Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 10

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170707-CAE-SpecNotice10.mp3 — Downloaded 6997 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 10

I am always hearing complaints of the bickering which goes on between various teachers, factions or adherents of Christian Identity. In my opinion, we have this bickering because Identity Christians themselves are so slow to study further once they think they have some truth, so quick to defend what they think is true at any cost, and even with this they nevertheless tend to compromise with people who wear the same labels but do not necessarily carry the same beliefs. We create sects because we do not study, and we argue because we tolerate those who refuse to study further and come to terms with greater truths.

When I began my studies in Christian Identity, through correspondence with friends such as David Gray and Clifton Emahiser and dialogues that led to a need for deeper studying, it slowly became evident that the so-called 6th & 8th Day Creation Theory advanced by earlier Identity teachers had some serious flaws, and that even pillars of Christian Identity such as Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet often contradicted themselves in their sermons on eschatology where the non-Adamic races came into question. Of course, I didn't realize for some years the amount of arguing that such a realization would bring.

Today, as the Camp of the Saints is overrun by the enemies of God, and as there are more and more Tares found amongst the Wheat, the issue of race in Scripture is more important than ever before. We have to get it right, and the bickering will not cease until Identity Christians understand that they can no longer accept the clowns who wish to destroy us by obfuscating the distinctions that are outlined in the Word of Yahweh our God.

After much study, introspection, correspondence and debate, whereby we had examined and discussed all of the related Biblical issues over a period of several years, it is in my estimation that perhaps as early as 2002 both Clifton Emahiser and myself became more and more convinced of our current position that Yahweh did not create the other races as we know them, and that those other races must have originated as corruptions spawned in rebellion from Yahweh. While Clifton often mentioned or alluded to the possibility, at least as early as 2003, in 2005 in my Broken Cisterns essays I openly posited the notion that the other so-called races here on earth are the product of the corruption of the fallen angels. Since then, both Clifton and I have studied the matter rather persistently, and I remain convinced that it is true.

Recently I saw one acquaintance ask the constantly recurring question: where in Scripture does it actually say that the non-Adamic races are entirely hybrids and not Yahweh's creations? I would respond by asking: Where in Scripture is the creation of the other races even mentioned? Where in Scripture is the creation of any hybrids listed at all? Except for a few documented cases of fornication, where in Scripture is the creation of any bastards recorded? [Afterword: So we cannot blame these things on Yahweh our God, or give them credit for them if He did not take credit.] The Enoch literature found in the Dead Sea Scrolls describes the corruption of Yahweh's Creation by the so-called “fallen angels” which resulted in an advent of bastards. The fact that entire nations have become bastardized is alluded to in Scripture in certain instances [i.e. Isaiah 43:3], but is never entirely explained in Scripture because Scripture focuses on the children of Israel alone. Yet we see in Scripture that if it were not for the grace of Yahweh our God and the promises which He made to the patriarchs, even they certainly would have become bastardized.

As we have often asserted, in the end there are only two classes of so-called "people" which are mentioned anywhere: sons and bastards, sheep and goats, good fish and bad fish, wheat and tares. How did Yahweh make bad fish? Are not the bad fish the same as the tares planted by the devil? The parables of Matthew chapter 13 certainly make that suggestion, as Christ gave us the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in the same conversation as He did the Parable of the Net. These parables both teach the same lesson using different allegories.

In his second epistle, the apostle Peter said that non-Israelites amongst us are “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, [who] speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption”, yet everything that Yahweh created was good, nothing He created was corrupt, and none of it was made simply to be taken and destroyed. Likewise, in his one short epistle the apostle Jude called those same entities “... spots in your feasts of charity... clouds they are without water... trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots... wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever”, among other things. After the murder of Abel, Cain was sent away into the land of Nod, which means wandering. Ostensibly, that is where he found his wife, and joined himself to those “wandering stars”, the fallen angels of whom Jude had written.

In the beginning there were two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was represented by the serpent, and corresponds to the “devil and his angels” which we see described in Revelation chapter 12 where the identity of the serpent is revealed. So what are “every plant which [the] heavenly Father did not plant”? How can they not be branches from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? That is what they are... corruptions of Yahweh's Creation, the bad fish in the parable of the net, and they were not created by Yahweh. So in the end, we are told that all of the goat nations, without exception, go into the Lake of Fire prepared from the beginning for the devil and his angels, in Matthew chapter 25. They all share the same destiny, because they all had the same origin. For that reason, in the end there will only be one tree standing, the Tree of Life which contains the “twelve manner of fruits” – the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.

