Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 11

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170714-CAE-SpecNotice11.mp3 — Downloaded 1066 times
 
00:00

 

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 11

Because of many of the things which we profess at Christogenea which are so vastly different from the various Biblical interpretations of the denominational churches, we are constantly embroiled in conflict. And it amazes me that those who disagree with us often simply refuse to go away. Instead they are actually hurt, they become emotionally involved, and they begin to troll us relentlessly, even to the point of spreading slander and cursing us on Social Media websites. If they were truly Christians, then they should forget about us, wipe the dust from their feet, and instead redirect the same zeal towards the enemies of Christ, so that we would all be better off. However when we examine these people, it almost always becomes manifest that they have some sort of sin in their lives which they are attempting to justify, whether it be a mamzer wife, or mamzer grandchildren, or sometimes that even they are bastards attempting to fit themselves into the Christian Identity community. So long as our ministry exists, their consciences cannot rest because we stand against their sin, and they are continually reminded by our presence that they themselves cannot be justified. So they are angry and attack us seeking to discredit our message.

Among these matters of conflict is our consistent profession of the fact that only people of the White Adamic race will see the Kingdom of Heaven, and all others are consigned to the Lake of Fire at the end of the age. However Yahshua Christ Himself said that “unless a man should be born from above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of Yahweh”, as it is recorded in John chapter 3. An examination of Scripture reveals that Adam was the son of Yahweh, and that only our Adamic race is “born from above”, of both water and of the Spirit of Yahweh. In the Genesis account of Creation, Yahweh took credit for the creation of one race only: the Adamic race, and only they are instilled with His heavenly Spirit. So our enemies often claim that the other races were described as having been created as “beasts”, in Genesis chapter 1. That is not at all true, but their dishonesty really becomes apparent when they get to the New Testament and claim that the other races, which they said were created as beasts, are now somehow “men”. That is universalism by the back door, while those same people who hold such a perverted view also claim that they are not universalists. We have fully demonstrated the role of the non-Adamic races in Scripture, in five segments of our Pragmatic Genesis series. I simply cannot repeat all of that here. In the end, in the last chapters of the Revelation, the City of God is described as having twelve gates, and upon those gates are written the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. Nobody else will be able to enter into that city. Unless a man is born from above he shall not see the Kingdom of Yahweh, either from within or from without. One is either a sheep or a goat, and by that time all of the goat nations shall be cast into the Lake of Fire.

These people and others also despise us because they cannot accept that all of the sheep of Yahweh's pasture shall be saved, in spite of the fact that Paul of Tarsus very bluntly asserted that “all Israel shall be saved”. They deny the plain word of Scripture which in many places confirms that assertion which Paul himself had made in Romans chapter 11. Now perhaps they themselves may have been harmed by someone in some grievous way, and they cannot relinquish judgment to Yahweh their God so they want to see those who hurt them be destroyed. Or perhaps they are moved by some infamously sinful individual, such as a Jeffrey Dahmer or a Ted Bundy. Such people are carnally minded and they fail to see the bigger, transcendental picture of the purpose of the Creation which is outlined in Scripture. So they deny that purpose, failing because they deny a large portion of Scripture and choose out only certain verses which suit their carnal desire for revenge against their own brethren, if indeed they themselves are sheep.

So these people also hate our message and they assail us for wanting to see sinful Israelites get what they describe as a “free pass into heaven”. However King David himself was a murderer, and he had, albeit indirectly, committed murder because he lusted for another man's wife. Those are two of the most grievous sins, yet Yahweh God forgave him, and David remained a model for Yahweh's own incarnation as Yahshua Christ. Yet even David's sin was nothing in comparison to many of the sins of the ancient Israelites. If one reads through the chronicles of the Old Testament one shall see that the ancient Israelites sacrificed their own sons and daughters to the fires of Moloch, committed fornication with the other races, rejected Yahweh for the temples of Baal, and even went so far as to eat their own children in their idolatry in the times of their punishment. However even after all of this, Yahweh God Himself said they would get a “free pass”, as we read in Micah chapter 7 concerning those same ancient Israelites where it says “18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. 19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. 20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.”

All of the children of Israel being sinners, Yahweh God would keep the promises to Abraham by extending mercy to all of the seed of the promise, without exception. There are other implications for sin, as we read in Daniel 12:2, Mark 3:29, John 5:29 or 1 Corinthians chapter 3, however all of the children of Israel shall be saved in spite of these other implications. As Paul explained in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, even when all of a man's works are burned in the fire, and he has nothing left, he himself will still be saved. One verse of Scripture does not cancel out another verse, as Yahweh God is not at any time a liar. In relation to the New Covenant, He said in Jeremiah chapter 33 “7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.” So we may quip that there shall be no Israelite left behind.

