Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 5

This past Saturday Melissa and I attended an unannounced League of the South demonstration in Tennessee, which I could not indicate in my announcement for last week’s program. Of course, the scheduled demonstration at Sycamore Shoals State Park in Tennessee was canceled, and I hope to write about that soon. Christogenea is not a news outlet, and I have no compulsion to do so immediately. The demonstration went very well, and we were very well received by the local population of Newport, Tennessee. Nevertheless, for us it was a difficult road trip, as our jeep suffered a mechanical breakdown, nearly a second after having that repaired, and we had some other challenges along the way. We made it home a day later and one visit shorter than we had originally planned, as we had hoped to stop in North Georgia to see some friends there. Yahweh willing, we will have another opportunity to do that in a few months.

I have had some people who criticize us, meaning Identity Christians, on the basis that Christian Identity is something which is relatively new in history. So the other day in social media I explained Why Christian Identity is such a "new" denomination, and of course we know that it is not really a denomination, but they call it that. We know that it is The Way. Here are five simple reasons why it is so new:

1) Throughout the Middle Ages the question of race in Europe was not an issue, as most folks kept to their own kind and race-mixing was largely a result of prostitution or defeat in war.

2) The Roman Catholic Church had restrictions on copying Scripture for general dissemination, and even tried to hold the line once the printing press was invented, but the printing press ultimately defeated the policy by brute force.

3) Once men got their hands on copies of the Bible, they began reading and realizing how far the so-called "orthodox" churches had wandered from the Gospel of Christ. This was the chief reason for the Reformation and the cause of a multiplicity of denominations which followed.

4) The colonial period led British, German and French academics to treasure troves of information previously unavailable, through exploration and archaeology.

5) Once archaeological records of ancient population migrations became available and certain Protestants realized the implications, British Israel and then Christian identity began to develop, from around the second quarter of the 19th century.

Conclusion: If you cannot revise your thinking based on new information, or at least on information which is new to you, you are a slave and a fool. In the end, we will ALL be Christian Identity whether you like it or not.

Of course, the full story of history is a lot more complicated than that, but those are the basic steps which brought us to where we are today, and we will not find anything in history or in archaeology which shall ever take us off of this course!

Religious problems with others of our own race should never be a matter for division, once it is realized that the Church is a body of people and not an organization or a collection of institutionalized dogmas.

Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 5

Before we begin, I have another long digression. Clifton’s essays Identifying the Beast o f the Field are rather short, so they give me an opportunity to discuss topics that may otherwise have to wait for a podcast of their own.

In the last few introductions to segments in this series, I have been addressing so-called Orthodox Christianity. I call it “so-called” because it is really an orthodoxy of the empire, and not one that represents the teachings of the apostles of Christ. Here I will give yet another example of that. A proper Christian should be a lower-case orthodox Christian, one who makes every effort to follow the teachings of The Way which is found in the Gospel, the law, the prophets and the apostles.

A couple of weeks ago I was engaged in a discussion of Orthodoxy on social media, one of many which I have had recently. I wish I had kept a copy of this one but I can’t find it now, because two weeks is like forever at Facebook. There was one particular gentleman who seemed to be well-versed in Orthodox doctrines and who wrote a paragraph explaining that the Orthodox priesthood is the continuation of the Levitical priesthood, but for Christians rather than Jews because mere believers were now the people of God. This alone proves the Judaization of the early Church organization.

In Tennessee this past Saturday evening, I had similar discussions with a couple of men who also profess Eastern Orthodoxy, and they also made the claim that the Orthodox priesthood is grounded in Scripture in much the same way. It is appalling, how little such people actually know of the Scriptures, even of the epistles of the apostles. But in that context, I had no time to make a proper explanation, so I will address the issue here.

One friend insisted that the early so-called “Church Fathers” themselves were Orthodox priests, and that they wrote of an Orthodox priesthood. He claimed that Ignatius of Antioch was his authority for this assertion. This is simply not true, and it is my estimation that the individual never actually read the writings of Ignatius, or of most of the other early Christian writers.

In the epistles which are not considered to be spurious, only one time, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, does Ignatius mention the word priest. This is found in Chapter IX, which is subtitled The Old Testament is Good: the New Testament is Better:

The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest is better; to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been trusted with the secrets of God. He is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church. All these have for their object the attaining to the unity of God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. All these things are good together, if ye believe in love.

There is a longer version of this epistle, which is also considered spurious, where this chapter is many times its original length and has references to Christian “high priests”, a term which it uses synonymously for bishops, and also mentions presbyters and deacons. This, as well as many other interpolations in the writings of the early so-called Church Fathers, was obviously added later, to support the structure of the later Roman Catholic Church.

This is also the problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. They claim to be founded on the apostles and the early so-called “Church Fathers”, but by their own admission they do not actually follow any of the Ante-Nicene Christian writers. There is a website for the Greek Orthodox Church of America which has an article titled The Basic Sources of the Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It admits that it follows only the confessions of Ignatius, of Justin Martyr’s Apology, of Irenaeus and of Origen, who were all men of the first two, or in the case of Origen, two-and-a-half centuries of Christianity. But it does not claim to follow their doctrines, and it cannot follow them, because it can be demonstrated that they all differed from one another in many aspects. They don’t even mention Clement of Rome or Polycarp, the two earliest Christian writers after the apostles themselves, and of Justin they only mention his Apology, although he had several other writers.

So further along in this article, under the subtitle The Ecumenical Synods, we read the following:

The doctrinal teaching of the Bible and the Ecumenical Synods constitutes the content of the Faith and the unmovable basis of Orthodox dogmatics. The body of the Church, which consists of clergy and laymen, is the carrier of the infallibility of the Church, where the Holy Spirit protects it from making error. But the voice of the Church for expressing its infallibility is its highest authority - the Ecumenical Synod in which the whole pleroma (people of the Church) is represented by its bishops. The decisions of these Synods are sources of the teaching of the Church. There are utterances of the synods (oroi) which directly express the dogmatical teaching of the Church, and some canons which hold dogmatical teachings, although they mainly deal with discipline and administration in the Church. The Ecumenical Synods are the main sources of the truths of the Church. The Symbol of Nicaea established by the First and Second Synods is repeatedly restated in the five Ecumenical Synods that followed through the eighth century.

So we see that the “Church Fathers” upon which the Orthodox Church relies for its doctrines are all rather late. But in the first place, there is actually no authority whatsoever in the New Testament which informs Christians that they should look to ecumenical councils or deceased so-called “Church Fathers” rather than referring to the Scriptures themselves. And if any man or organization claims infallibility, it can never even correct its own mistakes. The apostles would never have claimed an infallibility for men, or a heavenly protection from fallibility. Paul of Tarsus himself admitted to being a sinner and a wretched man, in Romans chapter 7. Where Peter visited the household of Cornelius, in Acts chapter 10, we read: “25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” The Orthodox Church certainly does not follow the apostles of Christ. But finally, we find which of the so-called “Church Fathers” the Orthodox Church does claim to follow, where under the subtitle The Fathers of the Church we read:

Another contributing source to the knowledge of the Orthodox Faith are some outstanding Fathers of the Church who wrote discourses and homilies on subjects of faith, which the Ecumenical Synods accepted as canonical teachings. These prominent Fathers are: Athanasius the Great (c.295) for his letter enumerating the canonical books of the Bible; Basil the Great (330-379) for his discourse sent to Amphilochion, in which he enumerates the heresies (parts of this epistle were divided into 92 canons, with canons 1, 5, 47, 91 and 92 containing material of symbolic expression of faith); Gregory of Naziatizus (c.329-390) for writings concerning the Canonical Books of the Bible, and Bishop Amphilochios of Ikonion (340-395) for his listing of the Canonical Books of the Bible. Writings of these Fathers bear the seal of canonical ratification. Not included here are writings of other Fathers which became canons concerning order and discipline, for described here are only those sources dealing with the faith. These then are the prominent Fathers of the Post-Nicene period (through the fourth century) whose writings became canonical sources of the teachings of the Church, having been adopted by the Ecumenical Synods.

So they rather democratically picked and chose which Church Fathers they would follow, and which they would ignore. Then they put those certain Church Fathers which they liked or agreed with on the level of Canon, which is to say, on the same level of authority as the Scriptures and the apostles of Christ!

With this it should be evident that the teachings of the Orthodox Church are developed based on opinions of Scripture from the beginning of the 4th century AD, or the time when Christians were finally able, for the most part, to come out of hiding because the fear of persecution and execution was dissipating. But at this same time, anyone could publicly claim to be a Christian, regardless of what they were when Christianity was still outlawed and Christians were liable to be executed. The last major persecution, begun under Diocletian, lasted until the Edict of Toleration was declared in 313 AD.

Before this time, among the writings of the Ante-Nicene so-called Church Fathers, those who wrote in the first two-and-a-half centuries, there is no mention of Christian priests. Except for citations of 1 Peter chapter 2, every mention of priests in the versions of these writings which are generally accepted to be authentic refer to either pagan priests, Levitical priests, Jewish priests or to Christ as The Priest. In a Christian context, Christ is the only priest, and that is what we see described in all of the earliest Christian writers, in their original writings.

Now let us examine what Peter said in reference to priests in chapter 2 of his first epistle, from the King James Version: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light...” We would read generation properly as race, otherwise nobody can claim to be chosen by God after Peter’s readers had passed on. In any event, we can see that the chosen race is the royal priesthood, which is a holy nation and a peculiar people, and Peter was writing to Christians, not to Jews. Notice that Peter did not describe a nation with priests, but rather said that the holy nation itself was a royal priesthood. There is a significant difference in the two concepts. But however we want to interpret the general statement , it should be evident that each and every Christian is a priest, in the sense of performing a service for God.

All of the earliest Christian writers also profess agreement with Paul of Tarsus, who explained that Christ alone is the High Priest of the Christian faith. To the contrary, the Orthodox Church declares that every bishop is a high priest. Speaking of the passing of the Levitical priesthood, Paul wrote in Hebrews chapter 7, according to the King James Version:

“12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. [Only Christ is Priest.] 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

Here I am going to read a few paragraphs from Clement of Rome, from the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, where he is at first describing the priestly orders of the Old Covenant, and then describes the order of the New Covenant:

Chapter XL.—Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter XLI.—Continuation of the Same Subject.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

Chapter XLII.—The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

The last statement is a citation which is apparently from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 60:17, but that reads a little differently. So we may read in Brenton’s English: “And for brass I will bring thee gold, and for iron I will bring thee silver, and instead of wood I will bring thee brass, and instead of stones, iron; and I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous.” Brenton’s translation is an accurate and literal rendering of the Greek, where for overseers, the Greek word is the same that the Church translations usually represent as bishops. But here we see no word of Christian so-called priests in the instructions of Clement of Rome, who lived in the first century and who was said to be a student of the apostle John. Rather, we see bishops, which are only overseers of a Christian assembly, and deacons, which are only servants of a Christian assembly, just as the original apostles had instructed in their epistles.

In the fourth century, the Orthodox priests did not replace the Levitical priests. The concept of Christian priest evidently did not appear until then. In truth, many of the so-called priests transformed themselves into “Christian priests” from the pagan priesthood, because as Christianity spread they saw greater job security and greater opportunity for gain. But for the Christian, and according to the word of Paul of Tarsus, only Yahshua Christ Himself replaced the Levitical priesthood. This is what Ignatius had taught in his authentic epistle to the Philadelphians. Other of the early Christian writers also taught this, and according to Peter, each and every Christian is a priest in the sense of being chosen for service to God.

A man who needs a priest allows an intercessor between himself and Christ, which the apostles did not command. In my opinion, that is also a form of idolatry. The pagan priest was seen as a bridge to a god, which can also be said of the Levitical high priest, and which is why both Caesar and Pope used the title pontiff, or the Latin pontifex, which is a “bridge maker”. Julius Caesar took for himself the title of “chief bridge maker”, an office which originally belonged to the chief priest, and was therefore called the Pontifex Maximus of Rome. But to the contrary, Paul of Tarsus said in 1 Timothy chapter 2: “5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” So we should perceive that Christ alone is our bridge to God, and we have need of no priest. Then Paul explained in Romans chapter 8 that the Spirit within each of us makes intercession with God on our behalf. Then in chapter 2 of his first epistle, John himself said “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” A true Christian must not let another man hold this position which only Christ can fill. As Christ Himself said, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 23: “9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

True Christians should have no part with any man who wants to play father or priest. This organized capital-C Church is how the beasts of the field have become people, and have become intermingled with the people of God. In the end, God Himself will deny every one of them. Christ will deny them all, and they all shall be destroyed at His coming.

With this, we shall commence with:

IDENTIFYING THE “BEAST OF THE FIELD”, #5

by Clifton A. Emahiser

In part #’s 1 through 4 of this series, I have addressed the many errors in identifying who “the beast of the field” are. In part #3, I gave substantial evidence that the name of the devil actually [also] means “ape” in Arabic, according to Adam Clarke. Also in part #3, with data from the Greek passed on to me by William Finck, I came into substantial evidence that indeed we are dealing with the idea of an “ape”:

From A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott, page 1232, on the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word “satyr” [In the translations of the Septuagint] we find the following definition:

“ὁνοκένταυρα, ἡ, or ὁνοκένταυρος, ὁ, a kind of tailless ape, Ael. NA 17.9. 2. a kind of demon haunting wild places, LXX Is. 13:22, 34:11, 14.” Notice especially Isa. 34:14! So, what it amounts to is, [that] if one observes someone who appears to be a combination of man and ape, odds are one is looking at a devil!

Then in part #4, I showed relevant evidence that in early Greek art and sculpture a satyr (devil) was portrayed as an “ape”. After I had finished part #4, I found more evidence on the Internet that in early Greek art and sculpture “satyr” meant an “ape” at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satyr#Satyrs_as_Apes [This is a Wikipedia discussion page for the article on the Satyr - WRF]

“Satyrs as Apes: ‘The concept of satyr as a type of ape is older than the 17th century - The Book of Beasts (T.H. White’s translation of a 12th-century bestiary) clearly describes the Satyr as an ape of some sort. (The illustration shows a traditional satyr, but the description is of an ape)….”

[Clifton then comments:] As one can begin to see, Adam Clarke, in his research into the Biblical term “satyr” did quite well by checking it out in the Arabic. Remember, though, one cannot use the term “devil” (satyr) alone as it is only one of the collective names or titles for Satan. Rev. Samuel Fallows in his The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 3, page 1527, explains it thusly:

“SATAN ... (1) Scripture Names or Titles: Besides Satan, he is called the Devil, the Dragon, the Evil One, the Angel of the Bottomless Pit, the Prince of this World, the Prince of the Power of the Air, the God of this World, Apollyon, Abaddon, Belial, Beelzebub. Satan and Devil are the names by which he is more often distinguished than any others, the former being applied to him about forty times, and the latter about fifty times.

“Satan is a Hebrew word, saw-tawn’, שתן transferred to [or transliterated in] the English. It is derived from a verb which means ‘to lie in wait,’ ‘to oppose;’ ‘to be an adversary.’ Hence the noun denotes an adversary or opposer.”

[Clifton says:] Another Commentary that speaks of a “goat-ape species” and “the dog-faced baboon” is by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, vol. 3, page 608, on Isaiah 13:21:

“... The former view suits best the context here. satyrs shall dance there – Hebrew, Sehirim [which is the plural of sehir, or satyr - WRF]; sylvan [or forest] demi-gods – half-man, half-goat – believed by the Arabs to haunt these ruins; probably animals of the goat-ape species (Vitringa). Devil-worshippers, who dance amidst the ruins on a certain night (J. Wolff). The Hebrew means hairy, rough (as the Latin hircus is from hirtus hirsutus), applicable to the he-goat. The worship of Sehirim, whether meaning the he-goat or, as Hamilton Smith thinks, the dog-faced baboon (Cynocephalus) was accompanied with dances. It was really devils that were thus worshipped (Lev. xvii. 7, ‘they (the Israelites) shall no more (as in Egypt) offer their sacrifices unto devils (Sehirim)’, 2 Chr. xi. 15.”

The reference to 2 Chronicles 11:15 is to the account where Jeroboam I becomes king of the northern ten tribes, the House of Israel, and commands that the people depart from worship at Jerusalem to go off into paganism, so we read: “15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.”

This leads, in part, to a greater understanding. The satyrs were the demigods of the woodlands and deserts. In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul of Tarsus describes paganism as the “worshiping of angels”, which are ostensibly fallen angels or they would not insist upon being worshiped. Speaking of Israel according to the flesh and in his own time, Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 that “that the things which the Nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God…” Here we would assert once again, that the so-called beast races which were forever outside of Adamic society, and alien and hostile to it, are indeed related to those devils, and were not created by God. Continuing with Clifton:

Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary by Youngblood, Bruce & Harrison, page 59, under “Animals Of The Bible, Ape”, says in part: “... Some commentaries suggest that Isaiah’s reference to ‘satyrs’ who ‘dance’ and ‘cry to [their] fellow[s]’ (Isa. 13:21; 34:14, KJV; wild goats, NIV) would fit the dogfaced baboon honored by the Egyptians.”

The comparison of the “dog-faced baboon” to the Negro certainly cannot be overlooked. The later Egyptians, at least those of the post-Nubian period of the 25th Dynasty, believed this creature to be the inventor of writing and the scribe of the gods. [Citing an article for a Dog-Faced Baboon amulet from the 26th Dynasty at The British Museum.] Continuing again with Clifton:

After discovering all of this new data, I decided to try and find a picture of a dog-faced baboon, and I found one in my 1981 Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 3, page 423. Immediately I was impressed how this baboon was very shaggy over each side of the head; over the neck and upper part of the back and draping down to the elbow joint of the front legs, but the rump, hips, hind legs and forearms from the elbows to the hands were predominately bare of any quantity of hair. Most striking of all of this dog-faced baboon’s features was its kinky, woolly hair, where it had hair. Its hair remarkably resembled that of a negroid.

At the beginning of this article I have placed an image of an ancient Egyptian amulet representing a dog-faced baboon, which is from The British Museum. The museum Curator’s comments state that: “The dog faced baboon was a creature linked with the moon, which is why amulets in its shape, usually wear a headdress composed of the full moon and crescent moon. However, in this instance the lunar element is present in the wedjat eye, the "mooneye" of the solar falcon, torn out by Seth and restored by Thoth. Wedjat means ‘the sound one.’ The baboon was one of the animal forms in which Thoth could manifest himself, especially in his role of inventor of writing and scribe of the gods.” No wonder Negros think they invented our White culture. The amulet is said to be from the 26th Dynasty, around 600 BC. This is very shortly after the Nubian rule of the 25th Dynasty, after which Egypt was never again a great society. Continuing with Clifton:

Inasmuch as there are upwards of 20 different negro racial types, that fact suggests that various members of the ape family were the experimental victims with whom the fallen angels committed miscegenation. From a 526 page book entitled PreAdamites, by Alexander Winchell, printed by S.C. Griggs and Company, London in 1880, I will cite pages 253-254. On page 253, Winchell depicts side-by-side pictures comparing a female Hottentot to a female Gorilla, and from the text we read:

“The physical aspect of many native Africans gives them, beyond question, a decidedly beastly look. This has been remarked again and again. Professor Wyman says: ‘It cannot be denied, however wide the separation, that the Negro and Orang do afford the points where man and the brute (when the totality of their organization is considered), most nearly approach each other.’ Here is Cuvier’s description of the Bojesman woman, known as the ‘Hottentot Venus’, who died in Paris on the 29th of December, 1815, and whose life-size figure I have examined in the Museum of the Jardin des Plantes: ‘She had a way of pouting her lips,’ he says, ‘exactly like that we have observed in the Orang-Outang. Her movements had something abrupt and fantastical about them, reminding one of those of the ape. Her lips were monstrously large; her ear was like that of many apes, being small, the tragus weak, and the external border almost obliterated behind. ‘These’ he says, after having described the bones of the skeleton, ‘are animal characters.’ Again, ‘I have never seen a human head more like an ape than that of this woman’.”

[Now Clifton responds and says:] I would highly suggest that when Cuvier observed the Hottentot Venus, stating, “... reminding one of those of the ape. Her lips were monstrously large; her ear was like that of many apes ... the bones of the skeleton ... are animal characters”, he was indeed observing an ape (or at least half ape and half fallen angel).

We shall now address “the angels that sinned” [mentioned] at 2 Peter 2:4, and “the angels which kept not their first estate” [mentioned] at Jude 6, for they both represent “the sons of God” at Genesis 6:2! These “sons of God” are referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as “sons of Heaven”, and are not the sons of Cain as some commentaries declare.

It is my opinion, as I wrote many years ago in a paper titled The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4, that the correct reading where the Masoretic Text and many Septuagint manuscripts have “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2, 4 is “sons of heaven”. These would be people, if we should call them people, from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the fallen angels or their descendants. They may have been called “sons of God” in some early literature, to describe their origin as opposed to the sons of man, or Adam, but they were also called “sons of heaven”, being those who originally rebelled against God, or their descendants. Clifton now cites a source that I would rather choose to avoid, because it has indeed suffered a great many interpolations:

To understand the nature of these “angels that sinned”, I will cite some passages in the Book Of Jasher:

Book Of Jasher, 4:18: “And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.”

Here Jasher seems to be confounding events in Enoch, as these are described in Enoch literature found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as separate events. Continuing with Clifton’s citations:

Book Of Jasher, 23:71-74, 76-78, 86:

“71. For the Lord had prepared this ram from that day, to be a burnt offering instead of Isaac. 72. And this ram was advancing to Abraham when Satan caught hold of him and entangled his horns in the thicket, that he might not advance to Abraham, in order that Abraham might slay his son.

In my own opinion, the ram was caught in the thicket so that Abraham could catch him and use it for his sacrifice. So Yahweh had the ram caught up, where otherwise, the aging Abraham may never have been able to lay hold of it. Of course, the appearance of Satan in this story is an innovation by later, and probably rabbinical, hands. Continuing with Jasher:

“73. And Abraham, seeing the ram advancing to him and Satan withholding him, fetched him and brought him before the altar, and he loosened his son Isaac from his binding, and he put the ram in his stead, and Abraham killed the ram upon the altar, and brought it up as an offering in the place of his son Isaac. 74. And Abraham sprinkled some of the blood of the ram upon the altar, and he exclaimed and said, this is in the place of my son, and may this be considered this day as the blood of my son before the Lord.…

“76. And Satan went to Sarah_, and he appeared to her in the figure of an old man very humble and meek, and Abraham was yet engaged in the burnt offering before the Lord. 77. And he said unto her, dost thou not know all the work that Abraham has made with thine only son this day? for he took Isaac and built an altar and killed him, and brought him up as a sacrifice upon the altar, and Isaac cried and wept before his father, but he looked not at him, neither did he have compassion over him. 78. And Satan repeated these words, and he went away from her, and Sarah heard all the words of Satan, and she imagined him to be an old man from amongst the sons of men who had been with her son, and had come and told her these things.…

For whatever reason Clifton chose to cite this lengthy portion of Jasher simply to show that Satan can appear as a man. But all he had to cite was the first two chapters of the Book of Job.

“86. And behold, Satan came [again] to Sarah in the shape of an old man, and he came and stood before her, and he said unto her, I spoke falsely unto thee, for Abraham did not kill his son and he is not dead; and when she heard the word her joy was so exceedingly violent on account of her son, that her soul went out through joy; she died and was gathered to her people.”

Of course, these are all innovations on Scripture, which I would not accept as canonical.

The object for quoting these passages from the Book Of Jasher is to show the reader that Satan and his angel followers have the ability to take on the form of man as well as animals and birds. [In my opinion, they were men - WRF] An example of this can be taken by comparing Acts 12:20-23 with Josephus’ Antiq. 19:8:2, which I have written about before in my Watchman’s Teaching Letters and many brochures:

Clifton taught elsewhere in his papers that Satan and his angels fell before the creation of Adam, and that “their place was found no more” in heaven, as we are informed in Revelation chapter 12. Depicting Satan as a spirit here, I think Clifton had an episode of cognitive dissonance, but in the end Clifton and I agreed on the subject.

Acts 12:20-23: “20 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king’s country. 21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. 22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. 23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.”

Josephus’ Antiquities 19:8:2: “Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea [sic], which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honour of Cæsar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival, a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him: and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another (though not for his good), that he was a god: and they added,– ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But, as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said,– ‘I whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.’ When he had said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace; and the rumour went abroad everywhere, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king’s recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; for he reigned four years under Caius Cæsar ...”

[Clifton now exclaims:] If you didn’t catch the difference in “the angel” at Acts 12:22 and “an owl” at Josephus’ Antiquities 19:8:2 which I underlined, you also missed my point!

While this does not detract from Clifton’s primary thesis, this is probably the most significant disagreement I had with him, that remained unresolved during the 19 years that we corresponded or worked together. While Clifton thought that Josephus’ owl must have really been an angel, it is my opinion that God only used an owl as a messenger, which is what the word angel means. And just because Herod Agrippa I saw an owl, does not mean that he was actually slain by the owl. So while I accept both accounts, that of Luke and that of Josephus, as being true, the owl is not necessarily the angel, but it could be an angel in the literal sense of messenger. Clifton and I did discuss this, but we never resolved our difference of opinion. There were remarkably few such differences between us, but this was certainly one of them.

Continuing with Clifton:

To document the mixture of angel-kind with Adam-kind we will go to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8; The Clementine Homilies #8, chapters 15 & 18, “The Giants” & “The Law to the Survivors”:

“15 But from their unhallowed intercourse spurious men sprang; range greater in stature than ordinary men, whom they afterwards called giants; not those dragon-footed giants who waged war against God, as those blasphemous myths of the Greeks do sing, but wild in manners, and greater than men in size, inasmuch as they were sprung of angels; yet less than angels, as they were born of women ... 18 Since, therefore, the souls of the deceased giants were greater than human souls, inasmuch as they also excelled their bodies, they, as being a new race, were called also by a new name. And to those who survived in the world a law was prescribed of God through an angel, how they should live. For being bastards in race, of the fire of angels and the blood of women, and therefore liable to desire a certain race of their own, they were anticipated by a certain righteous law. For a certain angel was sent to them by God, declaring to them His will ...”

[Clifton responds:] Today we are seeing the genocide of an entire race before our very eyes, and most consider this phenomenon normal (even Christian). We use the terms “race-mixing” and “miscegenation”, but it might better be described as “species-mixing” (actually man-kind with animal-kind, or as in the days of Noah angel-kind with man-kind). Today’s mad scientists are already mutating DNA of various kinds in their laboratories; so don’t argue such things are impossible! As verified by Scripture, angel-kind has the ability to take on the form and functions of men. [Again, I would say that they always were men - WRF] At Josephus’ Antiquities 18:6:7 and 19:8:2, he records two instances where angels took on the form of an owl to which Eusebius (in his Church history) agrees at 2.10, and is found in Scripture at Acts 12:19-23. For an angel to transform to man, bird or animal kind is but one step away from cohabitation with them!

Instead, the word angel simply means messenger, although there was a race of these that rebelled against God in ancient times, and the owl could easily have been used as a messenger, since the ancients believed that owls bore evil omens from the gods. Clifton continues:

With this, it is clear that we have an incident where an angel appeared to Herod in the form of an owl. In doing so it was potentially only one step away from procreation with an owl. But it is recorded at Genesis 6 and at Jude that only the rebellious angels engaged in this sort of thing. The story of the angels that left their first estate would take another whole series of papers.

I would rather believe that the fallen angels had mixed their own kind with animal kind and corrupted the Creation of God in other ways, which in any event we can only conjecture. Again continuing with Clifton:

One of the reasons that an angel may have appeared to Herod as an owl is because he was an Edomite. According to the Strong’s Enhanced Lexicon in Libronix, #3917, the Hebrew definition reads in part: “... 1. Lilith, name of a female goddess who haunts the desolate places of Edom ...”. No doubt, to Herod, this owl was the angel of death!

This is found in a prophecy of Isaiah against Edom in Isaiah chapter 34, specifically in verse 14 where the Hebrew word for Lilith, which is often considered to be the name of a female demon, is rendered in the King James Version as “screech owl”. Now Clifton cites another source:

From the 1880 Library of Universal Knowledge, vol. 11, pages 139-140 under “Owl”, we read in part:

“... The owl has from early times been deemed a bird of evil omen, and has been an object of dislike and dread to the superstitious. This is perhaps partly to be ascribed to the manner with which it is often seen suddenly and unexpectedly to flit by when the twilight is deepening into night; partly to the fact that some of the best-known species frequent ruined buildings, while others haunt the deepest solitudes of woods; but, no doubt, chiefly to the cry of some of the species, hollow and lugubrious, but loud and startling, heard during the hours of darkness, and often by the lonely wanderer. It is evidently from this cry that the name owl is derived, as well as many of its synonyms in other languages, and of the names appropriated in different countries to particular species, in most of which the sound oo or ow is predominant, with great variety of accompanying consonants. Many of the owls have also another and very different cry, which has gained for one of them the appellation screech owl, and to which, probably, the Latin name strix and some other names are to be referred ...”.

[Clifton now responds and says:] This is a great explanation of the superstition associated with an owl as far as it goes, but when it has implications relating to Holy Writ, it takes on a much greater meaning. When the term “satyr” is used both in the Old Testament and in the Greek language to mean “devil” and “half man and half goat” respectively, it takes on the significance that anyone of mixed race is the personification of evil, or in other words, a devil, or a child of Satan. But when we investigate even further, and find out that in early Greek art and sculpture that “satyr” often meant an ape, the significance takes on an even greater perspective.

No wonder Paul stated at 1 Cor. 10:19-21:

“19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles [sic Israelite nations] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Yahweh: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of Yahshua, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of Yahshua’s table, and of the table of devils.”

When Paul wrote this he was referring to Lev. 17:7; Deut. 32:17 & Psa. 106:36-37 which I will now quote and substitute the Hebrew term “satyrs” in place of “devils” for a better understanding:

Lev. 17:7: “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto satyrs, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.”

Deut. 32:17: “They sacrificed unto satyrs, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.”

Psa. 106:36-37: “36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. 37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto satyrs ...”.

Here Clifton may have erred, since in the first passage he cites devil is sehir, or satyr, but in the other two it is shed, which is a demon-spirit. What this may indicate, however, where we would also agree, is that the sehir, or satyrs, are indeed demons, as they are also considered elsewhere.

It appears from all of this that it is pretty damn important to understand the Hebrew term “satyr”! I have done my very best to present this subject to the reader. If one doesn’t agree with what I have undertaken here, maybe he should study and write his own essay on the subject! Like Cuvier, when I look at a “Hottentot Venus”, I see a relative of an “Orang-Outang” with monstrously large “lips” and “ears” like that of “many apes”. Knowing this, how many “satyrs” do you have in your family tree? Given all of this, considering the present rate of miscegenation, it’ll not be long until satyrs (i.e., devils) are swinging from all our family trees! Not only this, but we are told by many sources that this is the Christian thing to do! The bottom line is: if one is not 100% pure White genetically, one is a satyr (i.e., devil)!

Whether we agree with Clifton or not on the nature or abilities of the angels which fell from heaven, there should be no doubt that the ancients equated demons, satyrs, and ape-like men and considered them all to be devils. Of course, this is not the only proof which we have to our contention that the non-Adamic races originated with the so-called fallen angels, however all together it helps to paint a more convincing picture, that on this subject, our most ancient predecessors thought as we do.