Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 1

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 1

We have just finished a commentary on the epistle of Paul to Titus, and that leaves just two epistles remaining to complete our commentary on the letters of Paul, which has already run for 108 weeks, and we only have remaining the two epistles written to Timothy. But because Titus and 1 Timothy are so similar in content, we have thought to take an intermission before making a presentation of it, and to do something else in the meantime. Furthermore, because we plan to travel soon and that places some restrictions on us, we have thought about what we are going to present while we are on the road later this Spring. So here we are going to begin a presentation and critical review of Clifton Emahiser’s series of short essays which he titled Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, and which he concluded after 24 parts. If my own memory serves me correctly, Clifton wrote these from 2000 through 2002, and they were among some of the very first materials which he had asked me to proofread.

There is another reason why I chose to begin presenting these Special Notices at this time, and that is to once again review many of the basic principles upon which our version Christian Identity faith is grounded. Looking around for a topic for this evening’s program, I came across a quote I had saved wherein Ted Weiland, a supposed Christian Identity pastor and former rodeo clown, was pontificating about the election of God, and had quoted William Cameron’s book, The Covenant People. Here are the quotes he offered:

The Bible is not a history of the human race at large, but one distinct strain of people amongst the family the races. All the other races are considered with reference to it…. The Bible deals with one race which flows like a Gulf Stream through the ocean of humanity. As the actual Gulf Stream touches two continents and blesses the nations, so this race, in its origin, history and destiny, was selected and equipped for the service of the [other] nations.

Of course, many people still have their own ideas about this, and that creates a difficulty. For when people get their own ideas about things, it always leads to confusion. A man will rise and demand, “By what right does God choose one race or people above another?” I like that form of the question. It is much better than asking by what right God degrades one people beneath another, although that is implied. God’s grading is always upward. If He [YHWH] raises up a nation, it is that other nations may be raised up through its ministry. If He exalts a great man, an apostle of liberty, or science, or faith, it is that He might raise a degraded people to a better condition. The Divine selection is not a prize, a compliment paid to the man or the race – it is a burden imposed. To appoint a chosen people is not a pandering to the racial vanity of a “superior people”; it is a yoke bound upon the necks of those who are chosen for a special service.

Where Weiland’s quote has “the family the races”, other citations of that same portion of Cameron’s book have “the family of races”. Weiland himself inserts the word “other” where Cameron later mentioned “the service of the [other] nations”.

These quotations from Cameron are very well representative of the poison of Jewish egalitarianism and humanitarianism which have infected Christian Identity from its formative years. There is no “family of races” in Scripture. There is no “service of the other nations” demanded of the children of Israel in Scripture. While Cameron is correct, that Divine selection was not a prize, the election of the children of Israel was not the election of one race above all other races, since the other races were never candidates for such an election. Rather, it was an election of one family of a particular race above all the other families of that same particular race. The children of Israel were selected by Yahweh above all of the other Genesis 10 Adamic families, to do His will. Therefore we read in Deuteronomy chapter 32 that “8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

The passage from Deuteronomy describes the separation event found in Genesis chapters 10 and 11, where some time after the flood, in the time of Peleg, the Adamic families were separated into divisions of the land. The other races, as they may have existed at that early time, were already separated geographically. Only the White race is found in Mesopotamia and the Levant at the time of Genesis chapter 10, as we see in Genesis chapter 2 that “8... the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” However there was evidently one other race in the midst of that garden, called “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, a race which Weiland denies the existence of, which are the so-called “fallen angels” of the Revelation, and we shall certainly discuss them as we present these essays.

A companion to this Jewish and Freemasonic egalitarianism which has infected Christian Identity is what is called “Dominion Theology”. This is the belief that the Adamic race was meant to serve and civilize the non-Adamic, or non-White races, teaching them the laws of God. Nothing could be further from the truth, and such an idea is not found in the dominion mandate of Genesis chapter 1. As David exclaimed in Psalm 147, “19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.” So David expressed joy that Yahweh did NOT give his laws unto other nations, and anyone who claims that the other races are among those nations must nevertheless accept the fact that the laws of God are not for them either. In truth, however, David was only speaking of the Adamic and the enemy Canaanite nations, and the other races as we know them were not even within his focus.

Dominion theology the way it was perceived by early British-Israel writers like William Cameron is wrong by any measure of Scripture. It was conceived as a means of upholding the legitimacy of the British Empire, and look at the result: Britain is now overrun and is being destroyed by all the non-White beasts over which she had at one time ruled. Some time around 1500 BC, the children of Israel were promised by Yahweh to be set above all the nations which He created, if they kept His commandments. As it says in Deuteronomy chapter 26: “18 And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; 19 And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken.” Not keeping the laws of their God, the children of Israel have no special status above the other Adamic nations, so Yahweh used those nations to punish them.

But the Adamic dominion mandate is different, and includes all Adamic nations, as it is described in Genesis chapter 1 and repeated after the flood to Noah in Genesis chapter 9 where it says: “1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” So even if the other so-called human races are included anywhere within the scope of this statement, Adamic dominion is not to teach them the law. Rather, Adamic dominion is that they too would be in dread and in fear of the children of Adam. By any measure, there is no racial egalitarianism in Scripture. The Adamic man, and especially the children of Israel, were never commissioned by Yahweh God to serve the other races.

As it says in Exodus chapter 32: “32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.” Yahweh is the God of Israel. Respecting people of other nations and other races is the very same thing as fearing their gods. Like we read in Genesis chapter 9, where the children of Israel were obedient to Yahweh, we read in Deuteronomy chapter 2: “25 This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.”

Everywhere the Camp of the Saints is now surrounded and is being overrun by the world’s non-Adamic races. These are the swarms of Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. These are the flood from the mouth of the Dragon. These are the tools of the international Jew, that Satan which has gathered all nations to battle against the Camp of the Saints: the children of Israel in the White nations formerly known as Christendom. Yet to this very day, as the prospects of the White race for existence in the world are getting dimmer and dimmer, we contend with clowns like Ted Weiland who spread this egalitarian doctrine amongst Identity Christians, deceiving them into believing that the sheep can possibly civilize the pigs, the wolves and the goats, so as not to get eaten. With this in mind, we shall present the first of Clifton’s Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline:

SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WHO DENY TWO SEEDLINE, #1

For those who may not be aware of it, we are at war! Even at the time of our birth, there was an enemy in the background plotting to destroy us along with all that we hold dear. This WAR has been going on continuously now, without a break, for over 7,000 years. There have been many fatalities by murder including Abel, the prophets, John the Baptist and his father Zacharias, the Messiah, and in more recent history, 20,000,000 White Ukrainians. While we have a genuine enemy, there are those on the sidelines who declare the enemy doesn’t exist. Such an attitude is the zenith of irresponsibility. While the enemy is literally destroying our very being, those distracting gainsayers only want to play a game of theology.

Ted R. Weiland, Jeffrey A. Weakley, Stephen E. Jones, among other one-seedliners (or maybe you could call them “non-seedliners”) go to a lot of effort to prove that the Two Seedline doctrine is a “dangerous” teaching. I will tell you what is really dangerous: When we have an enemy who has a history of 7,000 years of murder, including the Messiah, and to proclaim this enemy doesn’t exist, NOW THAT IS DANGEROUS! Because of this, I am getting a little perturbed and distraught over all the refuse being promoted by people well-meaning, but really immature-in-the-Word-of-Yahweh, who ridicule Two Seedline teaching. They go to great lengths with their oral gymnastics trying to prove it’s all a “spiritual” matter. They scoff at the idea of a genetic enemy. I am not the one making the claim that it is a matter of genetics, but the Bible unmistakably conveys this definite fact in no uncertain terms.

Clifton is right, that Ted Weiland and his ilk are, for the most part, sincere in what they believe, and they mean to do well. But on the other hand, they are pompously arrogant asses that cannot bear the possibility of correction on these important issues. I myself have run into Ted Weiland several times in social media and have challenged him, and he will not even engage with me. He uses the excuse that I call him a clown not to talk to me, but that is a lie. The proof of his lie was published on the Israelect.com website many years ago, in the form of a rather gentlemanly letter which I sent to Ted Weiland in 2005, while I was in prison. The letter is now published at Christogenea. I was a prisoner, I wrote to Weiland at length making honest inquiries, I challenged him kindly to show me where I was in error, and he never responded to my letter. For that reason, I call him a clown, and now he uses that as an excuse not to engage me when he really did not need an excuse in the first place, back in 2005. He is really a coward, as well as a clown.

Here Clifton used the term “one-seedliners”, but he suggested that they should be called “non-seedliners”, and that is more accurate. Even better, he suggests they be called “anti-seedliners” in the paragraph which follows. The non-seedliners simply do not see the empirical importance of race in Scripture. I do not know how the term “one-seedliners” came into existence, but it is really not accurate and I myself am not in favor of using it. However perhaps it is fitting for anyone who mistakenly thinks that Yahweh God created all of the world’s races as we know them today. Continuing with Clifton:

The one-seedliners (or non-seedliners, or maybe anti-seedliners) point to Genesis 4:1 where it says: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahweh.” They will say: “You see there, Cain was the son of Adam.” They don’t seem to realize that Eve was already pregnant with Cain before Adam “knew” her. If they would take the time to study and see what the rest of the Bible has to say on the matter, they wouldn’t come to that erroneous conclusion. Let’s consider 1 John 3:12:

“Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his [1/2] brother...”

Here Clifton put the designation for “1/2” in parentheses, which is indeed fitting, as the Greek and Hebrew had no words to describe a half-brother or sister. We will discuss this more as this series progresses. He continues:

Here, the word “of” in Greek is #1537 in the Strong’s Concordance. When used implying a person, it means “a son of.” (Will develop more on this shortly.) To show this, we will consider some of the various translations of the Bible on 1 John 3:12:

Most of these are paraphrases, but nevertheless exhibit the translator’s understanding of the preposition. Some are good, and others not so good:

The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips: “We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil ...”

Smith And Goodspeed: “We must not be like Cain who was a child of the evil one ...”

Living Bible: “We are not to be like Cain, who belonged to Satan ...”

New English Bible: “... unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one ...”

New Century Bible: “Do not be like Cain who belonged to the Evil One.”

The New Jerusalem Bible: “... not to be like Cain, who was from the Evil One ...”

The Modern Reader’s Bible: “... not as Cain was of the evil one ...”

Now that we have consulted some various translations on 1 John 3:12, let’s take a look at some Bible commentaries on this same verse:

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary page 1473: “He [Cain] is said to have belonged to the family of the wicked one.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 3, page 936: “Which showed him [Cain] to be of that wicked one, of the serpent’s seed: so early was such seed sown, and so ancient the enmity between seed and seed.”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary, volume 6, page 1077: “It showed that he [Cain] was as the firstborn of the serpent’s seed ...”

That it is speaking concerning the genetics of Cain and his descendants compared to the GENETICS of the woman and her descendants can be readily observed in 1 John 3:9 (three verses before) contrasting the seed (offspring) of the serpent and the seed (offspring) of the woman:

“Whosoever is born of Yahweh doth not commit sin; for his seed (spérma) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin because he is born of Yahweh.”

As Paul of Tarsus had also taught, as in Adam all men die, in Christ all men shall be made alive, so long as they are of the seed of Adam. There are greater spiritual reasons for the experience of our Adamic race, which have nothing to do with the other so-called races. Paul and John both indicate that in the end sin will not be accounted to pure Adamic people, which is the forgiveness in Christ. Continuing with Clifton:

Here the word for seed in the Strong’s Concordance is the Greek word #4690, spérma, and you can’t get any more genetic than that! In other words, the reason the descendants of Satan through Cain (the “Jews”) act the way they do is because it is in their genes. Likewise those born of Adam and Eve, the offspring of Yahweh, will behave according to their genetics.

There is a real problem with the word “seed”, spérma, expressed by W. E. Vine in his An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words. This is what he says on page 339:

“While the plural form ‘seeds’, neither in Hebrew nor in Greek, would have been natural any more than in English (it is not used in Scripture of human offspring; its plural occurrence is in 1 Sam. 8:15, of crops), yet if the Divine intention had been to refer to Abraham’s natural descendants, another word would have been chosen in the plural, such as ‘children’ ... ”

Note: There is nothing wrong with the first half of Vine’s statement, which is actually helpful, explaining that in Hebrew and Greek a singular “seed” is used to denote a collective plural, as in English. It is the second half of Vine’s statement which is faulty, using a word that describes a collective and limiting it to a single one. Further, in the original Hebrew, it may very well be that “seed” is always singular except in 1 Samuel 8:15, where multiple varieties are implied, and the plural would certainly be proper! It would, therefore, be proper to indicate that Eve’s “seed”, like Jacob’s “seed”, would be a singular kind of seed. There is a world of difference between a single variety of seed and a single seed. How are we to interpret Genesis 17:7 where it says: “... thy seed after their generation(s)”? It should be noted that all of Yahweh’s Covenants with Adam-man were made with a single variety of “seed.” The word “seed” in Scripture is important, for it excludes all those who are not “seed.”

Among other things, Clifton’s words here had later inspired me to write a two-part series of essays titled The Seed of Inheritance, where I addresed Vine’s statements in greater depth. Continuing with Clifton:

Whether or not Vine had an ax to grind is hard to say, but he doesn’t seem to ring entirely true according to Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, page 377 where Wilson states concerning this word:

“... semen virile, hence children, offspring, posterity; spoken also of one child when an only one ...”

It would seem that Vine is applying the singular “seed”, spérma, in all cases, whether in a collective sense or in situations where there is but one child. Also, Vine’s statement does not square with #2233 (seed) in the Gesenius’ Old Testament Lexicon. I believe that many of the one-seedliners have been misled by Vine. By Vine applying a false premise for the word “seed”, spérma, it would be hard to estimate his influence in many Bible commentaries and religious books. There is one thing about it: either Vine is wrong or Wilson is wrong! It should also be noted, Vine referred to various “Rabbis” regarding the word “seed.” More than likely, this is where he got the idea that in all Scripture, both Old and New Testament, in every case, the word “seed” was used in the singular.

I would assert that even in the cases where the word seed is used to describe a single son, it is still used in the collective sense, because in a single son is there remains the ultimate hope of having many descendants. Continuing with Clifton:

HOW THE IDEA OF ONE SEED CAME ABOUT

If you will look up #2233 in your Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, page 255, you will find the following comment in brackets, which indicates it is the writer’s opinion:

“[The remark upon Gen. 3:15 is intended apparently to contradict its application to the Lord Jesus Christ and his redemption, as if he could not be the seed of the woman; in reply it will here suffice to remark, that in the very passage cited, immediately after Gen. 4:25, it is clear that [2233, seed] is used of one son, namely, Seth, when he was not an only one, because Cain was yet alive; and further, this seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the tempter, ‘thy head’, which can in no sense apply to any but Christ individually, who became incarnate ‘that by means of death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.’]”

So Clifton is demonstrating that the idea of seed referring to a single individual only comes from Church doctrine, but not from Scripture. The Church developed a doctrine whereby Christ alone is the seed of Genesis 3:15, Christ alone is the singular seed of Galatians 3:15, and doing that, the Bible is made to conflict with itself in many other places, such as where it says of Abraham in Genesis, which Paul quoted in Romans, that “In Isaac shall thy seed be called”, a reference to the children of Israel and not merely to Christ. The Church doctrine purposefully seeks to nullify the racial message of the Scriptures. Continuing with Clifton:

There are several things the writer has assumed which really are not in context or Biblically applied correctly:

(1) The death of Yahshua was not the bruising of the head of the serpent, but the bruising of the heel of the Messiah for He arose again. (2) The “seed” of the woman of Genesis 3:15 is not implied in the singular, for in Hebrews 2:11 it indicates Yahshua has many physical brethren, and He is not ashamed to call them as such. Also, I would remind you again of Genesis 17:7 quoted above [“thy seed after their generations”]. (3) In Romans 16:20, Paul told the Romans they would soon tread upon the head of Satan. By Yahshua using the Romans as His representatives to do this, suggests very strongly, with this “bruising”, He was not acting in a “singular” individual sense. No doubt, this “bruising” took place when the Roman army besieged Jerusalem, for the majority of “Jews” there at that time were of their father, Satan. Those who know the story of the establishing of Rome, understand it was founded under the sign of the wolf, Romulus and Remus. This is the insignia of Benjamin. In other words, many of the Roman soldiers under Titus were Benjamites. Also Zerah-Judah had settled in that same area at one time and probably had a bigger role than imagined, and was in all likelihood part of that Roman army. Also, if you will check Josephus’ Antiquities 17:8:3, you will find there were Israelite-Germans and Israelite-Galatians (Scythians and Kelts) in that Roman Army to help bruise the serpent’s head. With this, Yahshua was using His people Israel to incapacitate the Satanic “seed” at Jerusalem. While the Serpent’s head was bruised with the siege of Jerusalem, I am sure that it was just the beginning of the bruising which he will eventually receive.

I cannot recall if I had this in mind when I wrote Classical Records of Trojan-Roman-Judah a few years later, but Clifton was expressing things learned from older Identity writers. I would express a certainty that the emblems of the tribes were confused with one another in the many centuries of migration before the time of Christ. Continuing with Clifton:

From this, it is obvious the “seed of the woman” of Genesis 3:15 is collective in nature as well as the serpent’s “seed.” Let’s now consider John 8:44:

SMITH & GOODSPEED ON JOHN 8:44

“The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out your father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character, for he is a liar and the father of them.”

You can see very clearly, then, this verse is not speaking in a “spiritual” sense as most one-seedliners would have you to believe. If so, how would one murder someone spiritually? It would be ridiculously absurd to interpret this verse in a “spiritual” manner. When it is speaking of murder in this verse, it is speaking of Cain murdering Abel. It is not speaking of Cain murdering Abel “spiritually”, but physically. I am not the only one who understands this verse in such a way. The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith, published by the Thomas Nelson Publishers, page 1203, understands John 8:44 to be speaking of the murder of Abel by Cain, for it makes reference to Genesis 4:8. This is an entire book of cross-references. As far as I know, this book is in no way promoting the Two Seedline doctrine, nor does it have an ax to grind on this subject. Let’s take a look at Genesis 4:8 to which this book makes reference from John 8:44:

“And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”

For evidence to help prove that John 8:44 is speaking of the “Jews” as being descendants of Cain, and that Smith & Goodspeed have translated this passage correctly, we will check on the word “OF” , like in “Ye are of your father the devil.” The Strong’s number in the Greek is 1537. The New Testament Word Study Dictionary by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates devotes five pages to define and expound the word “OF” as used in the Greek, pages 529-534. Obviously, I cannot quote this entire document here, but cite only that which is relevant to John 8:44:

“1537.... Preposition governing the genitive, primarily meaning out of, from, of, as spoken of such objects which were before another ... Of the origin or source of anything, i.e., the primary, direct, immediate source ... Of persons, of the place, stock, family, condition, meaning out of which one is derived or to which he belongs ... Of the source, i.e., the person or thing, out of or from which anything proceeds, is derived, or to which it pertains ...”

When I translated the Christogenea New Testament, I very frequently wrote the phrase from of where the preposition ἐκ appears, as it is used with the Genitive Case which by itself denotes of, or possession. This practice is purposely redundant. I did it to show that the word denoted the source or origin of a person or thing, and not merely an association. In regard to Cain, nowhere in Scripture can it be shown that he merely followed a devil in his behavior, or that he was merely a student or disciple of some devil. There is no mention of Cain’s having attended the First Baptist Church of Satan in Genesis. Clifton speaks at greater length on Genesis 4:1 further on in this series, and we will hold off on any further commentary we have to offer until then. Once more, continuing with Clifton:

MORE ON THE WORD “OF” IN JOHN 8:44

As I stated before herein, we really need to examine the word “OF” in John 8:44, for it is very critical in understanding that the “Jews” are the descendants of Cain. The word “OF” is the Greek word #1537 in the Strong’s Concordance. Most one-seedliners will claim John 8:44 should be taken spiritually only; that it is not speaking of a literal genetic offspring of Satan through Cain. Jeffrey A. Weakley (a one-seedliner) in his 1994 booklet The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, page 24, in his attempt to discredit the Two Seedline teaching, says this of John 8:44 (this is an “Argument” and “Answer” debate conducted solely by him in his booklet):

“This does not show that Cain was of that wicked one physically, but rather he was of that wicked one spiritually. Let’s look at part of 1 John 3:8: ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil ...’ When one studies out 1 John 3:8-12 the meaning becomes crystal clear. It must be talking about who we are serving spiritually. If it is talking about physical descendants, then all of us are physical descendants of Satan because we all have sinned. ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ...’ (Rom 3:23) ... So if we have all sinned and if he that committeth sin is of the devil, we must conclude that all of us are of the devil ... So what is it saying? Are you of the devil by physical descent or are you of the devil because you serve him (or have served him in the past)?” ... “ARGUMENT [of the two seedliners]: John 8:44 says, ‘Ye are of your father the devil ...’ This shows that the devil is their physical father” ... ANSWER [by Jeffrey A. Weakley]: “Wrong. This once again shows that the devil is their spiritual father (the one that they serve).”

A few years after this, when I first read and translated the epistles of John from the Greek, I realized that English readers could not possibly understand the first epistle of John properly, because John makes a distinction which all of the translations I have seen in English neglect. That distinction is between those who merely commit sin, and those who have devised it, those who have created the environment in which man becomes prone to sin, those who are the panderers of sin. For that reason, in the sin of Adam all Adamic men die, but in the mercy of Christ only Adamic men, all of them, shall be made alive. For that reason John says that one cannot sin if his seed is in him – because as Paul explains, ultimately sin will not be accounted to him. John is writing on a spiritual level, but he is writing about the physical creation of God. So in response to this I ultimately wrote an essay titled Sin and the First Epistle of John. Back to Clifton, where he justly criticizes Jeffrey Weakley:

We must then determine whether John 8:44 is speaking of a “spiritual” children or a physical children. The word “OF” is critical in John 8:44 for determining this. The word in the Greek is #1537. In John 8:44 the Greek form is ἐκ which is sometimes ἐξ. You can check this out in most any of the Greek interlinears. [The distinction is generally only whether a vowel or consonant follow the word.] The New Testament Greek Study Aids, by Walter Jerry Clark, says, on page 230, about the Greek word ἐκ: “out of ... with the genitive: by means of, out of.” The Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A. Young, page 95 says the following about the Greek word ἐκ: “ἐκ often conveys special extensions ‘out of’ or ‘from.’ For example, the prophet said that God would call His Son out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15)” From the Greek to English Interlinear by George Ricker Berry, page 31 of his Greek-English New Testament Lexicon, we have this on ἐκ: “ἐκ or before a vowel, ἐξ, a preposition governing genitive, from, out of.” The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 189 expresses ἐκ this way: “... out of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection ...” In other words, the “Pharisees” in John 8:44 had a close genetic connection out of or from “the devil.”

There are 32 other places in the New Testament where this Greek word (1537) ἐκ is used in the same sense. Let’s see if these other passages are speaking of physical or “spiritual” beings: In Matthew 1:3 it speaks of “Phares and Zara being ‘OF’ Thamar.” Does that sound “spiritual”? Again in Matthew 1:5 it says “Booz begat Obed ‘OF’ Ruth.” Again, does that sound “spiritual”? In Matthew 1:18 it speaks of the Christ “child being ‘OF’ the Holy Ghost.” Again, does that sound “spiritual”? In Matthew 1:20 it again speaks of the Christ “child being ‘OF’ the Holy Ghost.” Again, does that sound “spiritual.”? In Mark 5:8 the Redeemer commanded an unclean spirit to “come out ‘OF’ the man.” Does the “man”, from which the spirit was cast, sound “spiritual”? In Luke 2:36 it speaks of one “Phanuel ‘OF’ the tribe of Aser.” Does this sound like a real person or a spirit? In Acts 13:21 it speaks of “a man ‘OF’ the tribe of Benjamin.” Again, are we talking “spiritually” here? In Romans 1:3 it speaks of Yahshua being “made ‘OF’ the seed of David according to the flesh.” How do the one-seedliners claim this one to be “spiritual” when it states outright, “flesh”? After all, it’s the same word “OF” as used in John 8:44?!?! In Romans 16:10 it speaks of “them which are ‘OF’ Aristobulus’ [household].” Can we ask again if this is someone who is a real person or something strangely “spiritual”? In Romans 16:11 it speaks of “them that be ‘OF’ the [household] of Narcissus.” Does the word “OF” here apply to some real person or do we have to relegate it to something “spiritual”? In 1 Corinthians 11:12, it says “the woman [is] ‘OF’ the man.” I can just imagine some ardent one-seedliner explaining to his wife she is not a real person! In Philippians 4:22 it speaks of “they that are ‘OF’ Caesar’s household.” I guess that we Two Seedliners are now supposed to believe that Caesar was something spiritual! In Hebrews 7:5 it speaks of “the sons ‘OF’ Levi ...” and “out ‘OF’ the loins of Abraham.” I guess the one-seedliners would now have us Two Seedliners to believe that the Levite’s and Abraham’s loins were some kind of a “spiritual” mirage! In 1 John 3:8 we are told: “He that committeth sin is ‘OF’ the devil.” The devil (Satan) was the original lawbreaker, and that is what sin is all about! In 1 John 3:12 it further describes “Cain [who] was ‘OF’ that wicked one.” The one-seedliners really do some rhetorical gymnastics with this passage. Jeffrey A. Weakley said this passage was also “spiritual”. In Revelation 3:9 it states: “I will make them ‘OF’ the synagogue of Satan ...” A synagogue is a worship house of Satan. The “Jews” truly do worship Satan their father and they admit with their own words that they are descended from Cain. I have in my possession a quotation from a publication Liberal Judaism published January, 1949 by a Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver who states in part, speaking of the then-new State of Israel: “... the concept of the wandering Jew ... For the curse of Cain, the curse of being an outcast and a ‘wanderer’ over the face of the earth has been removed ...”

It is only the one-seedliners who do not understand that Cain was to be a “vagabond”, a “wanderer” and having the “curse of Cain” upon him. Name one other group today [besides the Jews] that fits this category [so it must identify the Jews]. In Revelation 5:5 it speaks of “the Lion of the tribe ‘OF’ Judah.” Are we also supposed to believe that this is something “spiritual”, and deny that Yahshua came in the flesh? In Revelation 7:5-8 we have: “‘OF’ the tribe of Judah ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Reuben ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Gad ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Aser ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Nepthalim ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Manasses ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Simeon ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Levi ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Issachar ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Zabulon ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Joseph ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Benjamin.” If we are to be consistent, (a word which the one-seedliners like to use), if the same Greek word that is used in all these references is physical in nature, so, too, is the word “OF” in John 8:44! Very convenient to throw up the word “spiritual” whenever you want to forge a barrier and not accept the truth which Yahshua spoke: “Ye are OF your father the devil.” Yahshua was simply saying to the “Jews” that they were GENETIC chips off the old block.

Also, I suggest that most people who use the word “spiritual” in this way don’t even know what the word means. The dictionary might lead to the idea of a disembodied soul or an apparition; something mysterious or mystic. The Bible meaning for “spiritual” is: life as opposed to death. How does such a description of the word “spiritual” fit John 8:44? It’s obvious, it doesn’t!

I do not remember whether Clifton discusses it in this series or not, but Luke chapter 11 is an excellent second witness to John 8:44 where it says in words attributed to Christ: “50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation [race]; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [race].” As Clifton has also argued elsewhere, only those of the race of Cain can be accountable for the blood of Abel. Returning to Clifton:

WOMEN HAVE “SEED” TOO

While women do not produce sperm, they contribute as much to the DNA of a child as does the man. The very instant at which the sperm unites with the ovum is when the life of a newly conceived child begins. This very first united living cell begins the birth process. This process is then continued until every single cell in the newly formed child is married with the blueprints of both the father and the mother. Science knows today that each single cell of the human body has two sets of 23 chromosomes, or a total of 46. I will now quote The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 9, page 192d:

“Every human body cell contains two sets of 23 chromosomes. These two sets look very much alike. Each chromosome in one set can be matched with a particular chromosome in the other set. Egg cells and sperm cells have only one set of 23 chromosomes. These cells are formed in a special way, and end up with only half the number of chromosomes found in body cells. As a result, when an egg and a sperm come together, the fertilized egg cell will contain the 46 chromosomes of a normal body cell. Half of the chromosomes come from the mother, and half from the father.”

With this in mind, we know then, the female supplies 23 chromosomes from one of her egg cells and the male supplies the other 23 chromosomes from one of his sperm cells. Once we understand this, it gives a better portrayal of what the Bible is talking about when it mentions the word “seed.” One particular one-seedliner, Charles Weisman, went to great lengths to try to prove Eve didn’t have any “seed.” Inasmuch as Eve was taken from Adam, she could only have the very identical DNA (or “seed”) as Adam.

Charles Weisman, who passed away just last year, was also dishonest. Genesis 3:15 clearly says “her seed”, and if Yahweh God Himself states that a woman has seed, who is man to argue? But Weisman was another anti-seedliner with an agenda, the same agenda as the turkey Ted Weiland. Returning to Clifton:

THE PARABLE OF THE “TARES”

The parable of the wheat and the tares is found in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43. Sandwiched in-between these passages in verse 35 is the statement: “I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Yahshua then revealed the significance of the parable as meaning He, being Yahweh, had fathered the good “seed” (wheat), and that the tares were fathered by the wicked one. At this point, His disciples were introduced to Two Seedline doctrine. If the disciples had understood it before, they wouldn’t have made the request to him to “declare the parable.” The declarations of the wheat and the tares are as follows:

(1) The good seed, spérma, (Adam and his descendants) were fathered by the Son of Man (Son of Adam, Yahweh/Yahshua). (2) The field is the world. (3) The good seed, (Adamites) are the genetic sons of Yahweh. [As Luke says, Adam is the son of God.] (4) The tares (“Jews”) are the genetic sons of Satan. (5) The enemy that fathered the tares is the serpent of Genesis 3:15. [We believe that there were more tares produced in the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, which repreesent the entire race of fallen angels, however the serpent of Genesis 3:15 certainly was the first to sow tares in among the wheat. The devil of Revelation 12.] (6) The harvest of both the wheat and the tares is at the end of the age. (7) The reapers are messengers (angels) identifying both the wheat and tares. (8) The tares are gathered by the messengers and put into fiery judgment. (9) The tares will wail and gnash their teeth at the messenger’s Two Seedline message. (10) Then the genetic sons of Adam will shine as the sun, and will inherit the Kingdom after the tares are destroyed.

The one-seedliners are identifying the “wheat”, but the Two Seedliners are identifying both the “wheat” and the “tares”! Only the messengers of Two Seedline fit this description as angels. While Judeo-churchianity claims the “tares” are the “wheat”, the one-seedliners declare there are no “tares.” I guess that makes the one-seedliners half Judeo-churchianity and half Israel Identity with only a half a message!!! (Maybe, also, half hot and half cold? Revelation 3:15-16, lukewarm.)

Surely Clifton will have a lot more to say of this parable of the wheat and the tares as this series progresses.