If, as the apostle Paul attested, all of the race of Adam were to be made alive in Christ, then why would all of the nations where Israel was scattered ultimately be destroyed, as it is attested in Jeremiah 30:11 and 46:28. Why would all of the nations feeding on Yahweh's holy mountain “be as though they had not been”, as it is attested in Obadiah verses 15 and 16? If they are not the bad fish being cast into the fire, if they are not the goat nations facing the same fate as the devil and his angels, if they are not the tares to be gathered and destroyed at the end of the age, then what are they? The truth is, that they can be nothing else. They are slated for destruction because they are not a part of Yahweh's original creation. They are indeed “every plant which [the] heavenly Father did not plant”. Any other perception of Scripture inevitably leads to some form of universalism, and drives the sheep off the path and into the depths of hell.

The law is only for the children of Israel. It was never intended for any other people. King David had gloried that Yahweh gave the law exclusively to Israel, in Psalm 147:19 where he wrote: “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.” The fools who cite Genesis chapter 1 and claim that we are to master over the so-called other races and teach them the law are lying, they are deceivers who ignore the many contrary admonitions in Scripture. This concept is called Dominion theology, and it is a very dangerous lie since it is always followed by the concept that other races can somehow be “Christian”, which inevitably leads to egalitarianism, and ultimately, to fornication. Having dominion over God's creation is not the same as teaching the other so-called races the law, since the law is only for Israel, as we have just seen in the 147th Psalm.

We read in 1 Chronicles chapter 17 “22 For thy people Israel didst thou make thine own people for ever; and thou, LORD, becamest their God.” Likewise Christ Himself said “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord”, where we see that Yahweh remains the God of Israel, and of no other people. Once again, any other perception of Scripture inevitably leads to some form of universalism, and scatters the sheep. Stop entertaining the clowns who preach otherwise, and the bickering between Identity Christians will cease.

With this, we shall present Clifton A. Emahiser’s


I have now completed nine Special Notices to all anti-seedliners that we are in a WAR. This is #10. At the present time, the enemy in this WAR has an agenda of convincing every White to jump in bed with a member of another race (mostly women). While all this is going on, the anti-seedliners proclaim: there isn’t any enemy. They may deny they are making such a claim, but, by contradicting the Two Seedline truth, they are, in essence, making such an assertion. Therefore, all the blood of these White victims of “Jewish” propaganda is on their hands. They are actually aiding and abetting the enemy in their vicious ploy to destroy the White, Israel Race. When you next observe the product of a mixed marriage, thank the anti-seedliners for their part in assisting the enemy in their diabolical plot. Also, those who are in support of the anti-seedliners become accessories after the fact. If you are not sure how your pastor stands on this issue, maybe you should ask him. Write and tell him that you would like to support him, but you can’t as long as he doesn’t teach Two Seedline! After all, it’s your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who might race-mix as a direct or indirect result of the anti-seedliner’s message. WAKE UP, WE ARE AT WAR!!!

Of course, I understood what Clifton meant when he wrote these words, but I did not realize how much this had impacted some circles within Christian Identity until I left prison and began interacting with other Identity Christians in social media. I you give legitimacy to the other races as people, once they are perceived as people, you are indeed inviting the danger of Christianizing them, and then intermarrying with them, fornicating with them. Sadly, this is something that many Identity Christians still do not understand, as Eli James once told a Mexican [and we have the recording] that he could be a Christian. There is only one Body of Christ, and if you accept non-Whites as Christians, how do you not imagine them not to be part of the body of Christ? It is impossible, and once you imagine them to be part of the body of Christ, how can you have a moral basis by which to refuse intermarriage with them? You cannot, there is no moral basis. That is why Kinism as an ideal is a failure, because it contradicts itself. Only a proper view of Scripture through Two-Seedline, where there are properly only two types of so-called “people” in the world, sheep and goats, sons and bastards, wheat and tares, good fish and bad fish, gives us a sound moral foundation where we may properly resist race-mixing.

