poetically, typically, or anti-typically.” But he fails to mention anything of understanding words in their original historical context, which is an important aspect of understanding any real-life narrative or discussion from the past. None of the Judeo-Christian commentaries upon which Weisman has relied, as his citations throughout this book indicate, had ever interpreted the words of Christ or his apostles through the proper historical context of the captivities of Israel, the relatively small remnant which returned to Judea, and the history of that remnant over the 450-year period from the time of Ezra to the birth of Christ. Weisman, as well as the mainstream commentators, all take it for granted that the people of Judaea at the time of Christ were all Israelites, and that is certainly not true.

In his voluminous Antiquities of the Judaeans, in Book 13, Flavius Josephus described in detail how the high priest John Hyrcanus, around 129 BC, had conquered several of the cities of Palestine which had formerly belonged to Israel and Judah, but which were occupied by the Edomites since the 6th century BC. In that same book, Josephus later described how in the days of Alexander Jannaeus, a successor of Hyrcanus, he had done that same thing in 30 other towns or regions in Palestine, during his long rule as high priest in Jerusalem, from 103 to 76 BC. Both of these rulers had forcibly converted the Edomites whom they had conquered to Judaism, the Edomites accepted the conversion, and that is also explained by Josephus. These passages are cited and described in detail at Christogenea, notably in Part 12 of the commentary on Romans: The Epistles of Paul - Romans Part 12, 06-27-2014: Jacob and Esau.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 12, Children of the Devil

ChrSat20200502Weisman12.mp3 — Downloaded 1541 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 12, Children of the Devil

In our last presentation from Weisman’s book, where we are still in chapter 4 , The Role of Cain, under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil, we actually only presented one paragraph from the bottom of page 31. There Weisman claimed that Christ, in His discourse with His adversaries as it is recorded in John 8:41-44, did not mean father where he said father, but was instead using the word metaphorically. However the answers which John attributed to the Jews themselves reveal that they understood Christ to have been speaking plainly and literally, and the words of Christ in the surrounding dialogue also demonstrate that He was speaking plainly and literally, where He was clearly referring to the origin of His adversaries and not merely to what they believed.

So we had a necessary and long digression to explain that the origin of such allegorical interpretations of the plain words of Scripture are found in early Greek philosophy and in Gnosticism, and that early Church Fathers were following the philosophers and Gnostics in their own interpretations of Scripture, in spite of the plain meanings of words and the clear intent of the speakers, Christ and His apostles.

At the end of that last program, we also heard from a friend who has been involved in Christian Identity circles for a very long time, perhaps over 40 years. So according to our friend Michael, as we heard towards the end of our presentation last week, Charles Weisman did indeed admit to having some Jewish ancestry in a quip which he had made at a dinner party over 20 years ago, and the Christian Identity pastors and teachers and their wives in the circles in which he traveled had chosen to cover it up because they were impressed with his supposed learning. But here we have proven that if Weisman was indeed learned, he consciously chose to spread lies instead of the truth.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 11, Gnostic Heresies

ChrSat20200425Weisman11.mp3 — Downloaded 1734 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 11, Gnostic Heresies

In our last discussion Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which was Part 10 of this series, we discussed the The Nature of Cain, and how it is that when he was challenged by God to do good, but then immediately went out and killed his brother, that also serves to prove the circumstances of his birth, that he could not do good because “sin lieth at the door”. We also discussed how and why both Cain and Abel were making sacrifices in the first place, since Cain’s rejected sacrifice was the catalyst for his having been challenged, and having killed Abel. Weisman imagined that Yahweh was offering Cain acceptance, but that is not the case at all. Yahweh, being God, certainly knew that Cain was going to fail. His challenge to Cain and Cain’s failure are not an exercise in vanity on the part of God, but rather they serve as a lesson to us, that a bastard will always do evil in the end. The fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice to Yahweh after Cain had done so also serves to illustrate the reasons for Cain’s disqualification, once it is examined within the context of later Scriptures and statements made by the apostles concerning the patriarchs Enoch and Noah. By the act of making a sacrifice Abel was asserting his own claim as rightful successor to his father.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

ChrSat20200418Weisman10.mp3 — Downloaded 1746 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks in this program which did not make it into my notes. In one, I mentioned Melchizedek in conjunction with Paul. I did not mean to leave any impression that Melchizedek was contemporary with Paul, but only that Paul had described Melchizedek, referring to his explanation that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Of course, the only other Melchizedek mentioned in Scripture was contemporary to Abraham.

