View Poll Results: Who smokes "the 'erb?"

29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bill Finck

    6 20.69%

    5 17.24%
  • Matt Ott

    2 6.90%

    16 55.17%
Page 1 of 43 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 422

Thread: "Pastor" William Raymond Finck & Christogenos

  1. #1

    Exclamation "Pastor" William Raymond Finck & Christogenos

    Eli's drone Bill certainly does a lot of work defiling CI.
    United Identity Church of Christ

    Now It's Your Choice! Will You take a Stand for God, Race, and Nation?

  2. #2

    William Finck &

    by Sol (Posted Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:01:52 +0000)
    Heirs of the Covenant
    by William Finck

    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”.

    Whenever there are such apparent conflicts in statements in the Bible, the reader is either incorrectly understanding the passage in question, usually because it is being taken out of context, or there are translational errors – something that happens often in the King James Version, and also in every other version of Scripture translated by men. Here Galatians 3:15-16 shall be examined, and it shall be seen that any apparent conflicts are resolved once the context and the translation of the passage are more thoroughly understood. First, the context of the promises found in the New Testament itself must be examined.

    The making of a “New” Testament by Yahweh with the children of Israel was a matter of Old Testament prophecy. This is found at Jeremiah chapter 31, and here verses 31 through 36 are cited: “31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.”

    From this passage in Jeremiah we see that the New Covenant is made exclusively with the house, or family, of Israel, and the house, or family, of Judah: the very Israelites of the old covenant. It is also apparent that as long as there are a sun, moon, and stars, the children of Israel shall always be a nation, and that it is the sins of these very same children of Israel which are to be forgiven. Grace, which may have been better translated “favor”, is also a matter of prophecy, and we find in this same chapter of Jeremiah, at verses 1 and 2: “At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. 2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.” Here it is evident, that Yahweh is the God of Israel even after they were cast off, and that those cast off Israelites would be the ones to find grace with Yahweh in His new covenant, which He would make with them.

    It can be fully demonstrated from classical history that many of the tribes of the Mediterranean basin indeed descended from Old Testament Israelites. These Israelites colonized many areas long before the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations of Israel, which began around 741 BC and ended with the destruction of the temple in 585 BC. Of the Israelites who were taken away by the Assyrians, Micah the prophet says (4:7-8) “7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. 8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” It is this passage to which Matthew 21:43 should be cross-referenced.

    Going back to examine the “promises made unto the fathers” which Paul mentions in Romans 15:8, we see that Abraham’s seed (offspring) – according to a promise made to him by Yahweh - were to become an innumerable multitude, and grow into many nations with their kings (Genesis 12:2-3, 13:14-16, 15:1-6, 17:1-10). Yet these promises were not to all of Abraham’s seed (offspring). We see that Ishmael was sent away, because even though he was circumcised and “believed” (Genesis 17:25-26), he was not to become an heir (Genesis 17:20-21, 21:9-13). Additionally, the children which Abraham had later with Keturah were also sent off, since neither were they to become heirs (Genesis 25:1-6). The promises of Yahweh would fall to Isaac exclusively (Genesis 18:9-15, 21:12, 26:3). Of Isaac’s descendants, Jacob and Esau, Esau sold his birthright, and by it his share of the promises. Yet Esau’s selling of his birthright may be viewed as a mere formality. He actually lost it by going against the desires of both Abraham his grandfather and Sarah his mother, by marrying accursed Canaanite women (Genesis 24:3, 27:46, 36:1 ff.). Therefore the promises given to Abraham were passed down exclusively to Jacob-Israel. By these promises and other Biblical prophecies, we see that Jacob’s offspring were to become innumerable, and were to become nations and companies of nations (Genesis 28:10-16, 35:9-15).

    While this is a mystery to most people, even in the churches and the halls of academia, this is not the fault of Yahweh God or of the apostles. All of these promises were surely fulfilled in history, and this fulfillment is revealed upon a study of both the classics and archaeology. Many of the Greek tribes, namely the Dorians and Danaans, along with the Trojans and those who sprung from them, such as the Romans and the Illyrians, had descended from Israelites dispersed long before the Assyrian invasions. Yet from the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions and deportations of Israel are descended the Kimmerians, Scythians and Parthians, from whom came all of the Germanic tribes of later history. The Word of Yahweh God is sure, and the seed (offspring) of Israel did indeed inherit the desolate heritages, as the prophet Isaiah also foretold (60:21-22): “21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. 22 A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.” Furthermore, the fulfillment of all of this prophecy may be seen where Isaiah says of Israel, at 54:1-5: “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. 2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; 3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. 4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. 5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” This was fulfilled in history by the dispersed of Israel who ultimately became what are known today as the Celtic and Germanic peoples. Paul quotes from this very passage of the Galatians in chapter 4 of his epistle.

    Several decades after the dispersion of Israel which began to take place following the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations of the people from Palestine, a small remnant returned to Judaea to rebuild the temple. This remnant was to provide Yahweh with the means by which He would ultimately redeem Israel through His sacrifice as Yahshua Christ. After this sacrifice, the news of which was to be brought to the “lost” sheep of Israel (Ezekiel chapter 34), the city of Jerusalem was to be destroyed. This is prophesied in Daniel chapter 9. The destruction of Jerusalem was necessary because “satan” (the adversary) had taken it over (Ezekiel chapter 35), which Paul attests to at Romans 16:20. For this reason, Paul explained in Romans chapter 9 that he was concerned only for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” in Judaea, and then he goes on to compare Jacob, the vessels of mercy, and Esau, the vessels of destruction (Romans 9:1-13, 21-22).

    This process of “satan” taking over Jerusalem began when the Edomites moved into much of the lands of Israel and Judah after the deportations. Then shortly before 130 BC, the reigning Maccabean high priest (who had all the authority of a king), John Hyrcanus, decided to conquer all of the cities of ancient Israel inhabited at that time by Edomites and Canaanites, and to either convert them to the religion of Judaea (first called “Judaism” by the Greeks) or to let them leave the land, or to be slain. (Maccabee was a name given to the Asamonean dynasty of high priests who ruled Jerusalem from about 150 BC down to about 36 BC, when the last of them was slain by Herod.) The greater numbers of these people readily converted to Judaism, and thenceforth were known as Judaeans (“Jews” in most translations). This is described in detail by the historian Josephus, who wrote after 70 AD, and is also summarized by the Greek geographer Strabo nearly a century before Josephus wrote. Strabo, writing from a general Greek perspective, says in the 16th book of his Geography: “The Idumaeans [Edomites] are Nabataeans [an arab tribe], but owing to a sedition they were banished from there, joined the Judaeans, and shared in the same customs with them” (16.2.34). In another place, Strabo attests that the Judaeans were “mixed up” with the Idumaeans (16.2.2). When the first Herod, whom Josephus on at least four occasions attests was an Edomite, through treachery and bribery became king of Judaea, he destroyed the last Maccabean high priest and all of the possible rival claimants to the position. From that time he used the position of high priest as a political tool. By the time of Christ, the high priests and many of the influential men of the temple and its religious sects were actually Edomites. There are many New Testament statements which reveal this, which become fully evident to those who first understand the history surrounding these events.

    The children of Israel are the anointed of Yahweh. Yes, Yahshua Christ is the Anointed One, however He is the Head of the Body. Generally, the children of Israel are “the anointed” as a collective group, and this is evident throughout the Old Testament in many scriptures, among which are 1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 1 Chron. 16:22; Psa. 2:2; 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; 89:38; 105:15; 132:17; Lam. 4:20 and Hab. 3:13. In the New Testament this is evident at Heb. 11:24-26 and 1 John 2:27, but also in many other passages where it is obfuscated because the translators insist upon translating the word “anointed” as “Christ” upon nearly every occasion that the word appears (for clear instances, see Rom. 9:1-5; 1 Tim. 5:11-12; and 1 Cor. 1:10-13 in the Christogenea New Testament, available online).

    In Galatians 3:1-14, Paul discusses the faith of Abraham. In Romans chapter 4, Paul explained that the faith of Abraham was that Abraham believed Yahweh when he was promised that his offspring would become many nations (not, as the churches errantly teach, that many nations would somehow become his offspring). In Romans chapter 9, Paul discounts the Edomites as “vessels of destruction”, since they are not included in the promises. Although these things are not stated explicitly here in the epistle to the Galatians, they are wholly representative of Paul’s teachings. The Galatians had descended from the ancient Kimmerians of the Israelite dispersion, and so, in Galatians 3:19-29 Paul explains the relationship of Israel to the laws given at Mount Sinai, and in chapter 4 we see that Paul tells the Galatians at verse 28 that “we, brethren, down through Isaak, are children of promise”. He then repeats the statements which tell us that the children of Ishmael are excluded from the promises of Yahweh, and reassuringly says to the Galatians “Well, brethren, we are not children of a servant woman, but of the free.”