Followers of Ted Weiland still argue with me in defense of non-White races. This I find incredible considering the circumstances we face today, that an acolyte of the rodeo clown would argue for hours in defense of niggers, having more care for other races than he seems to have ever had for his own. At first I was quite shocked, expecting such behavior from Judeo-Christians, but never from Identity Christians. Since then, I have found the same pattern of behavior amongst many of the followers of Eli James, even from people who listened to us both when we did podcasts together. For example, one afternoon relatively recently, I argued for a significant amount of time with a clown named Jan Dupree. Only later I found out that his wife of 20-something years is a South American squat monster. This is so typical of Eli James' followers, that they have wives or children or grandchildren of mixed race, or are even mongrels themselves, and Identity Christians who accept these people share in their sins, as Paul of Tarsus warns us in the closing verses of Romans chapter 1. Continuing with Clifton:

I really can’t see a lot of difference between Ted R. Weiland and John Hagee, for they both teach the “Jews” are “God’s chosen people.” John Hagee said this: “Let me tell you this: Genesis 12:1 and 3 says: ‘I will bless those that bless you, and I will curse those who curse you.’ If something within you resents the Jewish people, that something is a demon spirit. The Jewish people, according to the Word of God, are the apple of God’s eye. The nation of Israel is the object of God’s affection. For David said: ‘He that keepeth Israel (and the phrase ‘keep’ was a military term), he that defends Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.’ Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Jesus Christ were all Jews.”

These were the words of John Hagee, but Clifton will now show that Ted Weiland is not much better, as he continues and says:

Ted R. Weiland in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, [on] pages 68 & 94 makes parallel statements to Hagee: “Seedliners claim that because the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, they cannot be Israelites but instead must be Cainites of the seed of Satan. The truth is that because the Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted for the murder of the righteous martyrs, they cannot be Cainites but instead must be Israelite ... The seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seed line of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of Jacob/ Israel.”

We are always in danger of over-simplifying history and Scripture. Some of the pharisees were Israelites, but their leaders [especially the high priests] were of the Sadducees and were Herodian appointees, and they were demonstrably Edomites. Think about it, if Weiland's words are true, then we must accept all of the Jews as being of Israel, where the Gospel and Revelation of Christ and the epistles of His apostles deny them this distinction not based on their profession of faith, but on their identity as a people. Weiland insists that John 8 proves that the opponents of Christ were Israelites, but indeed, the words of them and of Christ in that chapter prove that they were Edomites – the seed of Abraham but not the seed of the promise, as Paul also explains in Romans chapter 9. Clifton discusses the consequences of Weiland's treachery:

Essentially, what both Hagee and Weiland are doing is putting their stamp of approval on our children marrying a cursed descendant of Cain, a “Jew.” I really fail to see much difference between those two. Again, Weiland will try to imply that Cain was a son of Adam with the same genetics as Abel. If this were true, it would again [lead to the approval] of a marriage of our children with a “Jew.” To see if that is correct, let’s put it to the acid test. Inasmuch as both Weiland and Hagee are implying that the “Jews”, at the time of Messiah were “God’s chosen”, then, according to Scripture, if we bless the “Jews” we can only be blessed [because Genesis 12:3 would apply to the Jews and those who bless them], or the Almighty is a liar.

In 1948, the state of Israeli was supposedly born. For 53 years now [as of 2001] the United States has been pumping money into the Israeli (the Israel-lie) [state] in enormous amounts, billions upon billions. Sums of money that the ordinary person cannot even envision. No other nation in all history has pampered a people as the United States has mollycoddled the Israeli [state]. If the Israelis are God’s chosen, and if the Almighty’s words are true, the United States should be receiving blessings never before conceived. Let’s take a look at what these blessings consist of:

We are being blessed with an ever increasing abortion rate — well, praise God for that blessing! We are being blessed with an ever increasing divorce rate — isn’t that a simply wonderful blessing? Let’s praise God for that one too. We are told that homosexualism and lesbianism are on the increase — what marvelous blessings these are! Let’s again praise God for those glorious blessings also! Every day rape is on the upswing — isn’t it just wonderful what God is doing for us? The murder rate is ever on the rise in every part of the country — what an amazing blessing that one is. Let’s praise the Almighty for that one too. Drug addiction is going out of control — isn’t that a fabulous and wonderful blessing? Personal debt is going through the ceiling — Oh, please, “God”, bless us some more! Isn’t it wonderful that robbery and breaking and enterings are on the increase? Children and adolescents are committing major crimes at a younger and younger age — what a wonderful new trend for the future. [To Clifton's list we would add the fact that, with the help of the Jews we are currently being flooded with niggers, and what a blessing that has turned out to be. Of course, there are many other such blessings we can list here. - WRF] If all of these are blessings, I would really hate to see what a curse might be like. It would appear we were doing better when we weren’t blessing the “Jews” as much! What does it all boil down to? Just this: if the “Jews” are “God’s chosen people”, as Weiland and Hagee claim, [then] Yahweh is a liar, for under that prerequisite, we should be the most blessed nation on the [face of the] earth in all of history, for no nation has ever done more for the “Jews” than we [have]. Now, Ted R. Weiland might deny he implied or said such a thing, but if you will check his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, it’s exactly as I quoted him.