In our last discussion of chapter 4 of Weisman’s book, we showed that on four occasions, and a fifth, Weisman had lied about the substance of the genealogies which are provided in the Bible. We also spoke at length on Genesis 4:1, and showed that it is a corrupt witness, that interpretations of it and even the actual substance of it were debated in ancient times, and that if it is corrupt and it is not corroborated by any other witness, then it is useless for the purpose of formulation of doctrine because it is unreliable. Since it is the only witness that Cain was a natural son of Adam, the supposition must be open to debate because it is an unreliable witness. To the contrary, there are many witnesses in Scripture and in early Christian apocryphal writings which insist that Cain was not the natural son of Adam. The words of our Redeemer and His apostles also serve to prove that Cain was not Adam’s natural son.

Now I will also add, that if only the genealogy of the chosen line was given, as Weisman also insisted, then why are any other genealogies supplied at all? We see the descendants of Cain are recorded for several generations in Genesis chapter 4, so Weisman is found to have lied about that as well as he himself had attested that Cain was not chosen in the sense of being Adam’s heir and successor. So once again, he is also found to be contradicting himself.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1

ChrSat20200411Weisman09.mp3 — Downloaded 1564 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1

Once again, and right from the beginning, there were many digressions and topics discussed which did not make it into these notes. But I did add a few things we discussed extemporaneously which were related more directly to Weisman’s arguments.

In my opinion we have already destroyed Charles Weisman’s supposed refutation of Two-Seedline in several different and significant ways. But we are not even halfway through his book, and to be fair we must finish presenting all of Weisman’s arguments, and answer them all with the appropriate evidence wherever we believe they are wrong.

In our last presentation, I think we exposed three major failures in Weisman’s arguments at the end of chapter 3 where he had insisted that the giants of Genesis chapter 6 and later Scriptures were only the offspring of the unions between the sons of Cain and the daughters of Seth.

First, he failed to read the text of Genesis 6:4 properly, as it explains that giants were in the earth both before and after that event, so if the verse is read correctly, Weisman must answer how giants were already in the earth “in those days”, as Yahweh did not create any giants in Genesis chapter 1.

Secondly, he failed to explain, that if the “sons of God” were the sons of Cain, as he insisted, and if he believes that Cain was a son of Adam, as he also insisted, and if the sons of Cain were in the image of God, as he had further insisted, why that would be a sin so grievous as to cause God to destroy all the descendants of Seth for race-mixing, since Seth was also in the image of God, being in the image of Adam his father? Weisman never explained how this was a sin, but we have on many occasions explained precisely how it was a sin.

Thirdly, but not finally because there were other errors as well, Weisman lied about the definition of the word nephilim, which certainly can mean fallen ones. By presenting Gesenius’ admitted preference as if it were the only authoritative definition, Weisman purposely lied by not citing Gesenius’ entire definition. Presenting Gesenius’ entire definition of nephil, we saw that Gesenius himself explained that it could mean fallen one, or at least, faller, and that it was often interpreted in that manner, as Gesenius also admitted, but Gesenius himself chose to follow the Jews, whom he mistakenly called “Hebrews”, who insisted that it meant fellers instead, and we believe that helped to obfuscate the truth.

Last week I promised to provide a scan of page 556 of Gesenius’ lexicon which contains the definition for nephil, and apologize for adding it late, as I did not do that until Tuesday morning.

The Whole Armor of Yahweh, a presentation and review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

CHR20200410-WholeArmor-Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 2197 times


The Whole Armor of Yahweh, a presentation and review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

I thought to take one more moment of reflection on the current world circumstances and how Christians should face them, before returning to my commentary On the Gospel of John, which I hope to do next week. So once again, I will use the opportunity to present and critique a sermon by one of our notable Christian Identity predecessors, this time by Bertrand Comparet. This is The Whole Armor of Yahweh, which is certainly what we shall need to withstand all of the fiery darts of the devils who seem to be everywhere and all-powerful.

It is difficult not to talk about the hype over the so-called novel coronavirus, and whether or not the virus is a greater threat to human life than any other seasonal flu virus ????. The numbers are not at all convincing, the methods by which they are accounted are far less convincing, and I sincerely believe, as I wrote a month ago, that the hype is a hoax which has been perpetrated through the media and progressive politicians along with others of the so-called “rulers of this world” to push all of us further down the road to tyranny and plunge us into what we may call world communism. In fact, by now it should be evident to most of us that we are already living under tyranny, except that most of us are blindly complying to a government which is operating as if it were God. If this goes on too much longer, the largest banks and corporations will end up owing everything that they don’t already own, and the government is clearly in collusion.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

ChrSat20200404Weisman08.mp3 — Downloaded 1883 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

I think we have already established in multiple ways that Charles Weisman must have had some sort of agenda, because even though he admitted the truth of several of the fundamentals of what we call Two-Seedline, he nevertheless sought to dismiss it rather than to consider the elements which he himself admitted. For example, he had professed that the serpent must have been an intelligent being with its own order contrary to the order of God, but then he goes on to make suggestions that will ultimately lead to the conclusion that the devil is merely the flesh.

Doing this, he removed many scriptures from their proper context and used them as support for his arguments, even when those scriptures actually help to prove our Two-Seedline positions once they are fully and properly considered. For example, as we addressed pages 19 to 23 of his book, under the subtitle “The Serpent, Devil, and Satan”, we saw where Weisman failed to distinguish those words as they appear in each passage which he had provided as an example in their proper grammatical form. Then he proceeded to assert the notion that all evil emanates from God, and that is not true. As we examined his examples for that assertion, we saw that there are two types of evil, evil which is evil in the eyes of man as he suffers the consequences of or the punishments for his sin, and evil which is evil in the eyes of God, which is rebellion against God by man. God cannot be blamed for that later evil, because God is without sin. When men break the laws of God, men are the parties responsible for the resulting evil, and God cannot be blamed for the sins of men. Weisman’s failure to make this distinction is deceptive.

The Day of Deliverance, a presentation and review of a sermon by Wesley Swift

CHR20200403-Swift-DayofDeliverance.mp3 — Downloaded 2041 times


The Day of Deliverance

While I have often criticized Wesley Swift for some of the fantastic tales that he spun, or because in his sermons he had often cited dubious and even nefarious sources as if they were authorities and fountains of truth, frequently Swift was on target and quite accurate in certain important areas. One of those areas was his early awareness of the descent of our nation into a state of tyranny and communism. Swift understood that as an ongoing process, and he also understood that many of the people would volunteer themselves into tyranny in exchange for a false sense of security.

But this is not a new phenomenon. The vaunted democracy of ancient Athens, which certain “combinations”, or special-interest parties had always sought to undermine, was subverted several times during the Peloponnesian War, where Thucydides explained in Book 8 of his history of the war that after an oligarchy of certain wealthy Athenians was imposed, “The people, hearing of the oligarchy, took it very heinously at first, but when Pisander had proved evidently that there was no other way of safety, in the end, partly for fear and partly because they hoped again to change the government they yielded thereunto.” When the oligarchy failed a couple of years later, Pisander, whose proofs were evidently only propaganda for the elites of his time, had been attacked by the poets for corruption and cowardice and he was also ridiculed for being fat. So he fled to the enemy, to Sparta, and was convicted of treason in absentia.

The Athenians were able to recover their democracy, but it was in a modified form, and ultimately they were defeated by the Macedonians in 338 BC and a short time later had, in effect, lost it forever. However when tyrannical laws are imposed on Americans in the name of security, the process never seems to be reversed, the culprits are never punished, and the government grows more and more powerful. Now, with the Coronavirus scare and the accompanying fear-porn that has paralyzed the nation, the lemmings who readily sell their freedom for security may finally end up completely enslaved. But Wesley Swift already saw that as an ongoing process in 1965, when he gave this sermon.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 7, Evil for Wicked or Good

ChrSat20200328Weisman07.mp3 — Downloaded 1727 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 7, Evil for Wicked or Good

Here we shall continue our address of chapter 3 of Charles Weisman’s book, which is simply titled “The Serpent”. As I had said before we began this endeavor in our last presentation, because this is probably the most important chapter in his book, we may present and address every single paragraph, so that none of our detractors can claim we purposely missed anything which they may then imagine that we cannot answer.