Paul of Tarsus explained this very concept at length in his epistle to the Romans: that all of the sins of the children of Israel would be forgiven by the grace of Yahweh their God. Yet even Paul warned that we must not sin simply because we are going to be forgiven. So if we were not correct in our interpretation of Scripture, Paul's words would be completely irrelevant where he said in Romans chapter 6 “1 Now what may we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace would be greater? 2 Certainly not! We who have died in sin, how still can we live in it? 3 Or are you ignorant that as long as we are immersed in Christ Yahshua, into His death we are immersed?” Paul said these things in response to his explanation in Romans chapter 5 that the entire Adamic race would ultimately have eternal life in Yahshua Christ. Then a little later in Romans 6 Paul wrote “14 Therefore sin shall not lord over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we commit sin because we are not under law, but under grace? Certainly not!” In Romans chapter 3 he had already told them “31 Do we then nullify the law by faith? Certainly not! Rather we establish the law.” We discussed this at great length in our commentary on Paul's epistle to the Romans, and especially in parts 6 and 7 of that commentary, and once again, we cannot possibly explain it all here.

Paul of Tarsus said in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Then in Romans chapter 11 he said “26 And in that manner all of Israel shall be delivered; just as it is written, 'From out of Zion shall come the Deliverer, and He shall turn away impiety from Jacob.' 27 'And this to them is the covenant from Me, when I should remove their sin.'” And later in the chapter he wrote “32 Therefore Yahweh has enclosed all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all.” The apostle John wrote in chapter 5 of his first epistle that “4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” There he is encouraging the children of Yahweh, that they may love their brethren and be obedient to the Word, because they are destined to overcome the world. The faith spoken of is a belief in the promises which Yahweh God made to Abraham, which are assured in Christ. Essentially, John is agreeing with Paul that “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

We have already seen that in Micah chapter 7 and Jeremiah chapter 33 Yahweh had promised mercy upon and to cleanse the sins of all of the children of Israel, without any stated exceptions, and there are other scriptures in the prophets which state those same things. In Isaiah chapter 45 the Word of Yahweh says to Israel in captivity “4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” Not knowing Yahweh, the children of Israel were caught up in all of the sins of the pagan world around them. Then later in the same chapter we read “17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.” Then a little further on it says “21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth [an allegory for scattered Israel]: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” So every Israelite will ultimately be obedient, and finally we read “... 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” So Paul was not teaching innovations when he wrote these things. Rather, Paul was teaching the fulfillment of the promises to Israel which Yahweh made in the writings of the prophets, and that fulfillment is assured in Christ.

Now which part of Jeremiah chapter 33 or Micah chapter 7 or Isaiah chapter 45 is a lie? This is the justice and mercy of God, that as it says in the Wisdom of Solomon, “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” If man does not have eternal life, then God is not true, and God is not sovereign because He created something which fails that He did not intend for failure, but had rather created it with the purpose of its having eternal life. So if man does have eternal life, then we clearly see that man will be chastised until he acts according to the will of God. When man sinned in the manner which he did, he found death. This is the very purpose of the chastisement of Israel. If man could be discarded and replaced, Israel would have been discarded and replaced, but man was made to be eternal from the beginning and man may fail, but Yahweh God will not fail, or what is the point of chastisement? So Yahweh promised Israel, that they would be delivered from the grave. Man found death by way of the devil, and Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. There would be no point in chastisement if Yahweh simply intended to throw disobedient Israelites into the Lake of Fire. There would be no substance in mercy if only obedient Israelites were saved. But if all of the Adamic race has eternal life, then God is true and He demonstrates His sovereignty, even if we must learn in our punishment (cf. Hebrews 12:8, 1 Timothy 1:20).

As we have already said, one verse of Scripture does not cancel out another verse, as Yahweh God is not a liar. So every verse of Scripture, at least as far as it can be determined to have been originally written, must be interpreted with the acceptance that every verse is true. The only exceptions are the few and demonstrable additions or corruptions of men.

A lot more may be said about sin and punishment and death and judgement, but no other Scriptures conflict with what these particular Scriptures which we cite here have promised us. Any perceived conflicts are due to poor translations and the errant doctrines of the denominational churches.

When a White man hears that the Word of God guarantees us that all White men shall be saved, he should be absolutely overjoyed that all of his brethren and kinsmen are assured eternal life, in spite of their sins and their faults and in spite of their rewards – or a lack of reward for the unrepentant – in the Kingdom of their God. When a White man hears that the other races, the bastards which have competed with his own race for the fatness of the earth since the dawn of time, and which have been a scourge and a thorn to him throughout history, are ultimately all going to be destroyed because they can never please God, then he should once again be absolutely overjoyed, because this is the Gospel of the Kingdom of his God. I am appalled by all so-called Identity Christians who are not overjoyed by these things, and I exhort them to repent of their worldly sins, because they have swallowed the lies of serpents. For my part, I pray to Yahweh that I never falter with this message because it is the ultimate Gospel truth.

These things may not have been revealed in the period of the Old Testament. And indeed, in the Old Testament man found death. But man found death through the Devil and Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. This is not the dispensation of the Old Testament.

With this, we shall commence with our presentation of Clifton Emahiser's

SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WHO DENY TWO SEEDLINE, #11

Again, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to understand the formidable enemy with whom we have to contend! In order to fathom our present world problems, it is imperative [that] we grasp two things: (1) That the White Europeans and their kin worldwide are the true racial Israelites of the Bible, and (2) Who Israel’s real enemies are. To know one without the other is insufficient. To improperly identify Biblical Israel’s enemy is a criminal offense, for it can mean the difference between life and death to our people. Death is not always so obvious to the eye. When a white [person] marries a member of another race, it brings on death of the Spirit which was breathed into our forefather Adam. If you are ever invited to attend a wedding of a White and a nonwhite, you are not attending a wedding, but a funeral. When the 23 chromosomes of the male sperm of a nonwhite unites with the 23 chromosomes of the egg of a White, it brings death to the 23 chromosomes of the egg of the White [Here Clifton makes a parenthetical statement in regard to the non-White races, that race mixing would also cause death for them, where he said “and the other way around!” However we would assert that for non-Whites the result is death in any case, as they have no true life in them.] This process is now happening in White countries every few minutes. In the Bible it is called a “plague”, Numbers 25:1-9 (especially verse 9). In that chapter, having intercourse with non-Israelites was considered the same as “death.” If you think the bombing of the Twin Trade Towers in New York was terrible, consider the death being brought about by miscegenation. This should give you some idea of what kind of WAR we are in, and who the players are. Now the key to understanding this WAR is found in Genesis 3:15. The anti-seedliners, by denying the truth of that passage, are aiding and abetting Israel’s worst enemy. Actually, the anti-seedliners are doing more damage than the “Jews” themselves. They call us Two Seedliners “seedliners”, so the only thing we can dub them is “anti-seedliners.”

Being anti-seedliners, they are really anti-racists. Even Ted Weiland in his wretched naivete calls himself a “racialist” in a lame attempt to avoid being dubbed a “racist”. Here Clifton has summarized in a different way exactly the ideas to which we always find resistance, even among so-called Seedliners, that all bastards are rejected and it is miscegenation which causes death. Paul of Tarsus told us in Romans chapter 5 that “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” But if sin was not imputed where there was no law, the anti-seedliners must explain why Adam and Eve were punished, and why the Adamic race was nearly eliminated from the face of the earth in punishment in the flood of Noah in Genesis chapter 6.

The truth is, both groups were punished because both had broken the one law which Yahweh had laid down in the garden: they both “ate” from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, meaning that they race-mixed with the corrupted fallen angels. They were punished for violating that one law, the only law Yahweh gave to men at that time, or they could not have been justly punished at all. This situation helps to demonstrate that the sin of the Garden as well as the sin of the generation of Noah was indeed race-mixing. Yahweh punished race-mixers, because Yahweh Himself is a proud racist. Clifton continues under the subtitle:

MY FATHER” vs. “your father”

John 8:38 is one of the main supporting passages for [the seedliner interpretation of] Genesis 3:15:

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.”

You will first notice, as properly applied by the translators, the one “father” is capitalized and the other one isn’t. From this, it should be quite evident that the Father of the Messiah was not the same father as that of those so-called “Jews.” Therefore, Scripture is talking about two separate genetic family trees! You might argue, “this is speaking in a ‘spiritual’ sense.” Yet, take a look at the next verse where it says: “Abraham is our father.” That hardly sounds “spiritual”, does it? It is not “spiritual” here, nor is it “spiritual” in John 8:44 where Messiah tells certain Judeans, later called “Jews”, who their father really was and is.

Further, it is stated “my Father” and “your father” indicating that our Savior had a different genetic Father than did the so-called “Jews.” The Greek word for “my” is #3450, while the word for “your” is #5216. Surely, this language should be clear enough to understand the “Pharisee” and “Sadducee” alleged “Jews” were, for the most part, definitely not of the same lineage as our Messiah. Yet, in spite of that evidence, this is what the anti-seedliners falsely maintain. Weiland and Weisman both made this assertion as I have already shown you in other Special Notices. What is it that we don’t understand about the difference in the meanings of “my” and “your”? Jeffrey A. Weakley also says it’s all “spiritual.”

It must be admitted here that if we check many modern New Testament versions, one or even both of the pronouns are missing. That is because the ancient manuscripts are divided. The Christogenea New Testament will be amended at this verse to include both pronouns, where until now it has had only one. Reading both pronouns is consistent with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Majority Text, while the ancient papyri P66 and P75 and the Codex Vaticanus have neither, but those manuscripts do not agree on the reading of the passage. It seems that like Jeffrey Weakley and Ted Weiland, the ancient copyists could not believe that the Jews had a different father than the Messiah, however without the second pronoun, which is your, Yahweh God is made a hypocrite – telling the Messiah to do one thing and setting a contrary example for His people. The context of the subsequent verses, where Yahshua's opponents claim that they are children of Abraham and not born of fornication, tells us that the pronouns belong in the text and the distinction which is being made is certainly valid. Once again, Clifton continues under the subtitle:

IF”

In John 8 verse 39 it says: “IF ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” In verse 42 it says: “IF God were your Father, ye would love me.” Questions: (1) Did the so-called “Jews” ever do the works of Abraham? (2) Did these same “Jews” ever love Him? In order to understand what these passages mean, it will be necessary to qualify the Greek word “IF. Actually, there are two Greek words translated “IF” in our English versions, and they are quite different! As a matter of fact, unless we investigate the true meanings of these words in the Greek, we cannot comprehend what is being said in the entire 8th chapter of John.

ACTUALLY DON’T KNOW

The one word “IF” is #1487 [εἰ], and the other word “IF” is #1437 [ἐάν] in the Strong’s Concordance. We are particularly interested in #1487 in this case. W. E. Vine does not deal with either of these. Strong’s explanations do little to make these understandable either. After searching through several Greek reference books, I found Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his The Complete New Testament Word Study Dictionary had the best general definitions for these two meanings. On pages 504 & 493 he says this of these two Bible words rendered “IF”:

1487 ... ei: conditional conjunctive. If. As such it expresses a condition which is merely hypothetical and separate from all experience in indicating a mere subjective possibility and differing from ean (1437), if, which implies a condition which experience must determine, i.e., an objective possibility referring always to something future ...”

I almost always translate this word as “if”, although in some contexts it is “whether”.

1437 ... ean ... It differs from ei in that ei expresses a condition which is merely hypothetical, a subjective possibility; ean implies a condition which experience must determine, an objective possibility, and thus refers always to something future ...”

I usually translate this word as “if perhaps”. But this is immaterial, since in all of the manuscripts from which the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is compiled, the word if is # 1487, εἰ, in both cases. So while Clifton's comparison is not valid, it does not matter, as the point which Clifton is making concerning the text itself is valid. Not having my Strong's Concordance with me as I prepared this program on the road, I cannot tell if Strong's induced Clifton to make the error of thinking that one of these occurrences of the word if came from the Greek word ἐάν (# 1437). Clifton continues to make his analogy of the two words:

From this we can see in the Greek, for these two words, it is either a “hypothetical” IF or a “future” IF. For an example of a “future” IF, one might say: IF one will turn on the ignition, one might be able to start the engine. But the IF in our passages above is #1487, a “hypothetical” IF in nature. Thus, these verses might read something like this:

Verse 39 saying: “IF [hypothetically] ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” And verse 42 saying: “IF [hypothetically] God [Yahweh] were your Father, ye would love me.”

Here Clifton made the proper conclusion, and he continues by discussing the implications:

Surely, this very strongly suggests that the greater part of the Pharisees and Sadducees were NOT true children of Abraham of pure genetic seed! When faced with these statements of our Redeemer, the so-called “Jews” said, [in] verse 41: “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”

Those so-called “Jews” wouldn’t have made such a statement if it hadn’t been implied in the discourse by our Savior in John chapter 8, for “fornication” means to race-mix. Yes, they understood His words very well, and they knew what the word “ei” (IF) meant, even though the anti-seedliners don’t seem to comprehend it today. Not only did the “Jews” understand the impetus of Messiah’s words, but they understood well the sarcasm in which they were said. There used to be a bumper sticker that read: “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich!” Messiah said: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.”

In other words: “put up or shut up!” How much more evidence is needed to convince the anti-seedliners that those so-called “Jews” were not true pureblooded descendants of Abraham? I recognize that verse 37 says: “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed”, but it doesn’t say “pure seed”, and “never in bondage” confirms it in John 8:33! The Hebrew word “arab”, #6154, means “a mixture or mongrel race” The Esau-Edomite-“Jews”, and the Arabs all have one thing in common; they are all “mamzers” (bastards). All mixed people are “Arabs.”

And Clifton is certainly right, that in John chapter 8 Christ is denying that Yahweh God is the father of these Jews who opposed Him. He is denying it very plainly, by saying “IF God were your father”, or “IF Abraham were your father”. He is denying that God is their father, so they must have another origin. The anti-seedliners have to find that origin, or they are simply lying.

As we have explained in a recent commentary on the prophet Malachi, in Malachi chapter 2 there is a dialog between Yahweh and Israel, and after being rebuked the people are portrayed in verse 10 as having asked: “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” We would assert that this is indeed an allegorical prophecy of the very exchange between Yahshua Christ and the leaders of the people of Judaea as it is recorded here in John chapter 8, and where Yahweh answers the questions that the people posed, we see the answer which explains this discourse between Christ and His adversaries, and it says in the verse of Malachi which follows: “11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.” Just as Judah had taken a Canaanite wife, and caused subsequent problems for Israel, likewise the people of Judaea allegorically married the Edomites in the second century before Christ, marrying the daughter of a strange God as Esau had married Canaanite women and his progeny became a bastard nation. So the life of Judah became a type, or model, for what had happened to Judaea in the 2nd century before Christ, and those historical events are recorded by Flavius Josephus, among others. Now Clifton continues under the subtitle:

OF”

In John 8:47, Messiah tells the so-called “Jews”: “He that is [genetically] OF God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not; because you are not [genetically] OF God.” In Special Notice #1, we considered the word “OF” such as [it is] used in this verse. It is Strong’s #1537 in the Greek. To refresh our memory, I will repeat it here:

The Complete Word Study Dictionary [of the] New Testament by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates devotes five pages to define and expound [upon] the word “OF” as [it appears] in the Greek, [on] pages 529-534. Obviously, I cannot quote this entire document here, but cite only that which is relevant to John 8:44:

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

The New Testament Greek Study Aids, by Walter Jerry Clark, says, on page 230, about the Greek word ἐκ: ‘out of ... with the genitive: by means of, out of.’ The Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A. Young, page 95 says the following about the Greek word ἐκ: ‘ἐκ often conveys special extensions ‘out of’ or ‘from.’ For example, the prophet said that God would call His Son out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15)” From the Greek to English Interlinear by George Ricker Berry, page 31 of his “Greek-English New Testament Lexicon”, we have this on ἐκ: “ἐκ, or before a vowel, ξ, a preposition governing [the] genitive, from, out of.” The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 189 expresses ἐκ this way: “... out of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection ...” John 8:47 has the same connotation as John 8:44. It means a chip off the old block. When it says the so-called “Jews” are not “OF” God [Yahweh], it means it in a genetic way. But only those of us who are genetically “OF” God (Yahweh) can hear and comprehend His Word.

And of course we completely agree with Clifton here. There is no common usage in Greek that if one person were “of” another person, he is only a follower or pupil of the person. Cain was “of the Wicked One”, but there is nothing in Scripture which indicates that Cain had a devil for a teacher or mentor. With the use of the word for father and the preposition ἐκ, no other meaning could be assigned except the common meaning, where the usage signifies that the person is a genetic descendant of the other person, the father. The anti-seedliners borrow invalid arguments from the universal Roman Catholic Church to dispute Seedliners, and they have nothing better than old lies. Clifton continues with further Scriptural evidence to support his assertions:

John chapter 10 warns us of this very thing! In John 10:26-27 Messiah says the same thing to the “Jews”, but puts it a little differently: “26 But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

You may be wondering why I am so adamant concerning the Two Seedline doctrine. The reason I am so insistent is because, without properly identifying the enemy, the Identity message is neutralized. It also tends to open the door for the enemy to worm his way into our midst. Once the enemy has established a beachhead among us, he can spread all kinds of misleading information and false doctrine (“leaven”).

This is exactly how the Jews undermined Christianity in Europe, by infiltrating and playing at pretend-Christian while setting themselves up as Bible experts and corrupting the interpretation of Scripture, and the anti-seedliners assist them in doing the same thing to modern Christian Identity. This is why we despise and rail against clowns like Jeffrey Weakley, Stephen Jones, James Bruggeman, Dave Barley and Ted Weiland. The damage that these fools do by obscuring the racial message of the Scripture cannot easily be reversed. British Israel sects even entertain demonic Jews such as Yair Davidy, who promotes an absolutely perverted version of the old British Identity message. Identity Christians, if they seek to please God, must do away with these clowns. Clifton continues:

The “Jews” who are in the Herbert Armstrong camp [who founded the old, half-Identity, Worldwide Church of God] are a good example of this. It should be obvious that the “Jews” would have the most to gain from an anti-seedline message. If the enemy can directly or indirectly influence those in Israel Identity to the fraud that there is no “seed of the serpent”, he has them right where he wants them. Once the enemy has convinced Identity minded people there is no “seed (children) of the serpent”, the “no-devil doctrine” invariably follows. Once this erroneous premise is established, the next step is usually to identify the “devil” as the “flesh.” While it is true [that] we do have a war with the flesh, this is not the same WAR as that which is being waged against “the seed (children) of the serpent!” To identify the flesh as the Satanic enemy is to grossly misdirect our energy. While the anti-seedline people are trying to analyze their own individual, personal, fleshly problems, the real enemy is bulldozing along their agenda to destroy the White Race! You can’t get any more neutralized than that!!! Paul speaks of it as: “one that beateth the air.”

So far as I know, to this day there is a large portion of people who consider themselves Christian Identity who actually do believe that the flesh is the Adversary, or Satan. While Paul of Tarsus described the personal struggle with our fleshly lusts and desires which each of us have, Yahweh created man in the flesh, and it was good. There are many Scriptures which can be used to prove that the flesh certainly cannot be the devil, but the final understanding comes only once it is realized that there are people here on earth who cannot be converted, whom Christ and the apostles never expected to or attempted to convert, who are not of the race of Adam, and that they are collectively Satan, adversaries of Christ and of the collective Body of Christ. That realization, the anti-seedliners refuse to make. Clifton continues:

David said the following about the enemy, Psalm 139:21-22, of which I am sure he wasn’t talking about his “flesh”:

21 Do not I hate them, O Yahweh, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

Surely, the “devil” and the “flesh” can’t be the same thing! Yet this is what Ted R. Weiland maintained on one of his [series of] ten audio-cassette tapes [which are] entitled Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? He tried to claim that the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 were the “seeds of the spirit against the seeds of the flesh.” Ted R. Weiland was saying, in effect, that the “tree of knowledge” was the law, and when Eve ate of it, it brought on death! —— that the “enmity” between “thy seed and her seed” of Genesis 3:15 is the enmity between the “flesh and the spirit.” In other words, the flesh represents a seed line. In doing this, Ted R. Weiland was separating verse 15 from 14 as if it didn’t exist. Yahweh was directing His dialogue to the “serpent”, not the “flesh.” Let’s read the whole passage, Mr. Weiland:

14 And Yahweh said to 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.”

Now if it is a war between the “spirit” and the “flesh”, it would have to read as follows. (So let’s now read it as Ted R. Weiland would have us to read it):

And the Lord God said to Eve’s flesh, Because thou hast done this, thy flesh is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; and thy flesh shall go upon its belly, and dust shalt thy belly eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between the flesh of the woman and the spirit of the woman, and between the offspring of her flesh and the offspring of her spirit, and the offspring of her spirit shall bruise the head of the offspring of her flesh, and the offspring of her flesh will bruise the heel of the offspring of her spirit.” (The Gospel according to Ted R. Weiland.)

Of course Clifton is being sarcastic, but he is absolutely correct, that Genesis 3:14-15 would have to read in that very manner in order to lead us to come to the conclusions which Ted Weiland comes to. I don't think Weiland originated this, and if I am not mistaken, Sheldon Emry taught this long before Weiland. But in any event, others such as Gerda Koch and Dan Gentry had also gone down this path long ago. I wrote to Dan Gentry from prison once concerning this, and like Ted Weiland and Dave Barley and others, he never answered my letter. A humble man can discuss Scripture without being offended, but it is difficult for a fool to divest himself of his own stupidity. Ted Weiland is indeed such a fool. Clifton continues criticizing him under the subtitle:

THE “LAW TREE” HYPOTHESIS

Although Weiland does not say it in terms of a “law tree”, he highly suggests that this is what the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was which Eve partook of in the garden. I will quote some excerpts from his book by the same title as his ten audio-cassette series, pages 40-44, and I am sure you will have to agree with my analysis of what, in essence, he is saying:

There are no scriptures that categorically tell us what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was....

Here we are going to interrupt Clifton's citation of Weiland, because we do not want to do it later. We can know from Scripture what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is, if we make a few inferences. These are not guesses. An inference is “a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning”, and we certainly have license to make them or we would never be able to interpret an allegory. Scripture is full of allegories. The first inference is drawn from Genesis 3:22, that Yahweh was speaking to the angels of heaven when He said “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”, so angels know good and evil. The second inference is drawn from the word know, which also means to have experience at something rather than to simply be aware of a thing. Thirdly, we have the account in Revelation chapter 12 by which we know that the serpent of the Garden of Eden is explicitly connected to the Devil and Satan and the group of fallen angels which followed after him in his rebellion from God. Since when they fell “neither was their place found any more in heaven”, the fall of the angels must have happened some time before the creation of Adam, or the serpent in the Garden would not yet have been there, instead he would still have been an angel in heaven. The final inference is that when a third of the angels of heaven rebelled against Yahweh and fell from grace, they had come to know, or experience, evil, and they had already experienced good. By this Scripture and these inferences we can understand that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were the angels who left their first estate, the angels that sinned, the fallen angels of Revelation chapter 12.