Clifton's analogy is excellent. If Weiland does not contradict himself, then he would have to agree with what Clifton said here. If the Jews were really Israel, then the United States, having sent the Jews billions of dollars of aid every year now for nearly 70 years, should indeed be the most blessed nation on earth, but all we have had is curses, and we can expect more curses in the future. So if the Jews are the children of Abraham and Jacob, then Yahweh cannot be true. But if the Jews are devils, America is justly punished for its service to devils and Yahweh our God certainly is true. Now concerning the sin in the Garden of Eden, Clifton continues are the subtitle:


The prime argument used by the anti-seedliners is that Eve was “mentally” seduced rather than [having been] physically seduced. That is ludicrous. James 1:14-15 describes seven definite steps in the process of sin as follows:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then, when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” [KJV]

The seven steps are: (1) Temptation: [which is] evil thought, (2) [being] Drawn away: [which is] strong imagination or fantasy, (3) Lust: [which is a] delight in viewing [someone or something], (4) [being] Enticed: [which is a] weakening of the will, (5) Lust conceived: [which is] yielding, (6) Sin: [which is a] sinful act committed, [and] (7) Death: : [which is the] result of the actual sin.

Clifton is correct in making those steps, following the description offered by the apostle James, that there are no real “thought crimes” in Scripture. Yes, there are of course wicked thoughts, and Christ Himself said that the thought of lust is as bad as the deed (Matthew 5:27-28). But the law of God never punishes the thought, it only punishes the deed. If thoughts were punished, we would all be dead before we even had the opportunity to reject and to reign in our thoughts. Because Adam and Eve were punished for their participation in the events of Genesis 3 proves that there were tangible sins, and not merely wicked thoughts. Clifton continues:

The Gospel” according to all the anti-seedliners is that an evil thought alone is worthy of death. In other words, one strike and you’re out in the anti-seedliner’s ball game. They have made up their own new rules for the Bible! It should now be obvious that Holy Scripture doesn’t support the anti-seedliner’s hypothesis that Eve was seduced only mentally. The next time you have the opportunity to talk with an anti-seedliner, ask him how this seven step process to sin would apply in the case of Eve, for if Eve didn’t go through this seven stage progression defined in James 1:14-15, [then] she did not sin. It would appear that either the Epistle of James is wrong or anti-seedliners are wrong, and I’ll put my money on James.

We would challenge the anti-seedliners to find one instance in the Laws of Yahweh where a mere thought is punished as a sin without an actual act having been committed. Clifton continues:

Not only do the anti-seedliners err concerning the full mental and physical seduction of Eve, but they accuse the Almighty of unjust punishment for her sin. In order to see this, we will have to read Genesis 3:14-16:

14 And Yahweh said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 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. 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

We can see from [this], that the serpent, the woman, and [then] Adam were punished in that order for their part in that seduction. Yahweh always punishes in like-kind. The Bible makes it clear that if a man kills another in premeditated murder, his life is required in return. Yahweh always metes out punishment to fit the crime. In all Scripture, one cannot find a single incident where this is not true. Eve’s punishment in verse 16 is: (1) to bear children in sorrow, (2) her desire was to be reserved for her husband, and (3) she is to yield to her husband’s authority.

Where the text says “thy desire shall be to thy husband”, it actually proves that where Eve had desired the allegorical tree, that tree was actually another man. Returning to Clifton, he elaborates:

Let’s now zero in on the punishment of “bearing children … in sorrow.” The word “sorrow” is #6093 in Strong’s. It means “worrisomeness, i.e. labor or pain ...” Gesenius’ has it for Genesis 3:16: “‘... thy pain and thy conception’; Hendiadys for the pain of thy conception.” (“hendiadys” means: a figure in which a complex idea is expressed by two words connected by a copulative conjunction: ‘to look with the eyes and envy’ instead of ‘with envious eyes.’) In other words, “the pain of thy conception”; not “thy pain and thy conception.”

Thus, there are three separate conclusions which can be Biblically drawn from Yahweh’s pronouncement to Eve: (1) That Eve would bear children in pain; that the pain would affect the very part of the body where the sin occurred. (2) That her [sexual] desire would return to her husband (Why did Yahweh even mention it if she were always true to Adam?). It is implied here that Eve’s desire had been to someone else. (3) That Eve would return and put herself under the authority of her husband rather than the influence of the serpent.

Had Eve been guilty only of a mental crime, as the anti-seedliners so loudly proclaim, it would have been highly unjust for Yahweh to have punished her by causing her to bear children with physical pain. In his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? by Ted R. Weiland, he implies that Yahweh is unjust in his punishment where he says this on page 29:

The Bible is always its own best commentary, and it clearly attests to the fact that Eve was mentally deceived, not sexually seduced.”

And of course Weiland neglected to consider the entire Scripture when he incorrectly assessed the words of Paul of Tarsus in 2 Corinthians chapter 11. He should have went back to Genesis chapter 3, and considered that word desire. Clifton continues:

Not only that, but Weiland scoffs at Dan Gayman’s work [which we do not entirely agree with, but which is good in some respects] The Two Seeds Of Genesis 3:15 on page 16 where Gayman said this:

In the divine punishment inflicted upon the woman Eve in Genesis 3:16 why did Almighty God employ the pain of childbirth? What is the purpose of the use of the word conception? How about the use of the word desire? The truth is: God made the punishment to fit the crime.”

There is one thing for sure, Weiland’s “hypothesis” of the account of Genesis 3:16 surely doesn’t fit the crime. If it did, when women bear children they would suffer severe mental anxiety without any physical pain. [Clifton is once again being rather appropriately sarcastic.] Stephen E. Jones in his The Babylonian Connection (a work [written] to repudiate Two Seedline), [on] page 42 says this:

We conclude then that when Eve explained to God that the serpent had ‘beguiled’ her, she meant that he had mentally deceived her. He corrupted the truth of God’s Word by preaching another Jesus (God), another spirit, and another gospel, just as Satan’s ministers have done all through the ages. And when Eve believed Satan’s doctrine, she too was corrupted. Nawshaw, as used in Genesis 3:13, had nothing to do with physical seduction.”

In truth, the race mixing in Genesis chapter 3 had nothing to do with the Gospel. Rather, the sin of Genesis chapter 3 was the ultimate reason for the Gospel! Where Paul says that “as in Adam all men die” we learn that race-mixing is the sin which leads unto death spoken of by the apostle John. Weiland and Jones and all the other anti-seedliners deny this most important aspect of Scripture. Clifton continues:

Stephen E. Jones also teaches “universalism” besides being an anti-seedliner. Those two teachings have done more damage in Israel Identity than any I know. In his book The Babylonian Connection, Stephen E. Jones prefabricated some of his documentation. I will present it here, and you can decide for yourself to what extent he may have misrepresented things. Weiland is aware that Jones fabricated some of his documentation because I sent him the information concerning it.

For Jones, that item is inexcusable. If a man is untruthful, he should be exposed for that untruthfulness! I will offer the following as evidence of such a charge. If a man is deliberately untruthful once, he will be untruthful again. I will now show you where Stephen E. Jones produced totally false information and he used subliminal suggestion in doing it. We will find it in his book The Babylonian Connection on page 154, and it reads as follows:

Liberty under God’s Law is our God-given inheritance. When Protestant reformers of 400 years ago discovered this liberty, they forsook the Papal dictatorship. God opened their eyes to the truth of His Word, and they rejected the serpent’s lies taught by the Catholic church. Martin Luther wrote:

My hope is built on nothing less • Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; • I dare not trust the serpent’s lie, • Concerning immortality. • On Christ the solid Rock I stand, • All other ground is sinking sand.”

Before we read Clifton's assessment of this supposed citation by Jones, the first thing we notice is that the alleged words of Luther really have nothing to do with the Reformation or the “Papal dictatorship”, so Jones cannot even provide a valid context when he contrives a lie. Clifton responds and says:

When I read this over, the words seemed familiar — they just kept going through my mind. I kept asking myself, Where have I heard them before? Well, I kept going over and over them, and then some familiar music began to come to me. It took me about 10 minutes to begin to recognize the melody that went with the words, but I couldn’t think of the name of the song. I proceeded to find some old hymn books and looked to see if I could find the song that matched the words. After finding the song books, I spent the better part of an hour looking through them. I didn’t seem to have much luck in the indexes of the hymnals, so I just leafed through the pages one at a time. While searching, the words that seemed to come to me were: “I dare not trust the sweetest (something), but (something something) Jesus’ name.” Finally I found it; the name of the song was “The Solid Rock”, and in some hymn books it is just “Solid Rock.” But the words “the serpent’s lie, Concerning immortality” were not there! Apparently Jones changed these words in order to prove his thesis.

Not only that, but I found that “Martin Luther” never wrote these words! I have an old hymnal entitled The Evangelical Hymnal, published by “Board Of Publication of the Evangelical Church”, Cleveland, Oh. & Harrisburg, Pa., Copyrighted 1921. For the song “Solid Rock”, [on] page 150, it has “Edward Mote” as the author and, “William B. Bradbury” as the composer. From pages xxxiv to xxxvi [there] is found a list of authors. Rev. Edward Mote is listed on page xxxv as the author and flourished from 1797 till 1874. From pages xxxvii to xxxix are listed composers. William B. Bradbury is listed on page xxxvii as the composer, and he flourished from 1816 till 1868 and composed 21 melodies including “Solid Rock.” Now you can judge from this evidence for yourself whether or not you think Jones is being honest or not when he says that “Martin Luther” wrote these words, (and Jones changed the words to his own use to boot). Now if “Martin Luther” wrote these words, then Edward Mote is a plagiarist. In this hymnal the words, “Used by permission of The Bigelow & Main Company, Owners”, are used. This indicates that this company had a copyright against this song and it could be used only by their permission.

When we visited Clifton Emahiser just two weeks ago, I noticed a copy of Stephen Jones' book The Babylonian Connection was sitting out on his living-room end table. I imagined, being in the midst of this series of presentations, that Clifton probably had something he wanted to show me. But we were so busy during the five-day visit that we never got the opportunity to discuss it, and it will have to wait.

However I did find online the hymn which Clifton mentions here. It is titled differently, but it is the same hymn. It is called My Hope is Built on Nothing Less by Edward Mote and it is published on the Internet by the website Lutheran-Hymnal.com, which provides sheet music of traditional worship songs for churches. The lyrics for this particular song are exactly as Clifton describes them here. Now Clifton further discusses Jones' lies concerning this hymn and he says:

Let’s now take a look at the true words to this stanza of Mote’s poem which was later put to Bradbury’s melody:

I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.” (Not) “I dare not trust the serpent’s lie, Concerning immortality.”

By suggesting that change of words, Jones was using “subliminal suggestion” in his deceitful tactics to get you to buy his argument. The average person would say in his/her mind, “Oh yes, I know those words, so Jones has a good point here.” “Subliminal suggestion” is a science, and is practiced [very] much by the “Jews.” The question here is: “Who might be the ‘Jew’ behind Jones doing this?” Notice again, no words about “the serpent’s lie, Concerning immortality.” They were added by Jones who misrepresented the true author and thought you would never notice! You can see, then, that Ted R. Weiland is simply copycatting the same argument that Stephen E. Jones used to attempt to prove Eve was only “mentally” seduced.

Clifton has apparently caught Jones in a blatant lie here, if indeed Jones himself modified the words to a hymn and attributed the words to Luther in order to suit his own agenda. If Jones had a valid source for the words to the hymn, perhaps he should have supplied a citation that Clifton could have investigated. If there is no citation, then Jones is an apparent liar. In any event, Jones did nothing but lie about Genesis chapter 3. Now Clifton turns his attention to others and says:

In his booklet The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History Jeffrey A. Weakley copycats the same argument that Eve was seduced mentally on pages 7-8. Here are some excerpts:

The seedliners will insist that it be translated ‘seduced’ and they define it as a physical sexual seduction because the English word ‘seduce’ can mean that. But can the word ‘deceive’ mean a sexual seduction? ... When all these definitions are taken together as synonyms, the conclusion one comes to (if he is seeking to be honest) is that Eve was deceived in the mind, NOT SEXUALLY SEDUCED! ... So the first point the Satanic Seedline doctrine does not agree with the Scriptures — Eve was not sexually seduced, but rather she was mentally deceived.”

And of course, Weakley missed all of the other arguments which we present, and he is also lying about Genesis chapter 3. Clifton moves on to address still others:

Lt. Col. Jack Mohr in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? says this, implying a mental only seduction of Eve:

In 2 Cor. 11:3 the same Scripture writer indicates that Eve was beguiled in her mind, not through her sexual parts.”

In truth, Eve was beguiled in her mind to surrender her sexual parts, as Paul also spoke, in 2 Corinthians chapter 2, of the assembly being “a chaste virgin”. He was allegorically comparing Eve's seduction to the loss of chaste virginity, which Jack Mohr conveniently ignored. Clifton continues with others:

Charles Weisman at a Pete Peters camp retreat used the same argument as Stephen E. Jones, Ted R. Weiland and Lt. Col. Jack Mohr. The following is an excerpt from an audio cassette tape made at that meeting when Weisman, in an extended presentation, attempted to repudiate the Two Seedline message:

In 2nd Corinthians 11:3 Paul is concerned that the Corinthians would lose their faith and said: ‘But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds be corrupted ...’ So he interprets this verse to mean something of a mental thing, a mental delusion, mentally delude, to lead astray, deceive, and that is just what the word means.”

Notice again the missing comparison to a “chaste virgin”, a phrase used by Paul in that same passage which by itself entirely discredits the claims of the anti-seedliners in reference to 2 Corinthians 11. Clifton continues and in regard to all of this he says:

Not only did Weisman, like Weiland, Weakley, Jones and Mohr, use the same argument that Eve was only “mentally” seduced, but on this very same audio cassette tape, [Weisman] insinuates [that] the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of the Messiah were true blooded Israelites:

Now we go to Matthew 23. Now this is one of the questions that a guy who wrote me a letter asked about where in verse 35 it states ‘That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias whom you slew between the temple and the altar.’ Now, the statement about this verse by Satanic Seedline doctrine people is that they say, here, Christ identified his enemies as being the serpent race, and tells the Jews, who you’re [sic. He’s] talking to, that they are responsible for all that have been murdered upon the earth, even righteous Abel. Well, [Weisman says] Christ here is speaking of a judgment that is to come upon Adamic man. And this judgment includes the murderers recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus did not say to these Jews that they were responsible for Abel’s death. They [sic. He] said, all of his [sic. their] blood will come upon you. So they are going to be judged. All of – all of – shed blood – innocent blood – is going to become upon – this – this people. And these people were the last of the Israelite order. [NOT! - WRF] And they were the last true representatives of the Adamic race under God’s old order. So they were the ones who could be judged. [NOT! - WRF] So, He is not really saying they were guilty for Abel’s death, but rather, it would come upon them. But He does say that they were guilty of killing Zacharias, which is recorded in 2nd Chronicles 24:21. [NOT! - WRF] They were stoned by this people or this – this nation. And in verse 31 [Matthew 23:31], Christ says to them, ‘wherefore you be witnesses unto yourself that you are the children of them which killed the prophets.’ So it’s quite identifiable here who He’s talking to. He’s talking to Israelites! [NOT! - WRF] Just as Stephen said to these same people, ‘which of the fathers have you not persecuted’, Israelites! These are the people that Jesus came to and spoke with and judged. They were not descendants of Cain, but Israelites, as only Israelites could be judged, not mongrels.” [NOT! - WRF]

Again Weisman is wrong. If mongrels cannot be judged, then in the end Christ cannot judge the goats, the tares, the bad fish, or the bastards, and He would have no power to throw them all into the Lake of Fire.

There is fairly good evidence that the words “son of Barachias” were never in the original script. A Commentary On The Holy Bible, edited by Rev. J. R. Dummelow points this out on page 701:

Zacharias son of Barachias] Jesus probably said ‘Zachariah’ as in St. Luke, without mentioning the father’s name, but the evangelist or one of the earliest copyists, who thought it necessary to distinguish among the twenty-nine Zachariahs of the OT., and understood the canonical prophet to be meant, added the words ‘son of Barachias ...’” [It is more likely that the gloss belongs to one of the copyists - WRF]

The problem is: most of the prophets were after the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:21. Therefore, it is more probable that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist is meant in Matthew 23:35, (see Protevangelion, chapter 16). In such a case, Yahshua did indeed mean all the righteous blood from Abel to Zacharias! Also, as I have pointed out in several of my Special Notices to the anti-seedliners, that Josephus makes it quite clear that, outside of a minor few, the majority of Pharisees and Sadducees were not of the Tribe of Judah by birth, Josephus Wars 2:8:2. Therefore, Weisman’s argument against Two Seedline doctrine is totally spurious. This also shows that it is highly likely that Weiland was parroting Weisman when he mistakenly, but unequivocally, claimed the Pharisees and Sadducees were true descendants of “Jacob/Israel”, [on] pages 68 and 94 of his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?

While it is possible that Zechariah the Prophet was the man intended by Christ, as it is he who is described where it says in Matthew 23:35 “Zacharias the son of Barachias”, we nevertheless find it unlikely. Rather, we also prefer to follow Luke, which does not have the words “the son of Barachias”, and we interpret the passage to be a reference to Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, whose death is described in the apocryphal literature in the manner in which it was described by Christ. However in any event, Weisman was wrong because it is certainly not a reference to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, who lived before most of the Biblical prophets and whose father was named Jehoiada rather than Barachias.

But the biggest mistake Weisman makes in that passage is to consider the condemnation of Christ as a condemnation against the Adamic race. The murder of Abel can by no means be blamed upon the children of Seth, who was not even born when Abel was murdered. Weisman's interpretation is absolutely contrary to the justice of Yahweh and His Word concerning crime and punishment. The sins of the fathers may fall on the children, but not the sins of half-brothers, and Cain was driven away before the Scripture informs us of the birth of Seth. Only another race, the race of Cain which is also described in Scripture, can justly be held accountable for the blood of Abel. They can indeed be traced through Scripture down to New Testament times, even if Weisman and Weiland remain ignorant. Clifton continues:

There are many who don’t realize that Pete Peters is not Two Seedline. He clearly showed his position on the subject when he introduced Charles Weisman at his camp retreat when Weisman made his presentation against the Two Seedline doctrine. This is what Peters said:

Charles Weisman was definitely one of the intellectuals of the people. And he is a man that has been a very diligent scholar from what I can ascertain. He has some very fine writings, and I’ve been blessed immensely from some of the things he has brought. Shall we give Charles Weisman a hand ...”

Being applauded, Charles Weisman concluded his totally erroneous presentation against the Two Seedline doctrine saying the following, and Pete Peters sat right there and never challenged a single word Charles Weisman had to say:

So why does this [Two Seedline] doctrine exist today? Well, it exists because we have a tendency within ourselves to not want to have evil and problems to come from within; we want them to come from without. And, therefore, if you tell somebody about a falsehood, about problems coming from without, some other people from other groups will accept it, but if it’s from within, it’s less likely to be accepted. Same problem when you try to tell people about the corruption and evil in American Government. They just can’t accept it, but if you tell them lies about some foreign country, or about some Saddam Hussein, they will accept that because now the corruption is from without. It’s hard for us to accept that problems come from within ourselves, our family, our government, our nation, our race. It’s more appealing and acceptable if they are from without. The Cain-Satanic seedline has problems and evil coming from without; an outside source, that being Satan. Who were the enemies of Israel in the Bible? Most of them were offshoots of the Adamic race [bull manure]. The Midianites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, the Amalekites, even a lot of the Canaanites. Remember Esau was your brother, and so was Cain [bull manure again], and so was Canaan, and so were those who stoned the prophets, and who killed Christ. [Again Weisman is wrong, these are all of the line of bastards in Scripture.] The truth is that all the evil associated with the Jew today is from within. That is, it comes from within people of the Adamic race; those who were rejected by God, cursed by God, cast out etc. That is what, in part, constitutes the Jew today. Sort of the refuse of the Adamic race. God throughout history has been pruning His vine, separating out from the original Adamic stock, people like Cain, and Canaan, and Esau, and others. In conclusion, the Satanic Seedline doctrine is not Scriptural, it’s not logical; it is a false doctrine that I think we need to set aside and move on to the truth of what God has actually done in the earth ...” [More bull manure!]

Clifton did not elaborate, but only denies the veracity of Weisman's statements with interjections. While Israelites do indeed sin, the apostles themselves attributed the deception of the people to outsiders. Where the apostle Jude spoke of “certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men,” he could not have been speaking of Israelites, for Israelites cannot be described as having “crept in unawares”. Paul of Tarsus spoke of this same distinction likewise, where in Acts chapter 20 he first warned of “grievous wolves” who would “enter in among you, not sparing the flock”, and then contrasted them to Israelites leading the flock astray where he said that “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” So we see there are sheep who can sin, and wolves in sheep's clothing which sneak in unawares. The wolves cannot have the same origin as the sheep, or they wouldn't be wolves. Both Jude, and Peter in his second epistle, considered these outsiders to have been condemned from the beginning, without any possibility for repentance or acceptance, and related them to the fallen angels. That relation is not merely a spiritual one, and in the Bible as well as in our history books, the physical relation can indeed be illustrated. In turn, the Revelation of Jesus Christ connects these fallen angels to the serpent and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which Eve had desired when she was beguiled by the serpent. Therefore Two-Seedline is the only truthful way to consider the Scripture, as the apostles themselves had considered Scripture.

CHR20170707-CAE-SpecNotice10.odt — Downloaded 491 times