At the beginning of his chapter on “The Serpent”, we have already discussed most of the points made by Charles Weisman where he had presented a list of uses of the words satan and devil as they are found throughout the Scriptures. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, was his failure to distinguish between these words where they appear as simple nouns or adjectives or where they appear as a Substantive along with a definite article. The word diabolos is an adjective which can mean slanderer. But when it appears with a definite article it is used as a noun to describe a particular slanderer. Then where the definite article appears with a noun, it is referring to a known, particular instance of the given noun, rather than to just any instance. In other words, satan or a satan, without the definite article, describes anyone who at one point or another may be an adversary, but the satan, with the definite article, describes a particular and already known entity which is an adversary. Weisman exploited his examples of the use of these words by not explaining that difference. So thus far in his arguments in this chapter, Weisman has lied by omission.

So where we left off, we will repeat the last item in Weisman’s list of examples, because we did not discuss it sufficiently:

  • Oppressive governmental authorities are the devil (Eph. 6:11,12; Rev. 2:10).

And this too is a lie, because it is an oversimplification. First, the children of Israel had sinned collectively, as it is described in 1 Samuel chapter 8, because they were to have no governmental authority at all, and when they insisted on a king, Yahweh told them that they had rejected Him as king, and therefore they would suffer under earthly kings. That suffering was not a decree of punishment, but rather, Yahweh was only telling them what the natural outcome of their decision was going to be.

However oppressive governmental authorities by themselves are not the devil. What Yahweh told the children of Israel would happen to them under a king, in 1 Samuel 8:11-18, had happened under Saul, David, Solomon, and all their successors. But David and Solomon were not devils, and neither were their governments.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 6, Demons, Devils and Satyrs

ChrSat20200321Weisman06.mp3 — Downloaded 1747 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 6, Demons, Devils and Satyrs

Once again we had many extemporaneous comments and explanations, and not all of them made it into our notes.

In our last presentation we came to the end of chapter 2 of Weisman’s book, and saw in one of his arguments towards the end of his section subtitled “The Enmity” that Weisman agreed with us when he tried to explain it. He admitted that the serpent was an intelligent individual, a person, who had its own order in the world which was contrary to the order of God. Of course, this could not be true of a simple snake created on the 5th day of Genesis chapter 1. So Weisman admitted that the basis for our so-called Two-Seedline belief is true, while at the same time he continued to deny Two-Seedline.

Now we begin to shall address chapter 3 of Charles Weisman’s book, which is simply titled “The Serpent”. Here he offers a lot of conjecture and what we may consider to be straw man arguments, however some Two-Seedline teachers or pastors of the past did indeed hold at least some of the more absurd concepts which Weisman argues against. Once again, I believe we shall see that Weisman’s arguments have no merit once we explain the basis for what we believe. Because this is probably the most important chapter in his book, we may present and address every single paragraph, so that none of our detractors can claim we purposely missed anything which they may then imagine that we cannot answer.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 5: Decoding the Enmity

ChrSat20200314Weisman05.mp3 — Downloaded 1530 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 5, Decoding the Enmity

This is not to be construed as a complaint, but this refutation of the lies of Charles Weisman is taking much longer than I initially expected. However it must be done in detail if we are going to sufficiently demonstrate exactly why he is wrong, and precisely why his arguments were often dishonest. So while we thought we could finish Weisman’s discussion of the enmity of Genesis 3:15 in our last presentation, we did not. Hopefully with this presentation we can conclude that, and then finally move on to chapter 3 of his book, which is titled The Serpent.

We have already discussed much of Weisman’s argument concerning “the enmity”, and how he had used, or rather, abused, three passages of Scripture to somehow prove that the enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman was ended at the Crucifixion. In this endeavor, Weisman cited two passages from Paul, which are Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:14-15, and one passage from John, found at 1 John 3:8.

First, it can be established that Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians was written only a short time before his epistle to the Colossians, and that both were written during the two-year period while he was in captivity in Rome. This is explained in a paper at Christogenea titled Ordering and chronology of the epistles of Paul, and it is beyond the scope of our purpose to present it again here.

So Weisman had cited Colossians chapter 2 where Paul said that Christ had “spoiled principalities and powers… triumphing over them in it” as evidence that the enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman was ended. But Paul had said in Ephesians chapter 6, which was written only a short time before, that we – meaning the collective body of Christians – “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.” Ephesians chapter 6 having been written about 30 years after the Crucifixion, Paul’s words at Colossians chapter 2 cannot possibly mean what Weisman had asserted that they mean. Furthermore, Weisman cannot possibly have written his remarks concerning Colossians chapter 2 while being ignorant of what Paul had said in Ephesians chapter 6, and therefore I would assert that he must have purposely lied.

The Time of the Heathen – a Critical Review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

CHR20200313-TimeofHeathen-Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 2163 times


I really don’t like to discuss news or current events, but this evening I have a short program, so I will take a few minutes to discuss the latest media scare, coronavirus. The notes for this are found at the Christogenea Forum, where I am certain there will be further discussion.

The Time of the Heathen – a Critical Review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

While I admire and respect Bertrand Comparet as a trailblazer in developing and spreading the truth of our Christian Identity profession, I also believe that his message had a lot of flaws. But some of his errors were merely due to the time in which he lived, and if I had also lived then, doing what I do now, I may well have repeated them. This is because Comparet’s view of eschatology was a product of the Cold War, and apparently, he did not see any possibilities of an end-of-the-world scenario which may have transcended that age of apparent conflict.

But other flaws can evidently be attributed to the fact that his message was not fully developed, and for that reason it had some internal conflicts. For example, while Comparet recognized that there were goat nations and sheep nations, which were genetic races of people with contrary destinies, and of course he also knew that the identity of the sheep was with modern White Europeans, he sometimes also looked at goat nations as if they could somehow be allies of the sheep, and here he clearly makes that mistake.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 4

ChrSat20200307Weisman04.mp3 — Downloaded 1825 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 4

As we said at the end of Part 3 of this series, in refuting Weisman’s lies, we have necessarily gotten ahead of him, so we will have to repeat ourselves later in our address of his book. For example, at the end of the book there is a section on Witchcraft, Gnostic and Masonic beliefs and the Talmud and Kabbalah. Weisman is thereby slandering our understanding of Scripture by associating it with all of those wicked writings, which is ad hominem rather than legitimate debate, and we addressed some of that in the beginning of the last presentation we made in this series.

Following that, we addressed Weisman’s contention that the “seed of the woman” in Genesis chapter 3 refers only to Christ Himself, which is not true, and we exposed the lies about Hebrew grammar which he created in his attempt to prove that it is true. We also addressed many of the citations he made from various denominational commentaries which make the same insistence, and we refuted them, but on the other hand, we pointed out how a few of them actually agreed with us, and not with Weisman – something which he evidently did not understand, or did not want to understand.

Then we demonstrated the folly of the statements made by Weisman and by some of the commentaries which he cited that claim that Satan was somehow eliminated at the Crucifixion, when it is quite clear in Scripture that Satan was still in the world 30 and 60 years after the Crucifixion, as it is professed in the epistles of the apostles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and the apostles themselves described for us what Satan is, as Satan is still with us today. Apparently we shall discuss Satan much further on when we address part 3 of Weisman’s book, which is subtitled “The Serpent”.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 3

ChrSat20200229Weisman03.mp3 — Downloaded 1835 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 3

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks and explanations in this presentation. The prepared notes are found below.

This will be part 3 of our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. We are still in chapter 2 of the book, which is titled “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Once again, we still haven’t located a copy of the book which contains the first chapter, but if we ever do, we might have to backtrack a bit to address that also. A friend wrote me this week and I think he may have a copy. Now, as I have said several times already, continuing to examine Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall also continue to find that he failed to answer the question which he himself had posed in the title of his book.

Before we get back to where we left off in Weisman’s book, I would like to discuss this hare-brained idea that our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 had originated in the Talmud. Perhaps this argument belongs at the end of our address of Weisman’s book, since he has chapters there which present it, but it is brought to the forefront by his supporters, so we shall address it in part now. Concerning our interpretation, I don’t really like to call it “Two-Seedline” but we are sort of stuck with the label because it has long been popular. The label is too narrow, and the real struggle is between two trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life.

The Talmud did not exist in the first century. However the basis for it seems to have developed from what was called the “traditions of the elders”. There was a so-called “oral law” of the Jews, which Christ had condemned and which Moses also condemns, which was eventually written down and compiled into what had evolved and is now known as the Talmud. That does not, however, mean that the entire Talmud had already existed in unified oral traditions. The assorted characters to whom are attributed many of the non-Biblical writings in the Talmud did not live for at least two to six centuries after Christ, and some even beyond that.

A Critical Review of The Sheep and The Goats, by Bertrand Comparet

CHR20200228-Sheep-Goats-Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 1757 times


A Critical Review of The Sheep and The Goats, by Bertrand Comparet

On tape this was actually only a ten-minute sermon, but we may make it a 75-minute discussion. I have included a copy of the original sermon below. As with all of the Comparet sermons transcribed by Jeanne Snyder and then digitized by Clifton Emahiser, some editing and changes were made, so none of these are word-for-word from Comparet, but they are close enough to be accurate representations of what he said. But I cannot even know if the audio version which I have is the same as what Jeanne had originally transcribed.

I remember first learning about Christian Identity from a small collection of books that did not say much at all about those races which were outside of the Scriptures, or at least, which were not direct subjects of the Scriptures. There was E. Raymond Capt’s Abrahamic Covenant, Bertrand Comparet’s Your Heritage, Robert Balacius’ Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance, even William Cameron’s The Covenant People. Cameron is more famous for his work on The International Jew for Henry Ford’s paper, The Dearborn Independent, but few people familiar with that also know that Cameron was an Identity Christian. At that early time I also read quite a few things from Wesley Swift, and also from Richard Kelly Hoskins, Howard Rand, Frederick Haberman, and at least half dozen other Identity writers.

Back then I also subscribed to a paper called The Jubilee, printed somewhere in the Pacific Northwest, I think in Oregon, which in each issue had run an article by Ted Weiland. So in hindsight, it is not a wonder the paper was rather soft on the race issue, and even then I recognized Weiland’s universalism. So I never read more than a couple of his articles, and I never renewed the subscription. But after reading a few dozen or so Identity books and a host of other materials – although I don’t remember exactly how much I read, as this was back in 1997 and early 1998 – I began to realize that there were vast differences of opinions among various Identity writers concerning certain very important subjects.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 2

ChrSat20200222Weisman02.mp3 — Downloaded 2159 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 2

There were extemporaneous sections of this podcast which are not included in the notes below, but what is found here is what I was able to prepare in advance in preparation for this presentation.

Here we shall continue our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. Last week we began in chapter 2, “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”, and we still have not located a copy of the book containing the first chapter, so we shall pick up where we left off. As I also already said, once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.

But first, before we began addressing Weisman’s book, in our last segment of this presentation we had a basic discussion which I hoped would answer many of the questions which TruthVids often receives from people who are new to Christian Identity. So perhaps we may need to follow up on that and make any further clarifications before we return to addressing Weisman....

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 1

ChrSat20200215Weisman01.mp3 — Downloaded 2842 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 1

Most of this program was extemporaneous, however I did prepare some notes in advance which address points in Weisman’s book, with which I have contentions and which I thought were significant enough to present here. So those notes shall be included below in the form in which I wrote them. A PDF copy of Weisman’s book, which we obtained from the Internet Archive, is also linked below.


Here we are joined by Truth Vids, where we shall have a discussion of many points addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. The copies available on the internet are all missing pages 2 and 3, so I do not know what Weisman wrote under the subtitle “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Looking through Clifton’s library for a copy, which there is a very good chance that he has, I have not yet located one. Today, most of our discussion will be limited to the second chapter of Weisman’s book, which is subtitled “A Scriptural Analysis”. Once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.


Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland

CHR20200131-Emahiser-on-Weiland.mp3 — Downloaded 2133 times


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 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 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.

The Higher Calling, a review of a sermon by Bertrand Comparet

CHR20200110-HigherCalling.mp3 — Downloaded 2822 times


The Higher Calling, a review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Perhaps it is fitting that each time I begin a review of a sermon by Comparet or Swift, or an essay by Emahiser, that I do so with reflections on my own early Christian Identity studies. However I had originally embarked on my studies because I was compelled by sermons such as these from Comparet or Swift, and I was helped along the way by Emahiser.

This sermon, however, is important to me because it shows that regarding one critical issue, I have always generally agreed with Comparet, while many other Christian Identity pastors or teachers and their followers have different opinions which are not so well-grounded in Scripture. Often, those who have disagreed with me on this issue have even attributed to Comparet a position which he did not hold. That critical issue is the fact that all Israel shall be saved.

That “all Israel shall be saved”, the Bible states rather plainly, as it is found in both the letters of Paul in Romans chapter 11 and in the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 45. The Scriptures also lead us to make the same implication in many other places. But in spite of that, many Identity Christians argue against it, and even despise us for holding to the assertion. However we would assert that their doctrines are remnants of their denominational baggage, and they are not founded in Scripture.

There is one popular belief that is probably found in every Christian denomination, which is that people who are generally “good” in their patterns of behavior go to heaven, and people who are “bad” in their patterns of behavior, or who have been especially “bad” at one time or another, are in danger of going to hell forever. To that, the Roman Catholic Church added the concept of purgatory, as priests needed an angle by which to extort men out of their money, convincing them that their loved ones were stuck and couldn’t quite make it to heaven without the intervention of the priests.

Being raised Catholic to some degree, as a young man I had the same general understanding regarding these teachings on salvation, except that I don’t think I ever really believed, or perhaps only never cared about, the claims concerning purgatory. So when I found Christian Identity, sermons such as this made an impression which led me to inquire into these things more carefully, and when I began to actually study the Scriptures, especially in their original languages, the conclusions which I reached remained in general agreement with Comparet’s position on this issue, and perhaps the differences we may have are due only to semantic differences.

What is Religion?

CHR20191220-WhatisReligion.mp3 — Downloaded 2491 times


What is Religion?

When I first came to Christian Identity, I gave much thought to the meaning of the word religion. Perhaps this sermon by Bertrand Comparet, titled What is Religion?, had helped to stimulate that process. The primary definition of the word religion in the Oxford Dictionary is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” But although that is what it has come to mean, I believe the original sense of the Latin word from which it was derived has a much deeper meaning, and that this deeper meaning is relevant to our Christian Identity profession. The Latin word religio was used in a manner much like we use the word religion today. But the related word religo is a verb meaning to tie back or tie up, and religatio is a tying back or up. So, according to The New College Latin & English Dictionary, the word religiosus, which is probably the closest antecedent to our word religious, was used to refer to something which was “subject to religious claims, under religious liability.” Liability is “the state of being responsible for something”, so there is the connection to the meaning of the root word religo, in the sense of being tied or bound to a thing.

This in turn brings several Scriptures to mind. First, in Matthew chapter 18, we read in the words of Christ: “15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church [assembly]: but if he neglect to hear the church [assembly], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Then, after admonishing His disciples about sin and guilt and the need to reject men who do not accept correction along those lines, Yahshua Christ had also said “18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” So binding and loosing are related to Christian fellowship and community, or communion, and that in turn is based on an abstention from sin and a keeping of the commandments of God. Paul’s example of such loosing is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, where he encouraged the assembly at Corinth to ostracize a fornicator from their community.

A Critical Review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I COME AS A THIEF

ChrSat20180616-Comparet_I-Come-Thief.mp3 — Downloaded 5261 times


A Critical Review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I COME AS A THIEF

Here we are going to present a critical review of Bertrand Comparet’s Sermon I Come as a Thief. Doing this, we may be especially hard on Comparet for his failed view of eschatology, but before we criticize him we will also admit that, if we had lived in his same era, we too may have fallen into the trap which he did, believing that the end of the age was going to come to its conclusion in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and a nuclear conflagration and invasion of the United States by Communist hordes.

But we now see that the Communist hordes were here all along, and they have already come to control practically everything of note in America. They are called Jews, and have deceived us with party politics and capitalist internationalism while making our Western nations safe for Marxism and a flood of non-White so-called immigrants. These devils were still under much deeper cover in the 1960’s when Comparet was writing, and even he did not see what was truly going to come.

However when we set aside the errors in Comparet’s eschatology, he is still correct in his principal, and that is because he did his best, in spite of the temptations to imagine the future, to adhere to the prophecy already given in Scripture, in both the Old Testament and in the words of Yahshua Christ. So even though the play on the world stage did not take the course that Comparet thought it might, his conclusions are certainly valid and his sermon worthy of review. So he begins:

A man cannot be a podiatrist and trim your toe corns without passing an examination to prove that he is competent to provide this service. But, any fool can become a legislator, and a lot of fools do become one. Consequently our laws, as a rule, are the products of unskilled labor. In trying to draft a statute, it isn't too difficult to word it so that anybody who is trying in good faith can understand it. The big problem is to word it so that somebody who is trying in bad faith, to misunderstand it, can't do so.


Subscribe to RSS - Critics and Criticisms