    Seeing that Paul was teaching the exclusion of both Edomites and Ishmaelites from the covenants and promises of Yahweh God - and many more Biblical passages may be cited to support this - only then can the statements made by Paul at Galatians 3:15-16 be properly interpreted in context. First, however, some background in the Greek words of the passage must be given.

    Firstly, concerning verse 15, the Greek word translated in the King James Version as “addeth thereto” is epidiatassetai, the Present Passive or Medium 3rd person singular of epidiatasso (Strong’s # 1928), and it appears only here in the NT. Properly, since in Greek verbs of the Medium voice indicate that both the recipient and the doer of the action being described are one and the same, the word may therefore be translated here “makes additions to for himself”. Liddell & Scott in their lexicon define the word as “to add an order, N.T.” but at diatasso Liddell & Scott have “...Medium to arrange for oneself, get things arranged...”, and so the propriety of the translation for this verse which will be given here is readily evident.

    Secondly, concerning verse 16, here Paul contrasts spermati, the Dative singular of sperma (4690), with its Dative plural, spermasin. Thayer says of sperma that “the singular is used collectively of the grains or kernels sown”, although later Thayer claims that this is not so here, perverting Paul’s use of the word and calling it “genius”. In the context of this and other of Paul’s epistles explained here, I must therefore read this verse to be a comparison of the several races sprung from Abraham: Jacob-Israel being contrasted with Ishmael (Gal. 4:21-31), with Esau-Edom (Rom. 9, 10, and 11), and even with those from Keturah. The word “seed”, as in English, also in Greek and Hebrew is a singular used collectively, of many of a single type. The Greek plural of sperma appears in the N.T. only at Matt. 13:32 and Mark 4:31, where diverse types are meant. This is true in Old Testament Hebrew also, where zera

    (2005-2010) Destroyed by Amy Rose!

  3. #3
    Seńor Member Archivist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Far From Babylon
    Blog Entries

    Re: William Finck &

    Finck uses more sockpuppets than Jim Henson - MikeTheAdamite, martin41, brucebohn, EzraLB, etc = ALL Finck. The guy has ZERO supporters and less listeners yet praises himself on his unindexed forum as being a "scholar." He's a very sick jew that pushes the jewish "Satan is my flesh" belief on Aryans. He is NOT dual-seedline nor even ordained to speak for Identity like those it attacks.

  4. #4

    Re: Pastor William Finck & Christogenos

    The Christolaos fellowship show has moved here. On now!

    Mods: the link on the front page calendar goes to the old show.

  5. #5

    Re: Pastor William Finck & Christogenos

    On Biblical Exegesis

    Constantly confronted with what I believe to be poor interpretations of Scripture, people often take it personally when I disagree with them. This essay will, I hope, present what I believe are the most reliable methods for interpreting the Bible, and reflect the methods that I have endeavored to employ in my translations, my essays, and all of my studies.

    All too often, interpretations of Scripture are offered where it is obvious that verses are taken out-of-context, meaning that the related statements in the rest of Scripture have not been thoroughly considered when an opinion concerning a passage in question was first formulated. If we can accept Scripture as the inspired Word of Yahweh our God, then we must realize that no passage of Scripture can be taken out of context and understood apart from all of the others, and also that no two passages of Scripture can conflict with one another. Where two passages seem to conflict, it is evident that the understanding of the person who notices the conflict is at fault, and not either of the passages of Scripture.

    But what is Scripture? Firstly, Scripture is not the King James Version or any other translation. All translations are effected by men, and all translations contain errors, because all men are fallible. This, of course, I even admit to be true of my own translations. So to examine Scripture, if one aspires to be an elucidator of Truth and a commentator on the Word of God, it is necessary that one acquaint himself with the original languages of Scripture, which are indeed Greek, Hebrew, and in some Old Testament and Apocryphal books, Aramaic.

    Secondly, manuscript evidence and support for passages of Scripture must be established. The Biblical books have for many centuries been passed down from scribe to scribe, and not always accurately copied. In some cases, interpolations appear which simply did not exist in earlier manuscripts. Some of these were purposeful elaborations or added tales, and others were simply marginal notes that eventually became incorporated into the text. Word variations also appear in many instances upon comparing the ancient copies of the manuscripts of Scripture. While they are never welcomed, most often these word variations are harmless, and reflect an updating of the language to replace obsolete words, or differences in dialect since even Koine Greek had some regional variations. Others are plain scribal errors. To sort all of these out, we must rely upon the preponderance of witnesses among the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, which cannot be determined unless we first examine all of the manuscripts which we have. This is the art of the textual critic, and it is a necessary one as long as the critic is conservative and fair in his estimations. Some textual critics indeed had their own agendas, and they all must be scrutinized.

    In my own translation of the New Testament, I have not relied upon any textual criticism but my own, and have examined the readings of only the oldest of the Great Uncials and recorded papyri fragments in order to make them. Generally, my translations follow the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which each represent independent textual traditions), along with the papyri, where in comparison the Authorized King James Version generally follows the later Codices Bezae and Alexandrinus (which along with the Codex Ephraemi Syri and other later codices represents the so-called “Alexandrian tradition”). An example of the result of this is that the King James Version contains the verses found at Mark 16:9-20, which come to us through the Codices Bezae and Alexandrinus, but which are completely wanting in the older Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and are therefore not included in my own translation. If there is no ancient evidence for a passage, it cannot be safely included in Scripture. Therefore, to this writer, New Testament Scripture is that which is found in the oldest Greek manuscripts. And as better manuscript evidence comes along, primarily through sound archaeological research and discovery, we must be willing to evaluate it objectively and even then upon its acceptance, to emend our canon in order to reflect the new evidence once it is esteemed to be of value.

    However, new discoveries must be thoroughly evaluated in their historical context. An example of controversial material in this regard is the discovery at Nag Hammadi. We cannot simply accept something because of its antiquity. Rather, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts themselves conflict with much of the Scripture handed down to us. But fortunately, we have historical testimony from early Christian writers, which enable us to determine that the Nag Hammadi writings were in fact creations of the sect of the Gnostics, a faction of the Judaean community at Alexandria which in the second century sought to corrupt Christianity by fabricating its own versions of the Gospels and related documents. Arriving at these conclusions through an examination of the historical evidence and the documents themselves, I have therefore excluded these materials from my work.

    For an understanding of the Greek language, one cannot rely primarily upon “New Testament” lexicons. A proper understanding of a language cannot be acquired if one’s vocabulary is limited to the 5600-plus unique words contained in the New Testament, understood as the organized religions would like to present them: defined in a manner which often supports a particular theology. Rather, the same lexicons must be used which have been developed by scholars in order to understand the large body of historical, philosophical and other ancient writings which the Greeks have left us. The Scriptures were written in plain language for everyday people to understand, and not in some specialized theological babble. Every word of the Greek New Testament, except where a few Aramaic words appear, was used in a manner that the common Greek-speaking people understood (cf. I Cor. 14:9).

    The Old Testament is far more problematic in interpreting, since there are no extant Hebrew manuscripts of any great antiquity. We have several versions of the Old Testament Scriptures available, and it may be asserted that all of them are important, since not any of them can claim to be an authority by itself. They all have their unique and particular problems in addition to the many problems that they share in common with one another.

    The Septuagint is a translation, effected by fallible men, and therefore it has the same problems that many modern Bible translations have. It contains many translations which reflect the biases of the time in which it was written, and it often also reflects a poor understanding of Hebrew, history and Scripture. Since all translations are to some extent also interpretations, this is especially true in the prophetic books, where the Hebrew of the Masoretes is especially valuable. Also, through the science of archaeology, we have a much better understanding today of remote antiquity than the translators of the Septuagint had. Yet in many instances the Septuagint is much more valuable than the Masoretic Text, since apparently it was translated from far more reliable Hebrew manuscripts than the Masoretes have presented to us. For the most part, the Septuagint also represents a text that the apostles knew and used where they themselves quoted Old Testament scripture. Yet because both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts contain obvious flaws, both must be employed when examining Old Testament passages, and other important witnesses just as old exist to further assist us with that endeavor.

    The historian Flavius Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Judaeans as a summary of Scripture with the more recent history leading down to his own time appended to it. This work, while it reflects the learning of the first-century Pharisees, is nevertheless crucial to Biblical studies since it reflects the Hebrew manuscripts which Josephus worked from. Another viable source is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which although while they are indeed sectarian, contain many books and passages of Scripture in Hebrew and Aramaic and are therefore an important witness, predating the Masoretic Text by several centuries. While most often the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Septuagint readings of Scripture, in some instances they instead verify readings from the Masoretic Text. One rather crucial passage which illustrates this predicament is Isaiah 9:6, one important Messianic prophecy which the Septuagint reads quite differently, but the Masoretic jews rather surprisingly maintained. But the most important tool which we must employ in order to understand the Old Testament writings is the New Testament. Since Yahshua Christ and the apostles were much closer to the original meanings of Scripture than we can hope to be, then in interpreting the Old Testament we must also examine their words wherever they can elucidate Old Testament passages for us. An obviously important example of this is the reading of Genesis 4:1, which is obviously corrupt in its current Hebrew form, and suffered that corruption at an early time, even before the Septuagint translation was created. Furthermore, there are apocryphal books which are supported by New Testament citations or other evidence, which refute the Septuagint and Masoretic readings of passages such as Genesis 4:1, and they must therefore be given merit and considered. It must also be understood that the Septuagint and Masoretic texts are both “official” versions of Scripture and a reflection of the religious authorities of their respective times and sects, and therefore must be treated accordingly – not blindly accepted or patently despised, but examined and treated objectively.

    In summation, we must not dismiss any ancient witness to Scripture: whether it be the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, the Aramaic Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the writings of Josephus or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are all important witnesses which may help us arrive at a more accurate understanding of Scripture, yet they must all be examined through the lens of New Testament truth. And in that regard, certain “apocryphal” books, such as the original portions of I Enoch, must also be considered as Scripture since the New Testament writers quoted from them and they certainly regarded them as Scripture. Yet the Apocrypha and related literature cannot be accepted or rejected without discretion, but must themselves be examined individually in their own historical context and from the best evidence of ancient manuscripts.

    The Hebrew language, its vocabulary and idioms, must also be interpreted, whenever possible, through contemporary secular writings. John Lightfoot in his Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica, and Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon are probably among the most valuable tools for the exegesis of Hebrew as understood in its ancient context. A knowledge of Greek also helps us to understand how the Septuagint translators understood the Hebrew language. However there is another advantage that we have now which the translators of the King James Version and other early Bibles, commentaries and lexicons did not have. Today we have a huge corpus of ancient inscriptions and tablets which have become available through archaeology and which were not only written in quite similar Shemitic languages such as Akkadian and Aramaic, but which were also contemporary with the original writing of the Old Testament itself. These offer invaluable insight into the vocabulary and idioms of ancient Hebrew, and must be considered whenever possible. An example of such consideration is found with my own comparison of passages from the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh with certain language found in genesis Chapter 3, in a paper called Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three, available at, One cannot rely solely upon Strong’s Concordance for Biblical exegesis, since while it is often a valuable tool, by itself it is entirely deficient in language studies, and contains no indications from the original text concerning grammar, which is beyond the original intent of the work.

    Walking through the entire collection of Biblical books, it can clearly be demonstrated that sixty-five books of the common Biblical canon are indeed inspired. Good argument can be made to exclude only Esther, and none of the other books of those found in the King James Version may be excluded. All of the evidence and assertions of the critics fails, and upon scrutiny is seen to be little but the calumny of the jews and assorted other anti-Christs and scoffers. Additionally, many of the so-called apocryphal books also belong in our canon, but each of them must be evaluated independently. I Maccabees, Susanna, Tobit, Wisdom of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch and especially I Esdras all come to mind in this regard.

    With all of this in consideration, there are certain errors which rather unscholarly men often make in Biblical interpretation that are absolutely beyond the limits of intelligent, rational thought and honesty. For instance, there is a sect today which insists that Yahshua (Jesus) Christ came to us through the line of Ephraim. However the New Testament Scriptures clearly state, in both Hebrews and in the Revelation, that He was of the tribe of Judah (not to be confused with today’s jews). Without any proof except for unfounded accusations, this sect refutes both the Revelation and the writer of Hebrews, along with many of the Old Testament Scriptures, in order to maintain its argument. To this writer, such an endeavor which is not based on any truly ancient knowledge is sheer buffoonery. In blindness and arrogance, it is quite easy, in this writer’s opinion, for a man to become the fool.

    A premise, as defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary, is “a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn…. One of the propositions in a deductive argument…” My contention would be that, in any exposition concerning history, Scripture, science, or any other field of study, when presenting an argument, if your premise is wrong, it only naturally follows that your conclusion is wrong, unless you happen to be a very fortunate individual.

    When I read an idea put forth by another student (and we are all merely students), as soon as I realize that the person’s basic premise is wrong, I have no need to proceed further. I address the premise, and explain why it is wrong. From there, I would hope that the person investigates further, adjusts his conclusion if necessary, and only then engages in further debate. But from my own experience, many of the people that I have observed developing false doctrines from errant interpretations of Scripture would rather become insolent and return criticism, rather than reevaluate their vested positions. They often do this because, their pet theory being attacked, they then take it personally. Rather than enquiring further as to why their basic premise may be wrong, a more frequent reaction for many people is to jump up and down and scream.

    The ideal attitude for me is not to claim any personal authority. The ideal attitude is that the Word of Yahweh our God alone is the authority. If one has a theory concerning Scripture, and wants to turn it into a doctrine, then one better have Scripture – or at least a very good exposition from demonstrably valid alternative translations or alternative sources of Scripture - in order to support their theory. And the apocryphal books cannot be used to refute Scripture, but may indeed be used to clarify it. An example of this is found in my paper, The Problem with Genesis 6:1-4.

    In one recent example, a (probably former) contributor to the Christogenea forum made the claim that Noah’s wife was “serpent seed”. His contention is that the whole globe was flooded, with all planetary life except that on the ark being destroyed, and that the “serpent seed” was preserved on the ark through Ham and his union with Noah’s wife. Yet nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that there was anything wrong with Noah’s wife. In fact, Noah was chosen by Yahweh to survive the flood because he was perfect in his descent. The flood was brought upon Adam-kind because of their race-mixing, and Noah survived because he was not a race-mixer. Yet this contributor’s interpretation basically accuses Noah of being a race-mixer, and, by extension, accuses Yahweh our God of being a hypocrite!

    The bottom line is that this individual was forced into concocting a situation by which the seed of the serpent could survive the flood, since he insists that the flood destroyed the entire globe and all life on it except for those on the ark. Rather than take Scripture for what it says, and look at how it would be possible for the serpent seed, the Rephaim, and the other non-Adamic races to survive the flood of Noah, he emends Scripture to fit his own personal theory concerning the flood. In doing so, he blasphemes both Noah (since the race-mixing accusation cannot be avoided) and even Yahweh Himself! Rather, God is True, and this contributor is a liar. He has made himself a fool.

    It is one thing to disagree on what certain obscure words or verses mean, or to disagree on the meaning or impact of certain obscure events. However it is quite another thing to invent your own Scripture out of thin air in order to support your interpretations of those passages or events. One may get away with this in other venues, but one may not get away with it when offering it to people who have actually read their Bibles. Doing such a thing, Scripture itself will always expose the contrivance as a foolish invention. I alone am not calling such a person a fool: Scripture is making them into fools, because Yahweh is True and every man a liar. It is merely my duty to point it out.

    If one wants to offer interpretations of Scripture, whether or not they fit the mold, so to speak, that we in Christian Israel Identity have carved out through hard work and much study, one is more than welcome to do so. If one wants to honestly enquire, or even disagree, one is more than welcome to do so. But if one is making up his own Scripture, and ignoring the greater Biblical context which refutes it, in order to push some pet interpretation of Biblical prophecy or events, then that person is simply wasting his time, the time of other readers, and he should expect to be treated critically, and even harshly. We know that Christian Identity is the true Christianity, yet it is ridiculed enough by the mainstream so-called clerics and scholars as it is. Therefore it behooves us to maintain the highest level of scholarship possible, so that when the critics assail us, they themselves are found wanting. We cannot ever maintain the appropriate level of scholarship by inventing our own scripture and history. We must aim at being overcomers, not novelists.

    William Finck

  6. #6

    Re: Pastor William Finck & Christogenos

    Herodotus wrote about certain cities on the coast of Egypt, and for centuries academics accused him of having invented them. Yet about 10 years ago, those cities were found buried under the water off the present-day coast.

    Herodotus wrote about a 50,000-man Persian army sent by the cruel and arrogant Persian Emperor Cambyses II to destroy Siwa, and how that army was swallowed by the desert sand. Again, for centuries, academics have accused him of perpetuating a tale. Perhaps archaeology has once again vindicated the great historian.

    Legendary Lost Persian Army Found in Sahara

    Herodotus wrote of a 50,000-man strong army that set out on foot into the Egyptian desert in 525 B.C. and was never heard from again ... until today.

    A pair of Italian archaeologists have uncovered bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert. Twin brothers Angelo and Alfredo Castiglioni are hopeful that they've finally found the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II.

    According to the Greek historian Herodotus, Cambyses II and his armies were buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C. He wrote, "a wind arose from the south, strong and deadly, bringing with it vast columns of whirling sand, which entirely covered up the troops and caused them wholly to disappear."

    Now the discovery of these artifacts points towards an answer to this millennias-old mystery: The Castiglioni brothers studied ancient maps and came to the conclusion that Cambyses' army did not take the caravan route most archaeologists believe they used.

    "Since the 19th century, many archaeologists and explorers have searched for the lost army along that route. They found nothing. We hypothesized a different itinerary, coming from south," Castiglioni said.

    "In the desolate wilderness of the desert, we have found the most precise location where the tragedy occurred," said Dario Del Bufalo, a member of the expedition from the University of Lecce.

    For more details about the find,see the full story on DiscoveryNews.,2933,...tml?test=faces

    Hundreds of bleached bones and skulls found in the desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert may be the remains of the long lost Cambyses' army, according to Italian researchers.
    Alfredo and Angelo Castiglioni

    The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology's biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian researchers.

    Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors were said to be buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.

    WATCH VIDEO: Take a closer look at a valley of bones that researchers think may belong to the fabled lost army of Cambyses II.

    VIEW A SLIDE SHOW: See some of the remains found in the Sahara Desert.

    "We have found the first archaeological evidence of a story reported by the Greek historian Herodotus," Dario Del Bufalo, a member of the expedition from the University of Lecce, told Discovery News.

    According to Herodotus (484-425 B.C.), Cambyses, the son of Cyrus the Great, sent 50,000 soldiers from Thebes to attack the Oasis of Siwa and destroy the oracle at the Temple of Amun after the priests there refused to legitimize his claim to Egypt.

    After walking for seven days in the desert, the army got to an "oasis," which historians believe was El-Kharga. After they left, they were never seen again.

    "A wind arose from the south, strong and deadly, bringing with it vast columns of whirling sand, which entirely covered up the troops and caused them wholly to disappear," wrote Herodotus.

    A century after Herodotus wrote his account, Alexander the Great made his own pilgrimage to the oracle of Amun, and in 332 B.C. he won the oracle's confirmation that he was the divine son of Zeus, the Greek god equated with Amun.

    The tale of Cambyses' lost army, however, faded into antiquity. As no trace of the hapless warriors was ever found, scholars began to dismiss the story as a fanciful tale.

    Now, two top Italian archaeologists claim to have found striking evidence that the Persian army was indeed swallowed in a sandstorm. Twin brothers Angelo and Alfredo Castiglioni are already famous for their discovery 20 years ago of the ancient Egyptian "city of gold" Berenike Panchrysos.

    Presented recently at the archaeological film festival of Rovereto, the discovery is the result of 13 years of research and five expeditions to the desert.

    "It all started in 1996, during an expedition aimed at investigating the presence of iron meteorites near Bahrin, one small oasis not far from Siwa," Alfredo Castiglioni, director of the Eastern Desert Research Center (CeRDO)in Varese, told Discovery News.

    While working in the area, the researchers noticed a half-buried pot and some human remains. Then the brothers spotted something really intriguing -- what could have been a natural shelter.

    It was a rock about 35 meters (114.8 feet) long, 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) in height and 3 meters (9.8 feet) deep. Such natural formations occur in the desert, but this large rock was the only one in a large area.

    "Its size and shape made it the perfect refuge in a sandstorm," Castiglioni said.

    Right there, the metal detector of Egyptian geologist Aly Barakat of Cairo University located relics of ancient warfare: a bronze dagger and several arrow tips.

    "We are talking of small items, but they are extremely important as they are the first Achaemenid objects, thus dating to Cambyses' time, which have emerged from the desert sands in a location quite close to Siwa," Castiglioni said.

    About a quarter mile from the natural shelter, the Castiglioni team found a silver bracelet, an earring and few spheres which were likely part of a necklace.

    "An analysis of the earring, based on photographs, indicate that it certainly dates to the Achaemenid period. Both the earring and the spheres appear to be made of silver. Indeed a very similar earring, dating to the fifth century B.C., has been found in a dig in Turkey," Andrea Cagnetti, a leading expert of ancient jewelry, told Discovery News.

    In the following years, the Castiglioni brothers studied ancient maps and came to the conclusion that Cambyses' army did not take the widely believed caravan route via the Dakhla Oasis and Farafra Oasis.

    "Since the 19th century, many archaeologists and explorers have searched for the lost army along that route. They found nothing. We hypothesized a different itinerary, coming from south. Indeed we found that such a route already existed in the 18th Dynasty," Castiglioni said.

    According to Castiglioni, from El Kargha the army took a westerly route to Gilf El Kebir, passing through the Wadi Abd el Melik, then headed north toward Siwa.

    "This route had the advantage of taking the enemy aback. Moreover, the army could march undisturbed. On the contrary, since the oasis on the other route were controlled by the Egyptians, the army would have had to fight at each oasis," Castiglioni said.

    To test their hypothesis, the Castiglioni brothers did geological surveys along that alternative route. They found desiccated water sources and artificial wells made of hundreds of water pots buried in the sand. Such water sources could have made a march in the desert possible.

    "Termoluminescence has dated the pottery to 2,500 years ago, which is in line with Cambyses' time," Castiglioni said.

    In their last expedition in 2002, the Castiglioni brothers returned to the location of their initial discovery. Right there, some 100 km (62 miles) south of Siwa, ancient maps had erroneously located the temple of Amun.

    The soldiers believed they had reached their destination, but instead they found the khamsin -- the hot, strong, unpredictable southeasterly wind that blows from the Sahara desert over Egypt.

    "Some soldiers found refuge under that natural shelter, other dispersed in various directions. Some might have reached the lake of Sitra, thus surviving," Castiglioni said.

    At the end of their expedition, the team decided to investigate Bedouin stories about thousands of white bones that would have emerged decades ago during particular wind conditions in a nearby area.

    Indeed, they found a mass grave with hundreds of bleached bones and skulls.

    "We learned that the remains had been exposed by tomb robbers and that a beautiful sword which was found among the bones was sold to American tourists," Castiglioni said.

    Among the bones, a number of Persian arrow heads and a horse bit, identical to one appearing in a depiction of an ancient Persian horse, emerged.

    "In the desolate wilderness of the desert, we have found the most precise location where the tragedy occurred," Del Bufalo said.

    The team communicated their finding to the Geological Survey of Egypt and gave the recovered objects to the Egyptian authorities.

    "We never heard back. I'm sure that the lost army is buried somewhere around the area we surveyed, perhaps under five meters (16.4 feet) of sand."

    Mosalam Shaltout, professor of solar physics at the National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, Helwan, Cairo, believes it is very likely that the army took an alternative western route to reach Siwa.

    "I think it depended on their bad planning for sufficient water and meals during the long desert route and most of all by the occurrence of an eruptive Kamassen sandy winds for more than one day," Shaltout told Discovery News.

    Piero Pruneti, editor of Archeologia Viva, Italy's most important archaeology magazine, is also impressed by the team's work.

    "Judging from their documentary, the Castiglioni's have made a very promising finding," Prunetic told Discovery News. "Indeed, their expeditions are all based on a careful study of the landscape...An in-depth exploration of the area is certainly needed!"

  7. #7

    Guess the pothead!

    Let's play "Guess the pothead!"

    #1) Bill Finck:

    #2) PILGRIM:

    #3) Matt Ott:

  8. #8

    Re: Guess the pothead!

    Quote Originally Posted by Solomon View Post
    #3) Matt Ott:

    Rather homoerotic, don't ya' think?
    "On your best day you're not as smart as me! Trust me, I'm a truth machine!"

  9. #9

    Re: Guess the pothead!

    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Jewdy View Post
    Rather homoerotic, don't ya' think?
    I couldn't tell you but all that "CannabisCanSaveUs" talk is why I don't post over there any more.

    The photos are from this disturbing thread. Nonetheless, I voted for PILGRIM, she's too obvious. :toker:

  10. #10
    Obadiah 1:18

    Re: Guess the pothead!

    Quote Originally Posted by Solomon View Post
    I couldn't tell you but all that "CannabisCanSaveUs" talk is why I don't post over there any more.
    The CannabisCanSaveUs debacle prompted a number of Identists, me included, to part company with Bill's forum -- Yahweh only knows how many prospective Identists it scared off. Bill and Ott threatened to ban me for objecting to that idiot's username, although my criticisms of Pastor Amy's pornographic diatribes and passion for slandering saints was probably more of a contributing factor where Bill was concerned.

    I couldn't believe it when I heard Bill say that Marty had (and has) a good heart. Maybe Marty has two hearts, and Bill was looking at the wrong one, because somebody who condones rape, torture, and cannibalism, entailing white children being fed by Marty to their parents, does not have what any reasonable person would characterize as a good heart.

    By the way, CannabisCanSaveUs has been very quiet of late. Does he still post on Bill's forum, or did he decide to move on after causing all of the damage he could there?

Similar Threads

  1. Stormfront & "Pastor" Mark Downey's Phony No-Satan Dogma
    By in forum Bible Tools & Teachers
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 03-27-2018, 10:03 AM
  2. SPLC investigator and fake Klansman William " Billy Morris " outed
    By seedliner in forum Current Events & News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 01:20 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-01-2013, 09:52 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts