A Christogenea commentary On the Gospel of John is now in progress. 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 manyhistorical 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 theEpistles of Paul has recently been completed at Christogenea.org. 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.
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.
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.
The purpose of this discussion is to show how the name Jesus came into existence. I am certainly not advocating that one should call upon the name of Yahshua Christ, the Redeemer of Israel, using the name Jesus, however there are serious misconceptions concerning the origin of this name which I am compelled to address.
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!
It should be evident to nearly anybody that the apostles probably wrote many more epistles than those which we have in our Bibles, that if we possessed them, we may possibly have a more complete picture of their ideal model for the function and structure of the truly Christian community. However, not out of line with that spirit of simplicity of life which is an object of Christian teaching, it may very well be that we need none other than the scant instruction which we do have. Here we shall examine precisely what the New Testament books, and especially the letters of Paul, really do say concerning the organization and management of a Christian community.
In the apocryphal books are found some writings, in the so-called epistles of Ignatius for instance, which do attempt to clarify or enhance the instructions in our Bibles (i.e., those of 1 Timothy). These writings must be rejected, viewed with suspicion not only because they often conflict with Paul’s writing, but also because they bear full support for the organized romish church structure as we know it. They are most certainly mere forgeries, and many commentaries have professed as much. All such post-apostolic writing shall be ignored here.
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:
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.
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.
Recently there was much media chatter concerning the current head of the Romish “church”, Herr Ratzinger (I ought not use any of the usual self-proclaimed titles, cf. Matt. 23:8-9), and his visit to the United States. One of the highlights of his trip, according to the media, was his stop at a New York City synagogue, and his embrace of the Jews there, where he gave a speech which stressed the so-called “Jewish” roots of Jesus (Yahshua) Christ and of Christianity. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. In reality – which reality shall continue to escape the notice of most people in society – Herr Ratzinger’s homage to the Jews of New York surely demonstrates the truth of such New Testament verses as Luke 4:5-6, John 14:30 and 1 Cor. 2:8, among others. For those whom we see in positions of authority are not the true wielders of power: it is the dragon (Rev. 12:7-9) which gives authority to the beast (Rev. 13:4). While this statement may seem enigmatic now, it may become clearer later, as this essay proceeds.
John the Baptist’s practice of cleansing, or “baptizing”, sinners in water was not an idea peculiar to him and, as shall be made evident below, it was done for a specific reason. It was a practice long known to not only the Judaeans but also the Greeks. This should be no surprise, since it is known that both the Danaan and Dorian Greek tribes were direct descendants of the Hebrew Israelites. It would be odd if they did not share many of the same customs.
While there are many examples of “baptism” – ritual cleansing in water – in Greek literature, here I will cite one. In a play, Eumenides, by the fifth-century B.C. Greek poet Aeschylus, his character Orestes says at lines 448-452: “It is the law that he who is defiled by shedding blood shall be debarred all speech until the blood of a suckling victim shall have besprinkled him by the ministrations of one empowered to purify from murder. Long since, at other houses, have I been thus purified both by victims and flowing streams.” (Loeb Library edition of Aeschylus). Here we see that the Greeks believed that one may be cleansed of sin either by baptism (“flowing streams”) or by the blood of sacrifice (compare Heb. 9:13).
The Bible, a collection of very ancient books written in languages which have not been spoken in their original forms for many, many centuries, contains many enigmas for the average reader of modern times. This is especially true since many parts of the Bible – and it is the Old Testament being discussed here as well as the New – were written in parables and in the poetic language of prophetic vision. While it is certainly a sound practice to interpret Scripture in the context of Scripture, with the idea in mind that the Word of Yahweh our God clarifies and explains itself, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or 72 for the Catholics, or even 80 for the original King James Version compilers of 1611, are not by themselves a complete revelation of the history of White Man (Adam-kind). Neither should one be so arrogant as to believe that these books which we now have were the only inspired Scriptures transmitted in antiquity: for not all of the books excluded from canon by early churchmen deserved such a fate, and not all of the books of antiquity survived until the Christian era. Neither can these books be completely understood all by themselves in any language, because of their incomplete state and the antiquity of the languages they were written in. Yet with sound, thorough studies in history and archaeology, many facets of the Bible are much better understood. Not only the historical books of the Bible, but the utterances of the prophets also come to life with studies in these fields, and the certainty of the Word of Yahweh our God is surely made manifest. Furthermore, with studies of the ancient languages which the Bible was first written in, a surer understanding of that Word is acquired. Yet unless one looks outside of the Bible, to other ancient writings produced by kindred cultures during the Biblical age, a proper understanding of many of the metaphors and idioms of Biblical languages shall never be acquired, and the intended meaning of many Biblical passages shall forever remain concealed. Here we shall look at part of an ancient Mesopotamian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and see that it helps us understand certain obscure, oft-debated passages found in the third chapter of Genesis.
Various theories have been developed around the text found at Gen. 6:1-4, and it is quite often that discussions concerning these verses, like many others in the Bible, become emotionally charged. This is because people often tend to build their own personal belief systems upon a single Biblical passage, or perhaps a couple of passages, rather than upon the entire body of Scripture accompanied with sound studies in language, archaeology, and history, which truly are necessary in order to obtain an honest understanding of Scripture. For instance, upon examining this particular passage, it is quite obvious that it contains a conflict which is irresoluble within the Masoretic Text or Septuagint alone, when compared to other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Here, an explanation of this conflict shall be provided, and a resolution offered. Yet in order to do so we shall peruse Biblical literature, deemed apocryphal by many, found outside of the Masoretic Text upon which today’s popular Bible versions are based.
Many commentators often construe Paul’s statements at Galatians 3:15-16 to mean that there is only a single heir of the covenant of Yahweh God, which is Yahshua Christ Himself. If this is a true interpretation, then Paul conflicts with many of his own statements, where we see several times that Paul tells us elsewhere that there is a plurality of heirs to the covenant. For instance, concerning the New Covenant Paul says at Titus 3:7: “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Then again concerning the New Covenant Paul says at Hebrews 6:17: “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath”. In Hebrews chapter 6, while discussing Yahshua Christ and the New Covenant, Paul illustrates that the heirs of that covenant were selected before the confirmation of the covenant by the Sacrifice made by Yahshua Christ. For this reason he also told the Romans at 15:8: “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”.
We now have an Android app which makes it easy to listen to our internet radio stations. It is now available at the Google Play Store. NOTE: Google reports that the app requires Android version 2.3 or higher. For a file which you can download and install on an android phone CLICK HERE. For a file which can be installed on a Kindle device CLICK HERE.
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." - 2 Chronicles 7:14
or see our Contact page for a mailing address and other ways to support Christogenea.
Today's Christogenea Internet Radio ScheduleAll Streams at 8PM: Christogenea Saturdays Live Stream 1: Beginnings and Ends, with Don Fox Stream 2: Christian Expectations Stream 3: Ecclesiastes parts 1 to 4 Stream 4: Christian Nationalism