- Christogenea Internet Radio
Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland
Here I have decided to take a short break from my commentary On the Gospel of John, and have a little fun at the expense of a clown named Ted Weiland, a name which is probably too familiar to many of our listeners. But I guess some people will now wonder why I insist on doing this. The truth is that unlike many of the other men whom we have criticized over the years, most of whom we deeply respect in spite of any perceived flaws in their work, Weiland is still alive and well and spouting his nonsense under the pretense of being an Identity Christian, while he has willfully ignored all of our inquiries and criticisms. Weiland is actually a self-righteous universalist who would in effect eradicate Identity from Christianity altogether. But Weiland is also one of the ring-leaders of an entire circus of such clowns, which includes Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman, Jory Brooks and others. Two years ago I would have included Dave Barley in this list, but I have learned that he has openly recanted his former universalism, which is certainly to his credit. However while they are not quite as odious, Barley and Lawrence Blanchard and a few others still have subtle elements of universalism in their doctrines and scriptural interpretations.
Weiland had a book disputing our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 titled Eve, Did She or Didn’t She? I never read it, but Clifton has a copy on one of the shelves here somewhere and if I ever do, I might have yet another presentation to write. But for that Clifton had criticized Weiland frequently in his Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline series, and when I presented that here in podcasts throughout 2017, I hope to have expounded upon those criticisms. That series of papers was written by Clifton throughout 2002 and 2003. Then later, as I have also explained elsewhere, our friend Tony Gonyer had written Weiland a letter in 2005, and that letter compelled me to also write to Weiland, which I did in August of that year. Weiland never responded to my letter, and Clifton had it published on the Israelect.com website, where he added some citations from Weiland which were representative of the things with which we took issue. Since I have come to control Israelect.com I redirect many of the papers there to where they are posted at Christogenea. Now since I have been released from prison, since very late 2008, I have encountered Weiland many times in social media, and I have confronted him each time in a kindly manner, but he has only scoffed at me and he has refused to discuss any of these issues with me. For that he certainly does deserve the label clown.
Yahweh God be willing, our resolve has only strengthened over the years, and we are not going away. Ted Weiland and his cronies imagine themselves to be representative of Christian Identity truth, but they have only layered the recognition of the Israel of the covenants of God as a thin veneer over their version of so-called Judeo-Christianity, which is what they actually preach. So Weiland justifies sending Bibles to the negroes in Africa, and even boasts about it, among his many other stupid deeds. When I first got out of prison, where I was able to begin working to build my own ministry, I spoke with Clifton at length and we concluded that we would never convert these clowns, as they are all self-righteous, too full of themselves to realize or even admit their mistakes. So we agreed that it is better to continue to make examples of them, and therefore it has been my endeavor not to try to convince them, but to mock them and marginalize them as we do our best to advance Christian Identity scholarship and spread our creed as best as we can. Christian Identity certainly is truth, but only once the Identity portion and its consequences are properly understood.
To that end, many of our own critics often accuse us of focusing too much on race, and not enough on Christ. So I would challenge them to recall what Christ had told us, as we have recently discussed His words in John chapters 14 through 17 at great length. In John chapter 15 Christ told His disciples “10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love…. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” There are admonitions throughout the prophets that Yahweh loved only the children of Israel.
So the Christ who had spoken those words had also said “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs” and then “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 15. Gathering grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, we are in danger of scattering rather than gathering the people of God. It is imperative that we avoid bringing goats into the sheepfold, as Christ Himself has attested that He shall say to them “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”, in Matthew chapter 25. We can only properly focus on Christ, and we can only properly love our brethren once we can admit that there is indeed a difference between the sheep nations and the goat nations, and that the sheep nations obviously have a future in the Kingdom of Heaven, where the goat nations do not. So why should we waste our time and our resources on them now, actually hating our own brethren by depriving them of resources which they could put to better use? This is the danger of men such as Ted Weiland, in that teaching Christians universalism, he diverts them from edifying their own brethren whom they should love.
So when Tony Gonyer and I had each written Ted Weiland back in 2005, that had also compelled Clifton himself to write several short essays addressing Weiland’s errors. Now we shall present two of those essays here this evening, which Clifton first published as pamphlets but which were later posted at Israelect.com and then at his own website, once I had created it in early 2009. The first is Ted R. Weiland's Venom, which Clifton had evidently finished on September 2nd, 2005, only days before he transcribed the letter which I had written to Weiland in August, which he completed on September 5th. The second is Ted R. Weiland’s Gift of Bibles to Nigeria Brings Us “Twice As Much Evil”! That essay was completed in November of 2005. A third essay, which was written in the interim, was titled Ted R. Weiland Denounces Yahshua Christ, and I may present that at some other time.
Now we shall present
Ted R. Weiland's Venom, by Clifton Emahiser
Evidently Clifton wanted to make a pun, as Weiland denies that Eve was sexually seduced by a serpent, so that very denial, along with his other mistakes, makes Ted himself a serpent.
I am aware that this is very strong language, but sometimes a very strong antidote is needed to neutralize a very dangerous poison! Let’s examine the picture for a moment to see if Ted R. Weiland fits this title’s description. A serpent will usually catch the eye of its victim in order to hypnotize its prey before making its deadly strike. A serpent will coil and hold its motionless pose with its mouth wide open, with fangs extended and forked-tongue appearing. Then suddenly the serpent strikes out burying his fangs in the flesh of its victim and injecting its deadly poison. And if the proverbial shoe fits, then let Weiland wear it!
Before we commence, let me say that Clifton is going to be quoting from some of Weiland’s sermons which he had on audio cassette. I have at least most of Clifton’s audio collection in that format, and one day hope to extract at least the relevant material and put it into digital format. Having many tasks and only two hands, I do not yet know if I will succeed. So Clifton continues:
Let’s now examine the nature of the poison. To do this I will quote from Ted R. Weiland’s remarks on one of his audio cassette tapes entitled Some Basics, where Weiland apologizes for the other races by saying:
“... but that doesn’t mean that a non-Israelite cannot join himself to Yahweh, and partake – and why wouldn’t we want them to? Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?, and under His Laws? – so we could have commerce with those nations .... not only for my race but for their race as well ... I have come to appreciate the other races and their individuality more since understanding this [Identity] message than before I understood it. God created everything to be good ... have you ever noticed the media always say we call the other races ‘mud people’? I have never in my life ever heard the term except in the media. Not amongst the people I preach to ... so why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message? ... If anything, we should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves because of our past reputation and our past history as a people and what we have squandered because of who we are. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our forefathers more than the rest of the races. They are wallowing in their sin because of our sin. Let’s just face it ...”