If the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the law, as Clifton is about to cite Weiland's claim, in the end there will be no law, as we only find the Tree of Life described in the last chapter of the Revelation. But if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is an allegory for the fallen angels and their corruption of the Creation of God, they are not found in the City of God because after the return of Christ they are all cast into the Lake of Fire, and all the goat nations are cast in with them. But the children of Israel will still have the law, as Christ informed them that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

Now for Clifton's citation from Ted Weiland's book:

There are no scriptures that categorically tell us what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was ... Genesis 3:22 clearly reveals that the knowledge of good and evil resides not with some demon of darkness, but rather with our omniscient God, Yahweh ... God’s law itself is good because it reflects Yahweh’s nature. Consequently, Yahweh uses it as the vehicle through which the knowledge of good is commuted to man. The knowledge of evil is imparted by means of the law as well ... Furthermore, Genesis 3:6 describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as being able to make one wise, being pleasant to the eyes and good for food. These qualities also describe the law of God ... At this point someone is likely to inquire ‘If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the law of God, would not that have made God’s law evil because God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of it?’ ... There may be Christians, especially those who understand the vital goodness and importance of God’s law for us today, who may still have difficulty reconciling in their minds that Yahweh would ban His law from Adam and Eve. Such Christians should consider that when God prohibited Adam and Eve from partaking of the tree of life, that prohibition did not make the tree of life evil ... So why would Yahweh want to keep Adam and Eve from His law? ... Perhaps God initially forbade Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil by way of His law because He knew He would have to hold them accountable to it, and He knew the heartache and death that would ensue as a result ... On the other hand, if the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was an unlawful partaking of God’s law, then there is a connection between Adam and Eve’s sin and all other sin.”

Clifton responds to Weiland's rather ludicrous interpretation and says:

Let’s now sort out all this gibberish. What are the consequences of what Weiland is saying? Weiland is inferring that Yahweh deliberately withheld His Law from Adam and Eve so they wouldn’t be condemned by their sin — that as long as they didn’t know the Law, they were innocent — that by partaking of the Law, it brought about death. If Weiland is correct (Yahweh forbid), and Adam and Eve had never partaken of the “law-tree” (as Stephen E. Jones calls it), we could conceivably be living in innocence today, partaking of every kind of immorality, and it would not be considered by Yahweh as sin because we never ate of the so-called “law-tree.” Wouldn’t all the homosexuals of today love that situation?

THEORY OF EATING OF THE LAW TREE NOT ORIGINAL WITH WEILAND

This idea is not original with Weiland. Stephen E. Jones, in his book The Babylonian Connection, pages 60-61, says this in part:

The tree of life (Grace) and the tree of knowledge (Law) both were planted in the same garden by God. They grew together. The Law-tree provided the righteous standard; the Grace-tree provided the means by which the standard could be met ... First they disobeyed God by eating from the Law-tree, and for that act they were made mortal. Then their eyes were opened to know both good and evil, and they recognized their mortality in contrast to God’s immortality ... Because they had broken His Law, they stood naked (mortal) and without excuse.” [Bull manure!]

All this is absolutely preposterous, for there is positively no Scriptural backing for such ideas as a “law tree”, or a “grace tree”, or that the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 are representative of the “seeds of the flesh” and “seeds of the spirit.” The term for seed in both the case of the woman and the serpent is #2233 zera, and is the same word used in Genesis 13:16 where Abram is promised by the Almighty that his “seed” would become “as the dust of the earth.” If in fact Abraham had literal “seed”, so also must the serpent of Genesis 3:15 have literal “seed!” So where are the serpent’s “seed” then? You talk about “taking away”, “adding to” or “twisting”; this is the ultimate zenith of absurdity. It is obvious then, that the “woman”, the “serpent” and “Abraham” were all to have literal “seed” (children). Thus, to state that the “woman” was to have only one “seed” is also outrageously irrational for it does not literally follow! She was to have a single variety (species; like kind) of “seed” via Seth, of which one “seed” was to bruise the head of the serpent! All this makes one wonder who will be next in line to parrot this same spurious argument! Stop and think: Without the “seed” of the serpent, Messiah’s heel could not be bruised; and without the bruising of His heel, we have no Redemption. Maybe we should be a tad more careful how we interpret Genesis 3:15! Repeating: If there was not a literal genetic offspring of the “serpent” to bruise the “heel” of our Savior, then, WE HAVE NO REDEMPTION!!! It would appear the anti-seedliners have talked themselves into a corner from which there is no escape!

