- Christogenea Internet Radio
Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 12
I have often said that we cannot read the prophecies of God and foresee the future, and I stand by that statement today. The prophecy was not given so that we can foresee the future, but it was given so that we can look back and see its fulfillment, and know that God is true. However what we can see in the inspired prophecy of Scripture is the expectation that we should have as Christians. Thereby knowing what our Christian expectations should be, we can live our lives accordingly, seeking to edify one another, and to please Yahweh our God. The old adage is true, that Christians must live in the world, but should not be of the world. Our expectations must be in the salvation of our God, and not in the salvation which is of the world, which once and again has led only to our further enslavement.
Throughout this series I have been picking on Ted Weiland, and rightly so because Identity Christians must learn to see through this charlatan. Of course, much of Clifton’s original critique in this Special Notices series is in answer to Weiland’s lies and misinformation concerning Two-Seedline, but his error is far deeper than that. Here is the perfect example of someone who is supposedly awakened to our collective plight as a people, yet has his head so firmly buried in his own hinder-parts that he cannot see the conflict of interests in his own opinions. Now, aside from what Clifton has already done, I would not give him any attention as he is no different than the rest of American clergy, except that he calls himself a “Christian Identity” pastor, and as he does, he leads a fair portion of the sheep down the path to perdition. So for this reason I must continue to chastise him.
As I got ready to prepare for this presentation, I went to check out Weiland’s Facebook page to see what he has been saying recently. He does have a lot of decent-sounding rhetoric about Godly government, but his general attitude exhibits a desire to reform the government we have rather than to appeal to Christ as King. So I found a post where Weiland expressed concern over so-called “revolving door issues” at the federal Department of Justice, attached to an article which speculated as to whether Wall Street was either bullying or bribing federal prosecutors. Then there was a post promoting a book reviewed at a political website about gratuitous government spending, or so-called “pork barrel” legislation. Weiland used this to launch a diatribe against the American Constitution, which he seems to make an almost daily habit. Then there was something he posted about government-controlled healthcare, and something else about tax reform, where Weiland said “Let's talk about real tax reform, biblical tax reform.”
Now I must ask a few questions, but after making a couple of comments I was promptly banned from Weiland’s Facebook page, so he is obviously not going to entertain my inquiries directly. But he is nevertheless going to have to live with them and eventually he will be confronted with them, one way or another. Why should Identity Christians care about the potential job retention of federal prosecutors? And why should we care about health care reform, or tax reform, or legislative reform? Did Yahshua Christ ask Pontius Pilate how secure he felt in his job? And tax reform? Really? Did Yahshua Christ ever advise the Romans to lower their taxes, or even complain that they were too high? Christians have been engaged in American political dialectics from the beginning, as they slide further and further down the road to hell, continually moving the barricades back a few steps at a time in their lame attempts to defend the ever-changing status quo. No matter how much we complain about the Constitution, it is irrelevant in relation to the current federal tyranny, which is propped up by international banks and global corporations, and which only hides behind the constitution for a mask of legitimacy.
Real Identity pastors should not be preaching engagement with the enemies of Christ on the terms which those enemies have dictated. The ballot box is meaningless so long as international Jewry controls the currency and the media. But in any event, the ballot box is entirely meaningless in the eyes of Yahweh our God, since only He can be our rightful ruler. Real Identity pastors should be educating the sheep as to the true nature of the wolves who are running the sheepfold, and should be engaged in preparing the sheep for the inevitable moment when the government of the wolves totters, so that they may hear the call to arise and thresh. But if we cannot tell the tares apart from the wheat when that moment comes, how can we effectively engage in the battle of the harvest?
The harvest of God will not happen at a ballot box. The harvest of God is not an intellectual dispute to be engaged in from pulpits or Facebook pages. Rather it is a bloody mess which is to come upon us whether we are ready for it or not. Those of us who are not prepared may be found off wandering in the marketplaces, like wayward virgins frolicking with the enemy upon the coming the of Bride Groom. In Revelation chapter 14 we read: “14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. 17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”
Blood to the horses bridles, that does not sound like tax reform, or healthcare reform, or legislative reform, or any other type of reform. Blood to the horses bridles, from the very Word of our God that is just what Christians should expect, and that is what we should prepare for, so that when the inevitable Day of Wrath comes upon us, it is not our own blood which is found flowing in the streets, but the blood of our enemies. Reform of anything in these modern governments of men is not possible, as government itself is only a punishment from God, and as Christians have no political solution. The model government was not the Kingdom of David, rather it was the period of the Judges when Yahweh Himself was King and the unchanging Law was His only legislation. When Israel demanded an earthly king, it was a sin and Yahweh gave them one for their punishment. The evil forces summarized as Mystery Babylon have ruled over us in our punishment, controlling whatever governments men have formed.