Clifton will answer this in his own words below, but I cannot help myself but to comment now. Yahweh chastised the ancient children of Israel for the exact same thing which Weiland encourages here, communion with the other races “so we could have commerce with those nations” is the very same motivation behind Mystery Babylon, and Weiland promotes it! The law was given only to the children of Israel, and for that reason David rejoiced where he wrote in the 147th Psalm, speaking of Yahweh, that “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.” Yet Weiland uses fine language and emotional arguments while pretending to know more than David.
The children of Israel were condemned for trading with the other nations, even other Adamic nations, in Hosea chapter 2. There we read: “2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; 3 Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst. 4 And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms. 5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink. 6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. 7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. 8 For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal.” Continuing with Clifton where he will cite Weiland once again:
Then again, Ted R. Weiland on an audio CD labeled “Mission to Israel”; entitled You Might Be A Christian if... Pt. 9, (CD 656), and the address given: P.O. Box. 248. Scottsbluff, NE 69363, made additional poisonous, false allegations saying the following:
“... And don’t you dare, and I don’t think anyone would here – I’m sure you wouldn’t, but somebody who might hear this on tape – don’t you dare interpret what I just said as racist and supremacist, because I assure you that one can be a separatist without being a racist ... without being racist or supremacist. How do I know that? Because I’m a separatist, and I denounce racists and supremacists. And if you don’t want to believe me on that, then you might want to possibly take the word of hundreds – and who knows how many more – maybe more than that, you might want to take the word of hundreds of black Nigerians and others to whom this ministry has sent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of free Bibles and tapes since its very inception. I’m not a separatist because I hate other races. I’m a separatist because I love Yahweh and His laws which require – which require that His people live separate segregated lives .... Now once again there are going to be all kinds of objections. Someone is surely to counter that this passage is addressing religious, not racial separation, to which I respond – not that there are some exceptions – that people can’t from other races, and have in the past, joined themselves to Yahweh and embraced the Covenant ...”
If only he would stop making excuses for niggers, Ted Weiland might be a Christian. In the meantime, he is just a communist posing as a Christian. Now Clifton responds:
In the first place, Yahshua Christ Himself is a RACIST, for Matthew 13:47-50 in substance reads:
“47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea [of people], and gathered of every race [or kind in the King James Version]: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good [racial kind] into vessels, but cast the bad [racial kind] away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them [the bad racial kind] into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Of course, the parable of the net accords with the parable of the sheep and the goats. Now Clifton responds:
Since I have already addressed the racial issue in my Was Christ Politically Incorrect? Matt. 13:47-50 brochure [essay - WRF], I will now redirect my focus on Weiland to a different, but just as deadly, fallacious premise which he maintains. To show you what I mean, I will take a few excerpts from the two previous quotes by Weiland here:
“... but that doesn’t mean that a non-Israelite cannot join himself to Yahweh, and partake – and why wouldn’t we want them to? Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?, and under His Laws? ... so why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message? ... to which I respond – not that there are some exceptions – that people can’t from other races, and have in the past, joined themselves to Yahweh and embraced the Covenant ...”
To that Clifton responds:
What you have just read from the very lips of Ted R. Weiland himself is out-and-out malicious fraud of the most reprobate (foreordained to damnation) kind. When a person or party of persons are named in a binding and exclusive contract, it is downright fraud to allow a third party to become a benefactor of that pact, or enter in by any means, direct or indirect! It’s not open to question or debate! Hence, Ted R. Weiland has made himself a criminal in Yahweh’s sight, for no one has the authority to break or amend Yahweh’s covenants in any way, shape or manner! Weiland needs to cease and desist from his “God-syndrome” attitude.
Before we continue with Clifton on the covenants, let me make an illustration of a few things in respect to Weiland’s attitude and claims which Weiland has always missed. The Old Covenant did have provisions where certain strangers could live in Israel for three generations and be admitted to the congregation. But that is a specific command concerning specific people, found in Deuteronomy chapter 23. While the texts have Edomite and Egyptian, we would debate and assert the contention that they originally had Aramaean and Egyptian. Even Paul described the Edomites as vessels of destruction, and Yahweh in Malachi had said that He hated Esau, which Paul had also quoted. We have many examples of the Hebrew letters for ‘D’ and ‘R’ in the manuscripts being confused, and also the Hebrew words for Aram and Edom being confused. However that is immaterial. The commandment was nevertheless given in regard to particular people in a particular time, and those particular people do not exist in their same form and nations today. We cannot extend the concept, or the law, allowing certain people to join themselves to Israel to everyone or anyone, when in fact the same Scriptures in Deuteronomy chapter 23 also permanently and explicitly excluded other people.
Other commandments in the Old Testament law explain that sojourners who submitted to circumcision could eat the Passover, or that they must observe the Sabbaths and other similar things. But nothing ever included them in the promises which were made to Abraham. Simply because they were allowed to live in Israel under certain conditions does not mean that they were ever included in the covenants. Weiland confuses these issues. At the end of 2 Chronicles chapter 2 we see that Solomon numbered the strangers in Israel, at just over a hundred and fifty thousand, and then he laid burdens upon them. The very fact that he was able to number them demonstrates that they remained identifiable and that they were not actually assimilated into the body of Israel, or perhaps he would not have been able to number them. Weiland is only assuming that strangers became Israelites, without any actual proof of something which is impossible in the first place. Abraham’s seed came from his loins, and no man can choose for himself to be of another man’s seed.
Furthermore, the New Covenant was also made with specific people, and Yahweh God Himself had said that He would write His law in their hearts. Those people are the House of Israel and the House of Judah explicitly, and no one else could ever be included because Yahweh did not leave room for any other inclusion when He stated the terms of that covenant. For that same reason, in Galatians chapter 3 Paul of Tarsus had said that no man could disannul or add to the covenant for his own benefit. It is folly for Weiland to think that he could teach anyone the law and that anyone could thereby attach themselves to the covenants. Uttering those remarks, he has even confounded the terms of the Old and New Covenants. He has created a lie, and he has deceived himself with it. But we are compelled to address it because he continues to deceive others.
This is why Clifton had accused Weiland of pretending to be God, and now we will continue with Clifton’s response, where he had already presented some of the assertions which I just made, but in a different way. I will break up his paragraph to include the Scriptures he cites:
One simply cannot go around including the non-Adamic in the Edenic covenant (Gen. 2:7)!
Genesis 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
One simply cannot take it upon themselves to include the “serpent’s seed” in the Adamic covenant (Gen. 3:14-22)!
Genesis 3:15-22, read in part: “15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 17 And unto Adam he said… 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”
It is not fitting to include the non-Noahic people under the Noahic covenant (Gen. 6:18; 9:1, 7, 8, 9, 11)!
Genesis 6:18: “But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.”
Genesis 9: “1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth… 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. 8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you… 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Another verse in Genesis chapter 9 shows how we should expect the non-Adamic races to behave towards us, so long as we walk in the light of our God, and that is verse 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.”
It is downright fraud to attempt to include the non-Abrahamic under the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 13:16; 15:5, 9-10; 17:4-7; 22:15-18)!
Genesis 13:16: “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. ”
Genesis 15:5, 9-10: “5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.”
Genesis 17:4-7: “4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”
Genesis 22:15-18: “15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”
It is madness to attempt to include non-Israelites under the Mosiac covenant (Deuteronomy 26:17-18)!
Deuteronomy 26:17-19: “17 Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: 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.”
It is not suitable to attempt to include non-Israelites under the covenant dubbed the “Palestinian covenant” (Deuteronomy 28:1 15; 30:19)!
Deuteronomy 28 1-2, 15; 30:19: “28:1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: 2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God…. 15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee…. 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
One should not attempt to include any non-Davidic people under the Davidic covenant (1 Sam. 16:13; Psalm 89: 34-37; Jer. 33:20-21)!
1 Samuel 16:13 “Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward….”
Psalm 89:34-37 “34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. 35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.”
It is not proper to include any non-Solomonic people under the Solomonic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12:16)!
2 Samuel 7:12-16: “12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.”
And surely it is unlawful to the highest degree to attempt to bring non-Israelites under the New Covenant for which only the House of Israel and the House of Judah are legally named (Jer. 31:31-32; Heb. 8:8-11)!
Jeremiah 31:31-33: “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.”
The point Clifton has made is that if Yahweh did not leave a provision for other races in any of these covenants, then neither can we assume that other races may have any part in any of these covenants, and neither can we interpret any other verse of scripture in a way which gives them a part in these covenants. To do so is to attempt to change the Word of God for ourselves. So Clifton appropriately concludes:
Yet Weiland is advocating bringing the non-Adamic in by way of the New Covenant, and there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for such a thing. The people of the New Covenant are the same people of the Old Covenant! [close, stop, period]
Clifton makes an exclamation which indicates a fact, that no further argument can possibly be made. Of course, it would not be enough for a clown like Weiland, so Clifton continues:
A lot of people are not aware that there was a separate covenant with Sarah, which excludes the seed of Hagar and Keturah! [Paul mentioned this covenant as a promise to Sarah in Romans chapter 9 - WRF] Just who is this Ted R. Weiland, with a God-syndrome, to proclaim these Covenant things are not so? Evidently, Weiland never read that only Isaac (the son of Sarah) was placed on the altar! That made Isaac’s sons (including daughters), and no one else, the exclusive, sanctified (set apart) possession of Yahweh!
While it included the seed of both Jacob and Esau, from later Scriptures it is obvious that each had his own purpose, and the promises were transmitted through Jacob exclusively. In the ancient world, what was placed on the altar of a god became the property of that god, and so it was when Abraham laid his son on the altar: he dedicated him to Yahweh. So Isaac’s fate was no longer in the hands of Abraham, but Abraham surrendered his son to Yahweh, and Isaac’s fate from that time is solely in Yahweh’s hands. Of all people, Yahweh commanded only Isaac to be dedicated to Him, and anyone who attempts to change the significance of that is a fool deceived. Clifton continues:
Ted R. Weiland exposed his hand when he said: “... not that there are some exceptions – that people can’t from other races, and have in the past, joined themselves to Yahweh and embraced the Covenant ...”
It is apparent that Weiland is hanging his hat incorrectly on Isaiah 56:3-8 which says: “3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to Yahweh, speak, saying, Yahweh hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith Yahweh unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to Yahweh to serve him, and to love the name of Yahweh, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 Yahweh Elohim which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”
This passage is not at all saying what Weiland conjectures (guesses) it is saying, and surely it is conjecture on his part! That “Yahweh ... separated [the son of the stranger] from his people” informs us that the stranger was one of His people in the first place!
We must understand that Isaiah was writing those words as Israel was taken of into captivity to be scattered among the nations, and ultimately to fulfill the promise that Israel would become many nations. So in the early years of that process, that is the context of Isaiah chapter 56. It is a promise that Yahweh would take special care of those who would hearken to Him even in the time of their estrangement, which is the captivity. The “son of the stranger” of Isaiah chapter 56 is only the offspring of an Israelite who may have become estranged from his people in the process of the captivity. It can not refer to anyone of any other race or nation. Ted Weiland is wrong, and it is either because he is purposely lying, or because he simply cannot read. Again continuing with Clifton:
The following is what I wrote on this subject in my brochure The Lie Of Universalism, #1:
Clifton maintained the “#1” in the title, but, unfortunately, there never was a #2. So citing his own essay, he says:
Once we understand that the northern Ten Tribes had been divorced by the Almighty along with most of Judah, they were cut-off from the Covenant and became estranged to Him. The tribes, being cut-off from the Covenant, became like a “eunuch” or a “dry tree.” For that period, Israel’s seed had been cut-off, so figuratively, the simile of a “eunuch” is appropriate. Upon understanding that Israel was the “eunuch” or collectively of the tribes “eunuchs”, there is no longer a conflict with Deuteronomy 23:1. This passage is not talking about bringing non-Israelites under the Covenant, but quite the opposite. Once Yahshua died for our Redemption, we were then brought back under the New Covenant, which includes only the House of Israel and the House of Judah, (Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrews 8:8).
That the seed of Israel would be “cut off” is a matter of prophecy, for example in Isaiah chapter 48 where we read: “17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea: 19 Thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me.” Israel having been cut off, the estranged Israelites were therefore described allegorically as eunuchs in Isaiah chapter 56. Continuing with Clifton:
Some may argue that the “stranger” in Isaiah 56:3 & 6 is #5236 instead of #1616. When Israel was divorced, they became equivalent to non-Israelites until Yahshua purchased them back (redeemed them), so #5236 is not out of order in this passage. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s Commentary, page 582, on this passage describes #5236 thusly: “the man — Hebrew, enosh, ‘a man in humble life’, in contradistinction to Hebrew, ish, ‘one of high rank’.”
Here Clifton is making an error which persists throughout these two papers. I do not know how this error came to be, although I was a proofreader for Clifton at the time. But he had other proofreaders, and I have accounts of the confusion that sometimes had caused him. Here the word for stranger in Isaiah chapter 56 verses 3 and 6 is nekar, Strong’s # 5236, as we see that Clifton has acknowledged. But then he goes on to discuss the definition for a word that does not appear in the verse, which is Strong’s # 582, enosh. In the paragraph above, Clifton even started to cite a description of nekar and instead supplied a definition for enosh. As he proceeds he continues to discuss and define enosh instead of nekar, but I will discuss the proper definitions of this word further on.
In this sense the meaning of enosh is very fitting, for Israel was humbled when she was punished, Deuteronomy 28:44. That verse reads: “He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.” Surely, when Israel became the tail instead of the head the term enosh was not out of order. When are we ever going to start reading these things in their proper context? What this passage actually says and what Weiland thinks it says are worlds apart from each other.
To show that the divorced Israelites were considered “strangers”, all one need do is read Ezekiel 14:5: “That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.” Then in Ephesians 2:12 & 19: “That at that time ye were without Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without Yahweh in the world .... Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of Yahweh.” Again in Colossians 1:21: “And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.” Also we must consider 1 Peter 2:11: “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” Deuteronomy 28:43 proclaims that Israel would become lower than the stranger and humbled below the enosh.
Here Clifton has ended the citation of his paper, although he did not indicate that explicitly. So now he concludes:
From this, it is highly apparent that Ted R. Weiland is a one-verse-at-a-time bible expert spelled with a small “b”, for as he reads it, it becomes unrecognizable.
It is absolutely not true which Jory S. Brooks asserted that: “In Old Testament times, non-Hebrews could join themselves to the Chosen Nation through faith in Israel’s God. (Isa. 56:3-8) Under the same principal in New Testament times, by faith in Israel’s Savior and God-In-Flesh, Jesus Christ, non-Israelites in a sense inherit some of the blessings given to Israel.” Jory S. Brooks here commits the criminal act of fraud by taking away the children’s inheritance and giving it to the heathen. Ditto for Ted R. Weiland and his ilk! Not only is it fraud, but also grand theft, along with misappropriation of valuable assets both physical and spiritual. Who then, gives Jory S. Brooks and Ted R. Weiland the authority to rewrite Holy writ? My, the pride of those afflicted with the God-syndrome!
In much of the The Lie Of Universalism, which he first wrote in September of 2002, Clifton was addressing the universalist Jory Brooks, a man of much the same ilk as Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman and Ted Weiland, although Brooks seems to lean more towards British Israel than the “lite” variety of American Christian Identity to which the others subscribe. He continues his conclusion:
I don’t know about others, but when I get to the judgment, I want every bit of my inheritance that is due me, and the rewards for everything I have earned. And conversely, I do not want the slightest residue of that which does not belong to me, which I have not earned. Therefore, I lay claim to 1 Tim. 5:24: “Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.” These are Paul’s words to Timothy, and what hope would we have without them? But according to Weiland and Brooks, when we get to the judgment, some of our valuable inheritance will be redistributed to the heathen. This sounds more like Karl Marx’s redistribution of the wealth! Haven’t we been robbed enough in this life, let alone to be further robbed in the next? The truth is: The only ones who can take hold of the Covenant are those who are named in the Covenant! And the only ones named in the Covenant are the House of Israel and the House of Judah! So it appears that, unless Ted R. Weiland repents (which is unlikely), his sins of fraud, grand theft and misappropriation of valuable assets will follow him to the judgment rather than [be] “open beforehand”, and that being of his own free choice in the matter! Anyone who steals the inheritance from the rightful God-given heir and reallocates it to someone unqualified is a God-robber after the fact! Here is where Ted R. Weiland and Karl Marx fall into the same category, so let the chips fall where they may!
Surely Clifton has been before the judgment seat of Christ, and we pray with confidence that he has already received everything which he expected. He is right about one thing: Weiland’s egalitarianism is indeed a form of communism, that somehow you can just choose something and receive it freely. He continues:
This is not a less serious misdemeanor, but a major crime, and ignorance is no excuse, especially when we have the Word before us for all to read, study and research! All this is tantamount to robbing our Anglo-Saxon neighbor and sending the proceeds to Nigeria, which Ted R. Weiland has admitted he is doing. For if Weiland is taking the proceeds given as tithe, and misappropriating it to Nigeria, he is guilty thereby!
Actually Ted is no better than any of the denominational churches, who defraud White Christians with their missions to Africa and other far-away places, giving their gifts to those who have no part in any of the covenants of Yahweh our God. They are all thieves stealing from the Body of Christ for the benefit of the devil. Returning to Clifton:
Besides, what are we to do with Ezra 9:12 which correctly reads in part in the NIV: “... Do not further their welfare or prosperity at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.” It is immensely apparent that when we give aid of any kind or socialize with the other races we allow them to gain advantage over us and destroy our children for generations to come.
Weiland, instead of “gathering the good into vessels, but cast[ing] the bad away” is rather “gathering the bad into vessels, but cast[ing] the good away.” Anyone who is “ashamed of his forefathers” as he stated with his own lips, is surely casting the good away! Evidently, Weiland forgot the commandment to “honor your forefathers and foremothers.” Evidently, Weiland doesn’t understand that many of our forefathers fought to the death with their “battle axes” and “weapons of war” so we could live in our present generation today. What an ingrate Weiland has made of himself! And according to Ted R. Weiland’s letter to Tony Gonyer dated August 5, 2005, “... the false accuser Emahiser ... you have chosen to associate with will always be a disgruntled, hateful, mean-spirited, false accusing, ineffective bunch of nincompoops.”
Weiland referred to an “ineffective bunch” of nincompoops, but I never knew there was more than one Emahiser. Weiland answered Tony’s letter, but he never answered my own. I am happy he did not answer it, since now he has no excuse for having ignored me and shut me out. I was a prisoner making an inquiry of him, and he failed to visit me. Now Clifton closes his essay:
Please be advised that this “nincompoop” (fool) will not sit idly by while Ted R. Weiland is in the process of giving the store away to the “Nigerians” or “others” which he admits with his own lips he is doing. But the reader will have to decide just who is the real “nincompoop”, Emahiser or Weiland? Its your nickel, so take your choice, but don’t grumble if you bet on the wrong horse!
Now I must say, that thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands, have indeed benefitted in one way or another from Clifton’s efforts to share the truth concerning our Christian Identity. But apparently, thanks to Ted Weiland, many negros in Nigeria have Bibles by which to wipe their tail ends, because that is about the only use they could ever possibly get out of the pages. Anything good in Weiland’s work is tainted with his universalism, and just a little salmonella ruins the entire glass of eggnog.
Now we will present the second of these two short papers by Clifton Emahiser, which discusses that very topic:
Clifton cites Ecclesiasticus 12:5, but the work is also called the Wisdom of Sirach. While I would not account it as canonical Scripture, the book represents the wise words of an evidently pious man who lived around the end of the third century, or perhaps the beginning of the second century before Christ. In chapter 50 the book states that “27 Jesus [Joshua or Yahshua] the son of Sirach of Jerusalem hath written in this book the instruction of understanding and knowledge, who out of his heart poured forth wisdom.” In the lengthy Prologue to the work, the author professes to have translated into Greek the writing which he attributed to his grandfather, who was also named Joshua. It was common in ancient times to name a son after the grandfather, but the work has long been attributed to Sirach.
This passage reads:“Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him, lest he overmaster thee thereby: for [else] thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him.” It would be advisable to read the entire chapter. It would also be advisable to check out the Book of Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach as it is sometimes called), for the author leaves his signature, and his message is directed toward Israelites. The word “ungodly” can only be referring to non-Adamites, for the other races have no true god as we have.
In any event, while Sirach 12:5 may or may not be considered a part of the canon, it nevertheless represents wisdom that may be gained from studying the curses of disobedience upon the children of Israel which are uttered in Deuteronomy chapter 28 or in Leviticus chapter 26, that when the children of Israel sin, the strangers among them are enriched and made to rule over them, getting their wives, sons, daughters, farms and houses for themselves. Now Clifton once again refers to the letter that compelled him to write these essays:
All this was brought to the fore (July 2005) when Tony Gonyer wrote Ted R. Weiland and took exception to one of Weiland’s statements on an audio CD where Weiland said in part: “... And if you don’t want to believe me on that, then you might want to possibly take the word of hundreds – and who knows how many more – maybe more than that. You might want to take the word of hundreds of black Nigerians and others to whom this ministry has sent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of free Bibles and tapes since its very inception ... ”
This certainly is a statement which we would never expect a Christian Identity pastor to make, especially when there are so many White descendants of the ancient Israelites who are desperately in need of hearing our message, and our money would be much better spent in that endeavor. Clifton continues, where Weiland tries to make excuses for himself:
In a reply letter dated July 14, 2005 from Weiland to Tony Gonyer, Weiland stated in part:
“... It would be one thing, Tony, if I were neglecting the children and only ministering to non-Israelites, but you know that is not the case. If someone over in Africa wrote and requested a Bible from you, would you not send it to them? Probably not – but if you wouldn’t, why wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you like to have the rest of the world – that we will inevitably have dealings of some kind with – wouldn’t you like them living by laws of Yahweh? If not, why not? ...”
We have already addressed the content of this statement. Now I must say, that if my enemies thought that I would send a Christogenea New Testament to some negro in Africa just because I received such a request, they would probably send me hundreds of such requests, just to drain my resources and pull me away from what it is that I really should be doing. I have a hunch that Weiland is a sucker, and his own self-esteem leads him to be so suckered. How would so many negros in Africa hear of Ted Weiland, who is comparatively obscure when compared to the many large denominational churches which are falling all over themselves to cater to Africans? Now continuing with Clifton:
On that same audio CD, Weiland also stated in part: “... not that there are some exceptions – that people can’t from other races, and have in the past, joined themselves to Yahweh and embraced the Covenant ...” This shows beyond all doubt that Weiland follows and promotes the unscriptural false doctrine of “universalism”!
A covenant is a contract. How could someone embrace a covenant to which they were never a party in the first place? Weiland is lacking even basic knowledge about language. But now Clifton turns his attention to one of his partners-in-crime:
James Bruggeman, another universalist, on his web site stonekingdom.org [in a] “Statement of Faith” states in part: “... We believe that non-Israelite people of all races can come under the Israelite covenants through faith and obedience to the law (Exodus 12:48-49; Isaiah 56:1-8). We believe that salvation to everlasting life and heavenly bliss is available to people of all races, just as it is to Israel (John 3:16-17, Romans 8:19-21). ...” Bruggeman claims he owes his belief on “universalism” to Stephen E. Jones, who is another false prophet and big-time liar.
Notice that Bruggeman makes the same error as Weiland did, to imagine the conditions of the Old Covenant could be imposed on the New Covenant, where instead Yahweh told the children of Israel that His New Covenant was exclusively with them, and that He would write His law in their hearts. The negros certainly do not have His law in their hearts. They only understand the law of the jungle. Again returning to Clifton:
Anyone (meaning Jones) who would lie about a well-known Protestant hymn “The Solid Rock” (or sometimes just “Solid Rock”) and claim that Martin Luther of “95 theses” fame wrote it, when in fact “Solid Rock” was written by Edward Mote and William B. Bradbury the composer, (for documentation check The Evangelical Hymnal, published by “Board Of Publication of the Evangelical Church, Cleveland, Oh. & Harrisburg, Pa., Copyrighted 1921)” is a cunning conniver. For the song “Solid Rock”, see page 150. Not only did Jones lie about the author, but Jones added words that the author never wrote, (check Jones’ book The Babylonian Connection, page 154.) Anyone who would lie about the author of a Christian hymn and falsify the lyrics would lie about most anything! Hello, all you Stephen E. Jones advocates!
Stephen Jones did indeed do that very thing, and Clifton wrote about it in another essay, titled Stephen E. Jones, Intellectually Dishonest. Now he continues:
To keep from going beyond the scope of this brochure, I will return to Bruggeman’s so-called “Statement of Faith” to make one example of his misinterpretation of Holy Writ: Bruggeman cites Exodus 12:48-49 in support of his universal theory, which reads:
“48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”
First, I would say that this does not make the stranger an Israelite, or one of Abraham’s seed, or a party to the covenant. Rather, it only makes the stranger eligible to eat the Passover. It offers him nothing more. Now Clifton responds:
When one researches Scripture, one must always ask “who, what, when, where, why and how”? Of these six elements, the “when” is very important. The Exodus is the history from when Israel left Egypt and were on their way toward the land of Canaan. Many in Israel Identity are unaware that many of the houses of Zerah-Judah and Dan separated from the Israelites before the Exodus. It is only reasonable, then, that some of those who had left paid return visits to the main body of Israelites from time to time, but were born in other places. In my brochure Irish And Scottish Genealogy I demonstrated how some of Zerah-Judah by-passed the captivity in Egypt and settled in the area of the Dardanelles and became known as Trojans. From Troy some went up into Europe and others to Italy and others eventually migrated as far as Ireland. Dan left Egypt in great numbers before Moses led the main body of the Israelites through the Red Sea, settling in Pelopponesus and other parts of Greece. Evidently, Bruggeman is ignorant of the history of this from Greek Classics!
Also, those from the Tribe of Dan who left Egypt before the Exodus remained known as “Danoi” (See Bertrand L. Comparet’s 14 Lessons On The Book Of Revelation, lesson 5, page 9.) The History Of Greece by J. B. Bury spells it “Danaoi”, pages 38 & 75, and says of them “cousins of the Egyptians” (but doesn’t say which Egyptians). Now Joseph got his wife Asenath from the priest of On, but On was also known as “Beth Shemesh” (house of Shem) [Beth Shemesh was also interpreted as ‘house of the sun’, hence the Greek name which follows - WRF] and in Greek “Heliopolis”, so the term “cousins” is not out of order. [Here Clifton referred his readers to a book that he had made of Comparet’s sermons. It is no longer available.] Why don’t Ted R. Weiland, Stephen E. Jones and James Bruggeman offer this kind of information on Exodus 12:48-49?
Now this is also true, but Clifton is only conjecturing one possible view of the strangers of the Exodus which is not necessary. The strangers included anyone of the other Adamic nations who may be found sojourning among the Israelites, but their being circumcised does not make them Israelites. Now he continues again to address Bruggeman in an area which has already been covered here:
As for the passage at Isaiah 56:1-8, which Bruggeman cites, I addressed that in my brochure The Lie Of Universalism, #1. We simply cannot understand this passage unless we comprehend the idiomatic language of Isaiah. The eunuchs of Isaiah 56:4 are the then-divorced tribes of Israel, for their seed was cut-off from the Covenant and, I stated this in the above named brochure.
Once we understand that the northern Ten Tribes had been divorced by the Almighty, along with most of Judah, they were cut-off from the Covenant and became estranged to Him, we can then see that the tribes, being cut-off from the Covenant, became like a “eunuch” or a “dry tree.” For that period, Israel’s seed had been cut-off, so figuratively the simile of a “eunuch” is appropriate. Upon understanding that Israel was the “eunuch”, there is no longer a conflict with Deuteronomy 23:1. This passage is not talking about bringing non-Israelites under the Covenant, but quite the opposite. Once Yahshua died for our Redemption, we were then brought back under the New Covenant, which includes only the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrews 8:8).
The apostles later used this same language of the twelve tribes scattered abroad, that they had been estranged from Yahweh but were once again being reconciled to God in Christ. This is probably the most significant aspect of Scripture to understand, as it is the foundational reason for the New Covenant which is laid by the prophets and by Christ Himself. Continuing with Clifton:
Then we must also understand the use of the word “stranger.” Some may argue that the “stranger” at Isaiah 56:3 & 6 is #5236 [nekar] instead of #1616 [geyr]. When Israel was divorced, they became equivalent to non-Israelites until Yahshua purchased them back, so # 5236 is not out of order in this passage. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s Commentary, vol. 3, page 738), describes the “man” at Isaiah 56:2, #582 thus: “the man — Hebrew, enosh, ‘a man in humble life’, in contradistinction to Hebrew, ish, ‘one of high rank’.” In this sense the meaning of enosh is very fitting, for Israel was humbled when she was punished. Many translators render “man” at Isa. 56:3 & 6 (#5236) as “alien” or “foreigner”, implying that the “man” of Isaiah chapter 56 is a combination of “foreigner” and “enosh”, and “foreigner” doesn’t necessarily always mean “race.” Again, Isaiah is simply using idiomatic language.
Again, Clifton described nekar and proceeded to give us the definition for enosh instead, which is an error and I cannot tell how it may have been introduced into his original paper. Now the word enosh, Strong’s # 582, is a man in the mortal sense. It does not mean a non-Adamite, which is a lie, and both Comparet and Swift repeated that lie. The word enosh was used in Genesis in reference to descendants of Adam. But that should not be an issue here. The word enosh does not appear in this passage. The word geyr, Strong’s # 1616, is the common word for stranger, a sojourner of any race or nation, even an Israelite from another land or tribe. But the word nekar, # 5236, is often translated as stranger in the sense of a foreigner. This word does appear in Isaiah 56:3 and 6. That is the word which Clifton should have defined. A related word with the same meaning is # 5237, nokriy.
The common perception among Identity Christians is that nekar and nokriy are always used to describe a person of another race. But that is not true. It is an oversimplified explanation which has done more damage to our basic understanding of Scripture than it has done good. The verb form of the word nekar, which has the same spelling and is found at Strong’s # 5234, can mean recognize, and is often translated as acknowledge or discern in the King James Version. The noun is used of Joseph in comparison to his brethren in Genesis 42:7 where we read “And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them…” Then the word appears in 42:8 where we read “And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.” Joseph did not make himself into someone of another race, but rather he only acted in a way by which he hoped his brethren would not recognize him. The word was sometimes used in other contexts of other Israelites, for example in 1 Kings 14:5 and Lamentations 4:8. This is how it is used in Isaiah chapter 56, of an Israelite of the captivity who has been estranged from God, who is no longer recognized as an Israelite. Wherever it is used, it does not necessarily refer to someone of another or non-Adamic race.
Likewise, the word nokriy is not necessarily someone of a different race, as Identity Christians often insist. Related to nekar and the corresponding verb, it too merely refers to a person unrecognized or unknown. In Genesis 31:15 the wives of Jacob had spoken in reference to their own father and said, “Are we not counted of him strangers?” Likewise, Job declared in his calamity that “They that dwell in mine house, and my maids, count me for a stranger”, in Job chapter 19. In Psalm 69 David cried that “8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.” All of these passages used this term, nokriy. Rachael and Leah, Job and David, they were not complaining that they were somehow miraculously transmogrified into niggers. They were only lamenting that they were estranged from their own families or households. Ruth had also called herself a stranger in that sense in relation to Boaz, using that same word. A nokriy is an outsider, someone who is unknown to the beholder, and the term does not designate race or any particular race.
In different times, or historical contexts, it seems that the use of these terms had varying significance. In the period of the Old Kingdom, while the Canaanites and related Rephaim and other tribes were always accursed, the terms nekar or nokriy were also used to define acceptable Adamic people such as the Egyptians or Syrians. Contrary to Weiland’s claims, one cannot prove that wherever nekar or nokriy appear in Scripture, that it referred to people of non-Adamic races, and that contention is outside of the context of Scripture.
But in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, as Jerusalem was being rebuilt, the need for the community to maintain religious and racial exclusivity, while it had always existed, was explicitly recognized and enforced by the rulers, whereas earlier in history it had often been neglected by the corrupt kings. That neglect is clearly condemned in the words of the prophets. By that time, after the return from Babylon, many of the surrounding peoples had indeed mingled with the Canaanite races, or if they were remnants of Israel, they no longer had their genealogies as they were kept by the priests in the Old Kingdom to prove that they had not mingled. So the rulers, meaning Nehemiah and Ezra, justly urged the people of the return to account all of them as strangers regardless of their race. This in turn seems to have led to the troubles with the Samaritans, many of whom were remnant Israelites. In the days of Josiah, which ended only a hundred and twenty years before Nehemiah became governor in Jerusalem, he had cleansed Samaria of idols and returned the remnants of Israel who had remained there to worship in the temple (2 Kings chapter 23). Now the Samaritans were being rejected, and that was the primary source of friction and enmity between Samaritans and Judaeans.
If I am not mistaken, it seems that Clifton usually, if not always, took it for granted that Comparet, Swift and other earlier Christian Identity teachers were correct where they defined nekar or nokriy to refer exclusively to someone of another race, and perhaps at times I did so myself, but it just isn’t true. They only refer to someone who is unknown or unrecognized, regardless of their race. There is a similar predicament with the term enosh, which can be used to describe a mortal man of any race. So no definitive racial doctrine can be formulated solely upon any or all of these words.
Since Christ came only for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and the new covenant was made only for Israel, we must continue to account people of other races as nekar or nokriy, and acknowledge that the covenants were not made with them. The sin of the people in the Old Kingdom began when they thought they could have commerce with people of other nations, and that led to the more grievous sins of idolatry and race-mixing. Evidently Ted Weiland is justifying that process. But in Scripture, another Adamic man or woman, or even another Israelite who may be unknown to the beholder, was sometimes also described by these same terms, and the same situation can be true today.
As a digression, there is a Latin verb, nigro, which is to blacken, and words that are nouns and adjectives which are related to it. I do believe that these words were derived from this Hebrew word nekar, in the sense of something growing black thereby becoming unrecognizable. But that is a later development which does not change the meaning of the original Hebrew word as it was used in the Old Testament scriptures.
Continuing with Clifton:
And at Deuteronomy 28:44 we can see one kind of humbling that Israel received: “He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.” It should be obvious there is no room for the other races under Yahweh’s covenants to Israel!
So by bringing other races into the communion of the children of Israel, when they get an advantage over us, it is part of our punishment for disobedience. That is what Clifton is trying to illustrate here. So Ted Weiland is promoting the idea that we should be punished more! Clifton says:
It’s a closed corporation! All this “universalism” by this unenlightened trio (Ted Weiland, Stephen Jones and James Bruggeman) is parallel to jewish-communism and catholicism, and why would anyone want to associate with something like that? But let’s not leave out protestantism, for by-and-large protestantism is but warmed over catholicism. [non-capitalization mine]
So what it all boils down to, [is that] by Ted R. Weiland donating Bibles to “black Nigerians”, [he] is aiding and abetting the other races to bring us twice as much evil as his contribution, as if we didn’t already have enough evil! Contrary to Weiland, his gifts of Bibles to Nigeria are in fact a form of “neglect” to our own Israelite brethren! Maybe instead of “Evangelist” Ted R. Weiland, it should rather be “Comrade” Ted R. Weiland! And maybe instead of “Mission to Israel”, it should rather be “Mission to Nigeria.”
So here it should be apparent that Weiland, Jones, Bruggeman and the others have taken advantage of the wrong definitions of certain words which are blindly repeated by many Identity Christians in order to try to negate the racial exclusivity of the covenants. But even then they make Scripture contradict itself, as the racial nature of the covenants is indisputable, according to the language of the covenants themselves. Weiland calls his ministry “Mission to Israel”, but Clifton’s label is perhaps even more accurate. So he continues:
I’m not saying all this just to be funny, for all of this is very serious business! Today we see the enosh (not the divorced Israelites as eunuchs, but the other races) streaming in and building up a political base to override our ruling power.
The term enosh should be nekar there, of course, as enosh does not appear in the verse in question, and Clifton was somehow confused.
The word enosh may sometimes refer to or include non-Adamic peoples, as men in the mortal sense, where it is sometimes used distinctly as opposed to the word adam. David in the Psalms had cried out against “bloody men”, using enosh, but he was speaking as much of their character and not necessarily their race. In many other places he used the term “children of men”, using adam, and that is indeed a reference to a specific race. If we look in Strong’s Concordance entries under the plural word men, we find many occurrences which were translated from enosh which clearly refer to Adamic people. Oversimplifying the definitions of terms, or just plain misrepresenting them, has caused much confusion among Identity Christians. However while adult males of other races may also be described as enosh, they certainly cannot be described as adam. Continuing with Clifton:
Our Anglo-Saxon countries are simply being handed over to the non-Adamite enosh. What will happen when we come to the threshold and they gain a majority rule over us? And Ted R. Weiland is helping the non-Adamite enosh to gain that control by his Bible gifts to Nigeria. We are coming quickly to the critical point where the non-Adamite enosh will take over and it will be just like New Orleans, and recently at Toledo, Ohio, October 2005, not to mention France on a national scale! Have we already reached the point of no return? How soon are we going to have to stay up all night to prevent our homes or autos from being burned or our places of business? How soon are we going to see a mob of non-Adamite enosh rushing down the street seeking the blood of our family? And Ted R. Weiland helps bring on this kind of evil with his Bible gifts to Nigeria.
I do not know what happened in Toledo in 2005, but every year, in every city within the nations of Christendom, the other races – and especially the negros – are doing things to destroy those cities.
We have deliberately broken the command of Yahweh at Deuteronomy 17:15: “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger (#5237 nokrîy, i.e. non-relative) over thee, which is not thy brother.”
As a collective people, by now we have actually broken this commandment innumerable times, by electing all sorts of foreigners to offices throughout all of our nations. So now Clifton correctly states that:
Today our people no longer care whether or not we have our own kind ruling over us, and even some in Israel Identity advocate non-Adamites to be over us. All this has come about because of the universal interpretations of Scripture. Today the illegal alien has more rights than the citizen! And the citizen’s tax money is spent to sustain the alien. Little by little we are being overthrown by strangers while Ted R. Weiland sends Bible gifts to Nigeria!
I cannot remember who Clifton may have been speaking about where he said that “even some in Israel Identity advocate non-Adamites to be over us.” I do know that there are some Identity Christians whom I would label as accelerationists, thinking that the more negros and jews that there are in positions of power, the faster we will plunge into the depths of Sodom and the sooner we may witness the fall of Babylon. Returning to Clifton, he describes another worsening condition:
Are we not under siege, while our very words are being scrutinized because there are those seeking to find something for which to be offended? Our country is being devoured. Our productivity is being deliberately sabotaged as an excuse to move jobs to the third world. At the same time, our living standards are being deliberately lowered while foreigners are given our better jobs in preference to our own people through “equal opportunity” governmental programs. The wealth of the Israel countries is gradually being transferred to non-Israel lands to deliberately minimize and destroy the sons and daughters of Adam: that’s the target! That’s the agenda, and hardly anyone cares, as Weiland keeps sending Bible gifts to non-Adamite Nigerians! The universalist interpretation of Scripture has made a fraud of Yahweh’s teachings! We have been betrayed by our clergy. We have adopted the religions of the strangers who will destroy us and we have been sold out to the devil.
It is certainly clear that all universalists, including Weiland, Jones and Bruggeman, are on the side of the devil. Now Clifton moves towards a conclusion under a subtitle:
DANIEL MAKES LIARS OF ALL UNIVERSALISTS
To show you this, we will go to Daniel 2:43-45 which reads: “43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men (a form of the word enosh): but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay (ostensibly comparing adam and enosh). 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.”
I must add, that where Daniel says in chapter 2 that “the kingdom shall not be left to other people”, his intention is clarified in chapter 7. There, in a parallel vision, we read in part, “18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever” and “21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Now Clifton continues:
I underlined the key verse to illustrate that there is only one people to whom the Kingdom will be left. To understand what people Daniel was prophesying about, let’s take it step by step. The head of gold was the Babylonian empire of whom Nebuchadnezzar was king. The shoulders of silver represented the Medo-Persian empire which was conquered by Greece, and Greece in turn was typified by the hips of brass which was conquered by Rome, symbolized by the iron.
This is where most so-called prophecy experts stop, but we must go back to verse 43 where it says: “... iron mixed with miry clay ...”. The “miry clay” represents Rome’s slave trade of which almost every household in Rome had several who were of diverse races. After Rome got into financial trouble, Rome made them citizens in order to collect more taxes, whereupon many mixed marriages occurred, similar to what we see going on in all Israel countries today. Then in verse 45 we read: “... the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron etc. ...” Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows that it was the German tribes that systematically broke down and destroyed both the western and finally the eastern branches of the Roman empire! And in Israel Identity today, we know that the German tribes were Israelites!
It’s amazing to me that James Bruggeman calls his so-called ministry “Stone Kingdom Ministries”, and that Daniel said in verse 44, “... and the kingdom shall not be left to other people ...” yet does an about-face and endorses bringing all races into the kingdom! Now either the prophet Daniel is a liar or James Bruggeman is a liar, along with his sidekicks Stephen E. Jones and Ted R. Weiland, plus about 90% of the so-called “pastors” in Israel Identity!
Clifton justly felt that 90% of the so-called Identity pastors of the time were universalists in one way or another, and I must say that I have to agree. None of them are truly Christian Identity because they all seek to obfuscate identity in one form or another, making some excuse or other for non-Adamic races. The plain truth is that Yahweh did not create them, they are all bastards, and they are all goats whose destiny is in the same fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Continuing with Clifton:
Repeating verse 44 again, Daniel said: “... and the kingdom shall not be left to other people ...” What is there about these words of the prophet Daniel that they don’t understand and proclaim just the opposite, and keep sending Bibles to blacks in Nigeria? Ted R. Weiland doesn’t have one solid Scripture to base his theory on. Yet I doubt if he will ever repent for contradicting Daniel because of his (that is Weiland’s) God-syndrome. He’s like “the pope”, infallible!
This is also a good assessment. Over the past ten years, several times I confronted Weiland in social media, in a gentlemanly manner. Each time he blocked me, and was even arrogant enough to cite Matthew 7:6 and the saying about throwing pearls before swine in reference to me. Not only is Weiland a clown, he is also a coward. But he pretends to be infallible while at the same time he finds ways to avoid discussion with those who think otherwise. So Clifton continues:
All these so-called “pastors” (Identity or not) teaching Origen’s universalism (saving even Satan, which they falsely dub the “restitution of all things”), Israel Identity and Holy Writ has been made a farce!
I must state, that our purpose is to eradicate that possibility. Returning to Clifton:
For anyone wanting more information on the Book of Daniel, refer to my Daniel series in my Watchman’s Teaching Letters #’s 53 through 61, where I went into great detail on many things like the illustration above of Daniel 2:43-45. But where is this stone kingdom that is to last for ever, or “never be destroyed”? It’s America (no thanks to Weiland), Canada, Britain (England), Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Denmark (Danmark), Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, France, northern Italy, Iceland, the Netherlands (Holland), Lithuania, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, perhaps portions of Greece and Spain, and any other Celto-Saxon country I may have missed.
Now he concludes:
Repeating: read [in the Apocrypha] Ecclesiasticus 12:5, as we will receive twice the evil for donating our “bread of life” (Bibles) to the non-Adamic enosh. Why is it that we always have to learn Yahweh’s all-important, never-changing Word the hard way, and that there are always those who, through vanity, twist the truth?
This has been a longer presentation than usual, however I hope to have both upheld and strengthened Clifton’s positions against these universalists who have been infecting Christian Identity for decades, while also making amends for and correcting some old Christian Identity misconceptions regarding certain words and their meanings. These men should all be mocked, who would corrupt the immutable covenants of Yahweh our God.