The concept of these two trees of Eden representing a “law tree” and a “grace tree” is so absurd that it is difficult to address in a few words. Stephen Jones just made this up, and I cannot imagine where in Scripture such an idea can be supported. Christ is the True Vine, the Root and the Branch, and the Word made Flesh. The law is found in that Word, but Christ is not in opposition to His Own Law. Paul of Tarsus makes Stephen Jones a liar where he says in Romans chapter 5 “12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come....)” Since Paul of Tarsus asserted that there was no law from Adam until Moses, then Adam and Eve could not have eaten from a “Law tree”, and Stephen Jones is proven to be an idiot. Clifton continues and addresses other aspects of anti-seedliner chicanery under the subtitle:

A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING”

This phrase is found in John 8:44, and the anti-seedliners make the claim that it has a “spiritual” connotation. For the life of me, I don’t know where they find a case of “spiritual murder” in the Bible. Then again, maybe they have a different Bible than mine. I wish they would quote book, chapter and verse showing a single occurrence where someone was murdered “spiritually.” The word “murderer” in John 8:44 is #443, anthropoktonos, in the Greek and [it] means “a manslayer.” It would seem [that] if it had “spiritual” connotations, it would be defined as “spirit slayer.” But, try as I may, I can find no place where this word has any such meaning. Many of the commentaries attempt to point out that this doesn’t mean Cain, but the devil. Lt. Col. Jack Mohr makes this same claim on page 23 of his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? But thankfully, all commentaries do not agree on this. The Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary says this on page 733:

MURDER — the unlawful killing of one person by another, especially with premeditated malice. After the Fall in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-24), it was not long before the first murder occurred (Gen. 4:8), as Cain killed Abel his brother.”

It would appear from this that the killing of Abel by Cain is the first recorded murder in the Bible. While it is true that Satan’s beguiling [of Eve] brought on “death”, nowhere is it recorded as a “murder” as implied in the meaning of this Greek word. The Complete New Testament Word Study by Spiros Zodhiates makes this observation on the Greek word #443 on page 179: “anthropoktonos ... Homicidal, used substantively [not imaginary; real rather than apparent; actual] manslayer, one who commits homicide (John 8:44; 1 John 3:15) ... to kill, put to death.”

As you can see, Zodhiates includes both John 8:44 and 1 John 3:15 in this definition. And, if you will check 1 John 3:15, you will see that it is speaking of Cain as recorded in 1 John 3:12, just three verses before it! Where do these anti-seedliners come up with all of this hocus-pocus about some kind of “spiritual murder”?

Stephen E. Jones implied this in his The Babylonian Connection on pages 70-71 where he said this:

Remembering John’s definition that ‘he that committeth sin is of the devil’, Jesus was simply saying that the Pharisees were doing the devil’s works. Since we have already seen that the devil could not have physically fathered Cain, nor any other human, the Pharisees were ‘of the devil’ idiomatically, not genealogically.”

Many men committed murder in the Biblical records, and just as treacherously as Cain. But they were not considered to be “of the devil”. King David was not “of the devil” because he ensured a man's death while lusting after his wife. Moses was not “of the devil” for killing an Egyptian. The only way Cain could have been a devil and of the devil was to have been a genealogical corruption, just like Judas Iscariot, of the seed of the serpent. Clifton continues:

Ted R. Weiland in his Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? words it a little more cleverly, when on page 90 he says:

However, any well-versed Bible student knows that the Word of God is not always intended to be taken literally.” Then, on page 84 he asks this question: “However, is it a foregone conclusion that the word ‘father’ used in John 8 has to be understood in a literal, physical sense? The seedliners declare: ‘Absolutely’!”

To that Clifton responds and says: Well, if the word “murderer” is literal, as we have just seen, then the word “father” would have to be literal also, would it not? Matthew 23:29-35 cites the murdered victims. [All the prophets from Abel through Zacharias.]

Jeffrey A. Weakley, in his The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, parrots the same contention in a “question and answer” discussion conducted solely by himself on page 24:

ARGUMENT [of the Two Seedliners]: John 8:44 says: ‘Ye are of your father the devil ...’ This shows that the devil is their physical father.” ANSWER [by Weakley]: “Wrong. This once again shows that the devil is their spiritual father (the one that they serve).”

Lt. Col. Jack Mohr in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?, page 26, put it this way:

Figuratively, I believe they are the special children of Satan and that as the Apostle Paul said: ‘They please not God, and are contrary to all men’ (Thess. 2:15). But let us use care when we call them the literal, physical children of Satan, for we cannot prove this from the Word.” [ha!]

Clifton ends with a laugh directed at Jack Mohr. The Word proves throughout that these men are physical children of Satan, which is what we would call the races of people descended from the corruption of the fallen angels, but the anti-seedliners are too proud or too insolent to acknowledge it, opting instead to pervert the language wherever they can. The epistles of Jude and 2 Peter are perhaps the best refutation against them. Infiltrators who “crept in unawares” and who are “before of old ordained to... condemnation” cannot possibly be of the body of the people for whom the Gospel is intended, and therefore there must be a contrary body of people which is of a different nature. That contrary body is indeed the seed of the serpent, but there can be no recognition without the acknowledgment that there are races of people here that could never be Christian simply because they are not of the race of Christ. Weiland sends Bibles to niggers, and therefore he is void of any racial awareness whatsoever. Being so blinded, how could he ever see the truth of Two-Seedline?

CHR20170714-CAE-SpecNotice11.odt — Downloaded 14 times