The Bible tells us that Babylon shall fall, and Christians must be prepared to hear the call when it does, which is to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” and to “Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.” This is the call to arise and thresh, which we read of in Micah chapter 4: “13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.” The sooner Christians believe the Word of Yahweh our God, abandon their lame attempts to reform the governments of men, and accept Christ as their only King and Lawgiver, the sooner we will be able to arise and thresh and destroy all of our enemies as the Word of Yahweh promises.
But clowns like Ted Weiland only seek to perpetuate the status quo: which is our enslavement and their own cowardice and comfort. Real Christians should have no care for such clowns. We may not be able to swing the sickle today, but the day is coming and we must be ready for that day alone, as that is our only solution. There is no future in the reform of any bureaucracy or political entity. To hell with reform. Political arguments and calls for political reform only serve to distract Christians from the real purpose they should have in Christ. Looking at history, we are already in Yahweh’s “Day of Wrath”, and many of our brethren are already fallen victim to the enemies of our race. Ted Weiland and those like him help to enable this predicament. But Christians must both pray and work for whatever it takes to educate our own people, the wheat of the field, so that they may stand in the Day of Wrath when it comes upon them – and it is only a matter of time. But it is only what we call Two-Seedline by which we can know with certainty the nature of both the Wheat and the Tares, whereby we may swing those sickles righteously. Ted Weiland also refuses to understand that, and for that reason, perhaps he belongs where he is, as a rodeo clown in a political circus full of bull. But when will Identity Christians begin rejecting such clowns?
With this, we shall commence with our presentation of Clifton Emahiser's
SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WHO DENY TWO SEEDLINE, #12
As I have stated previously, “We are at WAR”, and I am not referring to our present so-called war on “terrorism.” [This was originally written in very late 2001, probably in December, so far as I can determine.] While the current war concerning “terrorism” is taking on large proportions, it’s only a mere skirmish in comparison to the great 7,000 year WAR of the “children of darkness” against the “children of light” foretold in Genesis 3:15. Every night White women are going to bed and waking up in the morning pregnant by a member of another race. In this greater war, we are taking tens of thousands of casualties nightly. While this large-scale War is going on, the Church sits idly by claiming its Christian in nature, and they assert everything is all right as long as the other person has been “saved.” And, in the face of this great peril, the anti-seedliners refuse to point out the true enemy. They insist it’s all a problem with the “flesh” or something “spiritual”! Oh, they will recognize that Genesis 3:15 speaks of One “seed” in the form of the Messiah, but stubbornly deny the “serpent” has “seed” also. I will repeat again: If there was no “seed” of the serpent to bruise the heel of Messiah, then we have no Redemption! Now, I would say that’s a very dangerous and irresponsible position! One person wrote me a letter and said: “it’s 99.9% religion, not race.” That also is a most risky position. I wrote him back and told him he could point his sword at religion, but I would point mine at a walking, talking breathing, genetic enemy. I don’t know how he gets religion out of “seed”, (zera). Furthermore, he also had much training at a seminary. Well, the subject of “seminary” is what we are going to deal with in this paper. One thing I have noticed in the Anglo-Israel message is that many who have been trained in seminaries are the very ones who take a position against Two Seedline.
And of course this is true, that denominational Christians and even many of them who have found Christian Identity continue to believe that Yahweh God, the Prophets, Christ and the apostles all meant one thing while speaking another, so seed does not really mean seed, a father is something other than an ancestor, a bastard is something other than a mongrel, and so on, perverting the language of Scripture ad infinitum. But when a farmer plants a field with the same authentic heirloom seed that he has always used, and a portion of the crop turns out bad, the seed itself cannot be blamed for the disaster. As Christ Himself had said, the tree is known by its fruit, and “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). Therefore when Christ says in Matthew chapter 13 that “The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one”, the idea that the children of the wicked one are of the same seed as that “good seed” is precluded in the language used by Christ. So where Christ said of the tares that “the enemy that sowed them is the devil”, we must understand that not all men have the same origin, and where it says in Malachi that “Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god”, we must understand that there was something about the nature of Judah’s wife which precluded her from conversion. That “strange god” is the same father of the opponents of Christ who claimed God as their father, but were told that it was not so.
There is not one shred of evidence in Scripture that Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shuah, did anything wrong or wicked or sinful which would make her the so-called “spiritual” daughter of a strange god, as if that were what was meant. However there is the fact that she was a Canaanite, and Biblical evidence has it that the Canaanites were race-mixed with Kenites, Rephaim and other non-Adamic tribes. So the children of Judah’s Canaanite wife were not considered heirs to Judah’s entitlement, and it was important to know the order of birth of his younger children by Tamar, which were Pharez and Zarah, for the purpose of determining who was the eldest son in reference to the inheritance.
The only thing that would make Judah’s wife the daughter of a strange god is that she was of those tribes which were not descended from Adam, at least in part. There are people here which Yahweh our God did not take credit for having created, plants which the Heavenly Father did not plant, as Christ informs us in the Gospel. The opponents of Christ claimed to have Yahweh God as their father, and Christ denied them that claim. The Edomites of Judaea were also descended in large part from the Canaanites, and would have therefore been the children of a strange god just as Judah’s wife was the daughter of a strange god. If they have a different father, then as Christ said in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, they were planted by the devil. The devil could not create men from nothing, but he could plant tares among the wheat by encouraging race-mixing, and that is the sin of both Genesis chapters 3 and 6. And if there are two fathers, the Son of Man and the devil, then there must be two seedlines, as it is explained in Genesis 3:15, and Revelation chapter 12 along with the epistles of Jude and Peter inform us that that other seedline has its origin in the fallen angels. This is rudimentary Scripture, which the anti-seedliners refuse to even discuss. Therefore it is apparent that they have an agenda, and no care for Truth.
Clifton continues discussing the refusal of anti-seedliners to see the truth from a different perspective:
I believe the reason for this is because in the various church seminaries the students are taught a religious system called “hermeneutics.” [We will] take a look at that system in this article. I think you will find it doesn’t have a very commendable background. The greatest problem with people coming into Identity is that they tend to bring with them their former church’s dogmas. With the Identity message, one must wipe the slate entirely clean and reconsider all things from a new perspective. It seems like everything is just 180° from what we were always taught. Our Savior instructed us that we must become as a “little child” or we are not fit for the Kingdom, Matthew 18:3. A child has a clean mind without any preconceived ideas. Even Paul had to go to Arabia for three years to get rid of [or cleanse his mind of] his [Pharisaism, as he described in] Galatians 1:17-18. The problem in Identity is [that] a lot of people haven’t been to the desert yet, especially former seminary students who keep patching over Scripture attempting to put new wine (teachings) in[to] old bottles, Luke 5:36-39.
While we cannot agree with Howard Rand on many things, he was one of the first Christian Identity writers to actually break new ground in Christian academics, and he was a lawyer, not a trained pastor. Rand was evidently one of the first to realize – even though he realized it rather late – that the modern Jews were actually Edomites and Canaanites, and not Judah, thereby breaking with his British Israel predecessors. Bertrand Comparet took Rand’s teachings to a new level, and he was also a lawyer, not a pastor. Whatever we think of lawyers, they are trained to look at things from different perspectives, and to analyze the merits and possible shortcomings of each position. But generally, pastors are simply taught what to think, and not how to think, by their various denominations, and very few of them break out of that mold, especially when they are earning a comfortable living at pastoring. Continuing with Clifton:
In getting into this topic about “hermeneutics”, I will start first by quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1894, volume 11, page 671, the topic being “Hermes”:
“... The name of Hermes seems during the third and following centuries to have been regarded as a convenient pseudonym to place at the head of the numerous syncretistic writings in which it was sought to combine Neo-Platonic philosophy, Philonic Judaism and cabbalistic theosophy, and so provide the world with some acceptable substitute for the Christianity which had at that time begun to give indications of the ascendency it was afterwards to attain …
Philonic Judaism, or the variant of Judaism found in the writings of Philo, sought to syncretize the pagan Greek myths and philosophies with the Old Testament Scriptures so as to validate paganism and make a vain attempt to reconcile the two contrasting traditions. I would consider Philo to be a proto-Gnostic, or at least a close philosophical forerunner to what became known as Gnosticsm. However it is also fully apparent that both Philo and the Gnostics were heavily influenced by Platonism. Later, Neo-Platonist writers would turn on and attack Gnostics for what they considered to be heresies and perversions of Plato’s philosophy. Much later, the authors of the Kabbalah draw from Neo-Platonism and also from other older mystic and gnostic traditions of the East. But the Kabbalah itself only dates to around the 12th century. Clifton continues:
“... The connection of the name of Hermes with alchemy will explain what is meant by hermetic sealing, and will account for the use of the phrase ‘hermetic medicine’ by Paracelsus, as also for so-called ‘hermetic freemasonry’ of the Middle Ages ...”
The term “Middle Ages” as it is used here can really only refer to the 17th and 18th centuries. This “hermetic freemasonry” certainly seems to be what we have seen referred to as “speculative freemasonry” in our series of podcasts on the Jews in Medieval Europe and the Protocols of Satan. In those presentations we hope to have established that Jewish mysticism, in the form of the Kabbalah, had entered into Christian scientific circles with the help of men such as Johannes Reuchlin and John Dee, two of the men who popularized the Kabbalah in their respective Christian scientific circles in Germany and England. Reuchlin did this in Germany even before the Reformation, and Dee brought the Kabbalah to England a few decades later. Paracelsus was a Swiss physician and alchemist of the mid-16th century who was born about 40 years after Reuchlin. Both men were Renaissance Humanists. Paracelsus was tutored by Johannes Trithemius, who also tutored the famous alchemist Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. We also established in our Jews in Medieval Europe series (John Dee and the Kabbalah, Part 2) that both Agrippa and Reuchlin were primary influences on John Dee and his having brought the Kabbalah to England.
These men can certainly all be connected, as Noel L. Brann says in his book Trithemius and Magical Theology: A Chapter in the Controversy over Occult Studies in Early Modern Europe (published by the State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1999), that: “Johannes Trithemius, 1462-1516, the Benedictine, was a notable monastic humanist. He studied at the University of Heidelberg, where he was in contact with a number of illustrious German fifteenth century thinkers, among whom were Johann von Dalberg, Conrad Celtis, Jacob Wimpheling, and Johannes Reuchlin.” So there is a clear line of contact through which fascination with the Jewish mysticism of the Kabbalah had spread from Johannes Reuchlin to men such as Trithemius, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, John Dee, and throughout the schools and early academics of the Reformation. This is the foundation not only of modern seminaries, but of modern academics in general.
This has been a necessary digression, as Clifton is not wrong to connect Hermeticism with Kabbalistic theology. The Wikipedia page on Paracelsus, whose medical contributions were recognized by the Royal College of Physicians in London and whose books were widely read in the 16th and 17th centuries, that “Paracelsus held a natural affinity with the Hermetic, Neoplatonic, and Pythagorean philosophies central to the Renaissance”, and these things are all ingredients in the Kabbalah as well. Among his other vocations, Paracelsus was also a lay preacher. His teacher, Trithemius, was a Benedictine monk and abbot. Trithemius’ other notable student, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, was an alchemist but he was also a theologian, and lectured on the writings of Johannes Reuchlin. It gets worse than that, but again we digress. So Clifton continues and says:
The anti-seedliners accuse us Two Seedliners of using Talmudic teaching when many of them have been trained in seminaries using “cabbalistic theosophical” thought. For further information concerning this type of teaching I will now quote from The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas General Editor, page 466, the topic being “Hermetic Books”: “This collection of writings deal with religious and philosophical subjects and reflects a degree of syncretism with reference to Platonic, Stoic, Neo-Pythagorean, and Eastern religious thought. The collection dates from the second or third century and is ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus which represents a later designation for the Egyptian god Thoth, who was said to be the source and protector of all knowledge. The literary form of the Hermetic Books is basically that of the Platonic dialog. The single most significant of the several writings is ‘Poimandres’, which tells of the soul’s ascent to God through the various spheres of the planets.”
[Clifton responds and says:] We find more concerning this type of teaching in the Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 558: “Hermeneutics... — the principles and methods used to interpret Scripture. Bible scholars believe a biblical text must be interpreted according to the language in which it was written, its historical context, the identity and purpose of the author, its literary nature, and the situation to which it was originally addressed.”
This all sounds good, but let’s investigate this thing a little deeper from The Illustrated Hand-Book To All Religions, © 1877, excerpts from the “Preface”:
“… The Primitive Church, for instance, would appear to be a congeries [a collection or heap] of discordant opinions, whose very names and titles are almost innumerable. Yet in fact there were but two great parties — the orthodox Christian on the one hand, and the heretical on the other; and these latter, amidst their infinite varieties, are all reduced to two — the Gnostics, who corrupted the Gospel by an admixture of Greek philosophy or Persian magianism, or both; and the Arians, who lost themselves in speculations upon the Divine nature, and especially the two natures of Christ. All the controversies of the Reformation hinge again upon the one question of Sacramental Grace. And in our own times, apart from individual quarrels, eccentricities and errors, there are but three important differences in matters of doctrine through the whole of Christendom, namely, the Sacramental System of the Greek and Roman Churches, the Evangelical doctrines of Protestants, and the Rationalist of Neologian Creed …”
[Now Clifton comments and says:] We really need to look into this matter about the “Gnostics.” We find this in the same book on pages 210-216: “Simon Magus is the generally reputed founder of the Gnostics [something we would not accept, Simon Magus was blamed for quite a bit by the Church Fathers, none of whom were contemporary]; but Gnosticism was nothing else than the philosophical system of the times, leavened with a slight infusion of Judaism, and a still slighter portion of Christianity. It exhibited itself in its early days at Alexandria, whence it spread through Eastern Christendom. Alexandria was at that time the great seat of philosophy. It contained a vast number of Jews; and, being the great emporium of trade, it was of course much frequented by the early Christians … Amongst the intellectual idlers of a thriving city, the Platonic philosophy had superseded the coarse and vulgar forms of the old Egyptian superstition. The Alexandrian Jews were infected with it; for their language was Greek, and many of them had an extensive acquaintance with heathen literature. On the other hand, the Platonists studied the Jewish [sic. Hebrew] Scripture, and saw in them traces of pure and sublime theology … They even asserted that Plato had borrowed from the writings of Moses. Thus a compromise was attempted between the creeds of Moses and of Plato [which Philo also sought to do]. There was a third element of error in the Persian or Magian doctrines; for Alexandria, open to the teachings of Greece on one side, was equally exposed to the fantastic theories of Orientalism on the other. And thus from these three sources — the philosophy of Plato, the religion of Moses, and the Magian superstition — a new system was created; this was Gnosticism … it did not arise within the Christian Church, but it very soon infected the pure stream of Gospel truth … It was unquestionably the most formidable opponent with which the early Church had to contend … The Gnostics practiced magic, which they learned from the East … Christianity no sooner appeared than the Gnostics incorporated it into their system, but so as not merely to corrupt, but to subvert it … but they [the Gnostics] taught also that the body of Jesus was a phantom, and that Christ was neither born, nor suffered upon the cross … Thus the doctrine of the atonement and of faith in the death of Christ found no place whatever in their system … From St. Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, it is evident that Gnosticism had already shown itself in Greece. He repeatedly used the term, gnosis, in a peculiar sense, as arrogated by a certain party, e.g., 1 Cor. 8:1 … The Gnostics denied that there was, in any sense, a resurrection of the body … Whatever the Christians said of a resurrection, they interpreted figuratively; according to them, the Gnostic rose from death to life when he was initiated in their mysteries and made perfect in their knowledge [perhaps this is the origin of the ‘born again’ heresy - WRF] … Simon Magus was probably the first of the Gnostics who engrafted the name of Christ into their system; he and his followers maintained that the body of Jesus was a phantom [the sources for this can hardly be contemporary to the time of Simon Magus, none of the Church Fathers could possibly know he was a gnostic, and Philo would be a much better candidate - WRF] … but they utterly denied the doctrine of his atonement. In fact, when a Christian adopted the Gnostic views, he ceased to be a Christian, for he renounced his faith in a Redeemer and his hope of a resurrection. In the first century the Church of Christ, with one voice, agreed in this view of the Gnostic system: namely, that Gnostics were not Christians … [Outside of the recently-discovered Nag Hammadi manuscripts, most of what we know of the Gnostics comes to us from the late-2nd century Christian writer Irenaeus, who wrote at length against their heresies - WRF] The Greek philosophy, and particularly the writings of Plato, were the fashionable study, and therefore, we may venture to say, were embraced by great numbers by whom they were imperfectly understood. And yet something more certain, more religious, was wanted. This the Jew supplied, and Gnosticism was formed … Gnosticism was an attempt (so far as it assumed the Christian garb) to effect a compromise between the gospel and heathenism as refined by philosophy and leavened with Judaism … From its expiring ashes Mohammed kindled a new and fiercer flame. Gnosticism, with its magic, its angelic powers, its mystical dogmas, its affected contempt of the body and of death, and its real licentiousness, was absorbed into the system of the impostor, or fanatic, of Mecca.”
We cannot be certain how in 1877 this source could have connected Gnosticism to Islam, as Gnostic heresies were really only known from Irenaeus, who wrote in the late 2nd century AD. The Gnostic documents found at Nag Hammadi were not discovered until 1945. However since Islam has its roots from Judaism, and the Koran was written by Jews in Arabia, we would expect it to have similarities to Gnosticism, which was also Jewish in nature.
[Now Clifton responds and says:] Jeffrey A. Weakley, along with several other anti-seedliners, accused us Two Seedliners of practicing Talmudic Judaism. Now, I ask, who’s really practicing the religion of “Judaism”? Again, on page 488 of the same book we read this: “Anti-Trinitarians … Cerinthus was doubtless contemporary with St. John, although he may have been alive after the death of that apostle. He was a Jew, who had studied philosophy at Alexandria, but he spent the greater part of his life in Asia Minor. His system was probably a mixture of Judaism, Gnosticism and Christianity. Irenæus makes him a complete Gnostic, saying of him. ‘He taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but a certain power (the demi-urgos) separate from him, and below him, and ignorant of him. Jesus he supposed not to be born of a virgin, but to be the son of Joseph and Mary — born altogether as other men are …’” [Cerinthus is only known to us from Polycarp and Irenaeus, who were of course his adversaries. Any writing attributed to him is mere speculation. - WRF] Clifton continues with another citation:
Next from this same book we read this on page 500: “New Platonics or Ammonians. — So called from Ammonius Saccas, who taught with the highest applause in the Alexandrian school, about the conclusion of the second century. This learned man attempted a general reconciliation of all sects, whether philosophical or religious. He maintained that the great principals of all philosophical and religious truth were to be found equally in all sects, and that they differed from each other only in their method of expressing them … Ammonius supposed that true philosophy derived its origin and its consistence from the Eastern nations, that it was taught to the Egyptians by Hermes, that it was brought from them to the Greeks, and preserved in its original purity by Plato, who was the best interpreter of Hermes and the other Oriental sages. He maintained that all the different religions which prevailed in the world were, in their original integrity, conformable to this ancient philosophy; but it unfortunately happened, that the symbols and fictions under which, according to the ancient manner, the ancients delivered their precepts and doctrines, were in process of the time erroneously understood, both by priests and people … Taking these principles for granted, Ammonius associated the sentiments of the Egyptians with the doctrines of Plato; and to finish this conciliatory scheme, he so interpreted the doctrines of the other philosophical and religious sects, by art, invention, and allegory, that they seemed to bare some semblance to the Egyptian and Platonic systems …”
We should note that while the name Hermes supplied the Greek words for interpreting and interpretation, that was because the Greek idol Hermes was interpreter for Zeus in his capacity as messenger between Zeus and men (originally only Hades), a capacity attributed to Thoth and Osiris (or maybe it was Amun) in the Egyptian pantheon.
[Now Clifton turns to another source and says:] We get more on this topic from the Collier’s Encyclopedia, © 1981, volume 2, pages 373-375. This time we see a Catholic priest bringing into that church the very same thing which the Protestants continue to this very day. This quotation will be excerpts from their article about “St. Thomas Aquinas”:
“From the earliest days of his teaching it became apparent to his contemporaries that he was laying the foundations of a veritable revolution in theology and philosophy … His meeting at Orvieto with his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, led to William’s translation of the writings of Aristotle from Greek originals and to Thomas’ series of commentaries, in which there is a careful effort to arrive at Aristotle’s essential teachings …
“Summary. Thomas broke sharply from the so-called Augustinian tradition, which was essentially a form of Neo-platonism, albeit a Platonism in which many Aristotelian notions had found a place. His work represents the renewal of Christian thought in the light of a metaphysic and theology whose conceptual systematization was expressed in terms of the principles of Aristotle … Perhaps the most fundamental change made by him was his extension of Aristotle’s doctrine of potency and act to the relation between an essence and the act of existing which actualized it…. His philosophical indebtedness to Aristotle should not be minimized. One has only to read his theological works to realize the esteem in which he held the philosopher …”
Here we are informed that Augustine followed the philosophy of Plato, and Thomas of Aquinas that of Aristotle, and we see that the Roman Catholic theological thought of two of the leading lights of the modern Church was essentially based on pagan Greek philosophy, and Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are frequently cited for their Bible interpretations by expositors to this very day.
[Now quoting from another source, Clifton says:] We find even more in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1894, volume 11, pages 664-665, concerning “Hermeneutics”:
“… He ([the Medieval rabbi] Hillel) was also the first to formulate definite rules by which the rabbinical development of the law should proceed. These canons of interpretation were seven in number, afterwards increased by Rabbi Ismael to thirteen by the addition of seven new rules and the omission of the sixth, and looked to the construction of Biblical warrant for precepts which it was wished to prove implicit in the law … This regard for it, which was never wholly disowned, ultimately took shape in the improved rabbinical hermeneutics of the Middle Ages. In the writings of such rabbis as Saadias Gaon, Jarchi, Rashi, Kimchi, Maimonides, Abarbanel (a line of expositors extending from the 10th to the 16th century, we find, alongside the traditional rules and explanations, a scientific recognition of the interpreter’s duty to give the literal sense as well as a practical application of the principles of grammatical and historical exegesis to the Old Testament … The hermeneutics developed among the Hellenistic Jews had marked characteristics of its own. These interpreters, departing from the exclusiveness of rabbinical devotion to the Old Testament revelation, and from the pure Hebraism of native Jews [which we would call into question - WRF], brought to the study of the sacred books a range of ideas derived from Hellenic culture. They had to devise a hermeneutical procedure which would harmonize their new ethnic learning with the traditional estimate of the Jewish [sic Hebrew] Scriptures. To the theosophic Hellenist, and specially to the Alexandrian Jew, acceptance of the plain sense was often an impossibility. A reconciliation was sought by the use of allegorical interpretation. This method was also pursued by the Rabbinical exegetes. It is embraced in the Halachic hermeneutics, and is seen in the distinctions drawn by Palestinian Jews between the body and the soul of text … The coryphæus in this hermeneutical practice was Philo (born perhaps about 20 B.C.), although he had predecessors in Aristobulus (180 B.C.), Josephus, and others. [But Josephus came after Philo, and was born perhaps 50 years later - WRF] He devoted himself mainly to the exposition of the Pentateuch with the view of explaining the realism and anthropomorphism of the Old Testament in a way to suit the philosophy of the time. Wishful to retain the Alexandrian Jew’s regard for Moses as the supremely inspired prophet of God and the oracle of all mysteries along with adherence to the current Platonism and theosophy, he supposed that the Mosaic writings contained a twofold mode of teaching, a popular representation of God and divine things and a spiritual.… [So the interpretation of physical things as being “spiritual” began with Philo and the Gnostics - WRF] On the other hand as extraordinary development was given in the rabbinical hermeneutics by the Kabbalists of the Middle Ages, who used the devices of artificial interpretation in order to find an Old Testament basis for their mixed Neo-Platonist, Gnostic and Sabæan culture. The Kabbala (‘what has been received’, ‘tradition’ …) had its roots in the ancient doctrine of numbers, for which the Jews were probably indebted to the Chaldæans … By the combinations and permutations of letters, the interchange of words of equal numerical value and similar artifices, new meanings were extracted where the proper sense seemed poor, and acceptable meanings found where offence was felt …”
It can be argued, that the word hermeunetics as it is used in modern seminaries is from the Greek word ἑρμηνεία (hermeneia), which is an interpretation, and it does. However we have also established here, in our presentations of Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies, that rabbis presumably converted to Christianity were a tremendous influence on Luther’s theological thought, as Luther himself admitted following them as sources for Biblical interpretation on may occasions, and that these same rabbis, namely Nicholas of Lyra and Paul of Burgos, had written Bible commentaries which were the most widely-read commentaries of Medieval Christian Europe. These rabbis, being trained Talmudists, certainly would have used hermetics in their Biblical interpretations, and spread that into their supposedly Christian commentaries. This is the foundation upon which modern Protestantism and its own Biblical interpretations have developed. This is also why, in part, Protestantism has always been friendly to the Jews. A theologian at the University of Cologne as Luther was launching the Reformation, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa is credited with having said in defense of his sermons based on the works of Johannes Reuchlin that his Christian faith was not incompatible with his appreciation for Jewish thought, and he wrote “I am a Christian, but I do not dislike Jewish Rabbis”. Even Luther did not awaken to Jewish treachery until very late in his life, and published his diatribe against Jews in 1543, less than three years before his death.
[Now citing another article from the same source Clifton says:] We will now see more on how the “Jewish” Kabbalah fits into this thing from Encyclopedia Britannaca, Ninth Edition, 1894, volume 13, page 822:
“To obtain these heavenly mysteries, which alone make the Torah superior to profane codes, definite hermeneutical rules are employed, of which the following are the most important. (1) The words of several verses in the Hebrew Scriptures which are regarded as containing a recondite [hard to understand] sense are placed over each other, and the letters are formed into new words by reading them vertically. (2) The words of the text are ranged in squares in such a manner as to be read either vertically or boustrophedon [alternately from right to left and from left to right]. (3) The words are joined together and redivided. (4) The initial and final letters of several words are formed into separate words. (5) Every letter of a word is reduced to its numerical value, and the word is explained by another of the same quantity. (6) Every letter of a word is taken to be the initial or abbreviation of a word. (7) The twenty-two letters of the alphabet are divided into two halves; one half placed above the other; and the two letters which thus become associated are interchanged. By this permutation [modification], Aleph, the first letter of the alphabet becomes Lamed, the twelfth letter; Beth becomes Mem, and so on. This cipher alphabet is called Albam, from the first interchangeable pairs. (8) The commutation [back and forth] of the twenty-two letters is effected by the last letter of the alphabet taking the place of the first, the last but one [next to last] the place of the second, and so forth. This cipher is called Atbash. These hermeneutical canons are much older than the Kabbalah. They obtained in the synagogues from time immemorial, and were used by the Christian fathers in the interpretation of Scripture. Thus Canon V., according to which a word is reduced to its numerical value and interpreted by another word of the same value is recognized in the New Testament …”
[Clifton now responds to all of this and says:] I don’t know whether or not you fully fathom the significance of what you have just read, for if this is true about “Jewish” hermeneutics and the Kabbalah, they have wrongly interpreted, or even changed some of the meanings of the Hebrew Scriptures with their Chaldean hocus-pocus. Not only that, but some of the early Church fathers followed this system of interpretation to some degree. Is it any wonder, then, that we have occasional difficult and questionable Bible passages to deal with? With some passages, we then have to wonder whether what we are reading is “Yahweh breathed” or is some “lying divination” by a “false scribe”, [citing] Ezekiel 13:6; Jeremiah 14:14; Zechariah 10:2 [we would add Jeremiah 8:8]. We are instructed in Scripture to verify everything with witnesses, so when we encounter a difficult passage, we need to consider the CONTEXT in which it is written. When we consider what we know today as so-called “Christianity”, learning that it is an admixture of Aristotelian logic, “Jewish” hermeneutics, Greek philosophy, Persian magianism, Judaism, Platonism, Gnosticism, Eastern Mysticism, Spinozism, Maimonides-ism and Kabbalism, what should we make of all of this? Do you now comprehend why we must do as our Messiah taught, and start all over again from the beginning? The Scriptures truly describe our “righteousness as filthy rags”, Isaiah 64:6.
Matthew 6:22-23 says: “22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness.”
This is comparable to a person who, learning the true Identity Message, keeps one eye looking back to the Aristotelian philosophized, Gnosticized, Judaized, Kabbalahized, and Eastern mysticized corrupted form of “Christianity.” We cannot live in both of these worlds at the same time, for a mind that is divided (afflicted with double vision) is in total darkness. The Bible tells us further, [in] James 1:8: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” It is not speaking of the physical eye, but the eye of the mind. Just because your preacher may be blinded by his seminary training, that is no reason you need to be blinded also! Not only is our eye to be single, but if we have two eyes (eyes of the mind; one seeing true light and one seeing evil wisdom), we are to pluck out the one seeing evil, [as we are instructed at] Matthew 5:29:
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Gehenna.” [Heb. Gehenna, as opposed to Abyss, “pit.”. Also, see Matt. 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-47; Zech. 11:17.]
The result of having two eyes is to have two masters, and being a slave to both. In that way, a man will not amount to much for either. Men might work for two employers, but no slave can be the property of two owners; one is either in Yahweh’s employ or in Satan’s. If the mind’s eye be full of Greek philosophy, Persian magianism, Judaism, