Christogenea Internet Radio Podcast Archives


Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please consider donating to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.


Click here for a simplified listing of titles and links for Biblical commentaries and related podcasts.

Click here for a simplified listing of titles and links for Historical commentaries and other podcasts.

Use this link for our podcast RSS feed: https://christogenea.org/podcasts/mp3feed. Christogenea cannot meet either Google's or Apple's "politically correct" content standards, so we have not listed our feed at the iTunes or Google stores. However the link to our RSS feed will still work in iTunes or in an Android podcatcher app.

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

ChrSat20200523Weisman15.mp3 — Downloaded 1041 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.

Birth Pangs of the Coming Age, a Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

CHR20200522-Birthpangs_Comparet.mp3 — Downloaded 1293 times

Birth pangs of the Coming Age

Here I am going to present and critique a sermon by Bertrand Comparet, titled Birth pangs of the Coming Age. While Comparet had excellent insight in many respects, in others it would be difficult to miss the proverbial handwriting on the wall. Yet none of us can really ever know exactly what lies over the horizon, so sometimes even the most visible trends don’t always result in the conditions or outcomes that we may have imagined beforehand. As I have said many times in the past, prophecy does not exist so that we can see the future, but rather, so that once it unfolds we can look back and know that God is true.

Like most of Comparet’s sermons, it is difficult to know exactly when this was written or delivered. But here he has helped us by mentioning a 1967 event in its last paragraph. His remarks on the struggles between the interests of capital and organized labor remind me of the newspaper headlines relating to that same thing, which were ubiquitous throughout the early 1970’s. So if I had to guess, I would date this sermon around 1974 to 1976, right around the same time that former Teamster’s union leader Jimmy Hoffa had disappeared.

Aside from the visible trends, who could foresee things such as the so-called coronavirus pandemic? Not that we believe in the pandemic, since in my opinion it is a hoax, or at the very least, the hype is a hoax, which I had first stated here well over two months ago. Several years ago Bill Gates “predicted” such a pandemic, at the same time that he was investing billions of dollars in pharmaceutical companies and giving large grants to certain scientific research institutions to create it for him. So Gates really isn’t a prophet, but a conspirator. Now the pandemic which his cabal had created is being used to decimate small businesses and the personal finances of tens or even hundreds of millions of people, to test the effectiveness of population control, and certainly the level of population obedience not only to government, but also the level of compliance with what they are told by mainstream media. In the aftermath of all this, we will know for sure that most people will comply even with the poisoning of their own bodies.

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

ChrSat20200516Weisman14.mp3 — Downloaded 1551 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.

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

CHR20200515-Hate-vs-Love-Emahiser.mp3 — Downloaded 1699 times

 

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.

However confusing lasciviousness for “love”, many of these same people, in their private lives often end up sacrificing themselves to Cupid. So we may see how Christian love is often confused with what the world says is “love”, and that in turn becomes perverted into an acceptance, if not an engagement, in sodomy and fornication. These things, which the world calls “love”, God actually hates, and Jesus hates them too. As Christ had told His disciples, in John chapter 14, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” But when you attempt to tell a denominational Christian that God also hates those who do these things, who transgress the law, they are difficult to convince because they have been interminably inculcated with the notion that “God is love”.

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

ChrSat20200509Weisman13.mp3 — Downloaded 1554 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.

On the Gospel of John, Part 51: Feed My Sheep

CHR20200508-John51.mp3 — Downloaded 1199 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 51: Feed My Sheep

The resurrection of Yahshua Christ is an assurance, for those men who can accept it, that God is true, that He does indeed transcend His creation, and that He had also determined from the beginning to take a part in His Own creation in the person of Yahshua Christ. This was spoken beforetime in the words of the prophets, and it was the inevitable conclusion that had been made by the apostles themselves once they realized the fact of His resurrection. Therefore once Thomas had seen Him he immediately responded by acknowledging Him to be both “My Lord and my God.” Realizing that Yahweh God incarnate as a man can transcend, or overcome, the physical limitations of His creation, it must be realized that His promises of eternal life for the Adamic man of His creation must also be true, and therefore the resurrection of Christ is an Adamic Dawn, as we have described it, the Son rising as a manifestation of the true Light which is an assurance of life to men, to the entire Adamic race which had previously sat in darkness.

But even this is only the beginning of a Christian understanding which leads to many other inevitable conclusions, too numerable to explain here. In his first epistle, which was evidently written not long after John had written this gospel, his own conclusions made with this understanding led him to explain that we must keep the commandments of God and love our brethren, if we love our brethren and keep the commandments then by that we have confidence that we are of God, and our keeping of the commandments of God is how we also manifest our love for our brethren.

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

ChrSat20200502Weisman12.mp3 — Downloaded 1410 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.

The Coronavirus Pandemic from a Christian Nationalist Perspective, with Dr. Michael Hill

CHR20200501-CovidPerspective.mp3 — Downloaded 2167 times

 

The Coronavirus Pandemic from a Christian Nationalist Perspective.

Here I will offer a summary of what I think are the important aspects of the so-called coronavirus pandemic, and how it had evolved into a scare which has put millions of Americans out of work, and closed hundreds of thousands of small businesses, many of which may indeed be closed forever. Perhaps it did not evolve as a scare, but had been planned that way. I undertook this venture because I am disappointed by the reactions to this supposed pandemic by many so-called Nationalists, who seem to have swallowed the entire mainstream paradigm hook, line and sinker. While the information I offer here shouldn’t be new to anyone who has kept themselves apprised of the situation, perhaps I can offer a different perspective which is more relevant to Christian Nationalists. After making my presentation, we will have Dr. Michael Hill, President of the League of the South, to discuss the what we think should be the proper Christian, Southern Nationalist reaction to this pandemic. I apologize in advance for the poor connection during our hour-long conversation.

I have already also written on this subject from a different perspective here: Free Florida Now!

I was watching some of the early coronavirus reports in news media, and back in perhaps mid-February, I also saw the early videos coming out of China showing people who allegedly had the virus dropping dead in the streets. Today, I sincerely believe that those videos were released as purposeful propaganda to instill fear of the virus even into Social Media denizens and dissidents in the West. As soon as coronavirus was said to have exploded in the West, reports of any further spread of the disease from China and most of Asia had completely dissipated, and the Communist model of governance was made to look like a veritable utopia compared to the comparative freedoms (or actually, privileges) which Westerners enjoy. But we cannot trust anything which comes out of China, and we cannot imagine the Chinese to ever be telling us the truth. However as soon as the disease reached our shores, our governments in the West had almost immediately followed the Communist Chinese model of containment.

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

ChrSat20200425Weisman11.mp3 — Downloaded 1603 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.

On the Gospel of John, Part 50: Adamic Dawn

CHR20200424-John50.mp3 — Downloaded 1598 times

 

On the Gospel of John, Part 50: Adamic Dawn

In our last presentation on John chapter 20, The Open Tomb, we discussed various aspects of the events of the morning following the resurrection of Christ, and sought to properly correlate John’s account with the descriptions which are found in the other three gospels. While we will continue doing that here, to some degree, we will shift our focus to the significance of the resurrection itself, because the risen Christ also represents what we may call the Adamic Dawn, as it provides for us an assurance that Yahweh our God transcends His Creation, that He Himself takes responsibility for His Creation, and that therefore we must also understand that His promises of eternal life for the Adamic man and salvation for all of the children of Israel are assured in His resurrection.

The ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans, the earliest Adamic cultures from which we have significant literature, all believed in the immortality of the souls of men and an underworld in which they dwelt, and often even in the judgment of men for their deeds after death. The early Greeks and others also expressed a belief in the possibility of resurrection from among the dead, although not in Christian terms, and attributed many of the same beliefs to the ancient Galatae, Gauls or Germans, attributing their bravery in battle to beliefs they had in their own immortality.

These beliefs, being found among the various Adamic nations, should not be viewed as competitors or as truthful alternatives to what is found in the Hebrew scriptures. That would merely be a repeat of the mistakes of the past and a failure to learn from our history. Rather, they should be viewed as reflecting certain core beliefs that the earliest Adamic ancestors of each of those nations, as they are listed in the genealogies found in Genesis chapter 10, had all held in common in prehistoric times. As the nations multiplied and were separated from their primordial ancestors, the myths began to diverge and suffered different embellishments in diverse places, as they were also influenced by the wayward pagan beliefs of alien peoples – those groups related to the people whom the Hebrew scriptures identify as Nephilim, which are the so-called fallen angels.

Pages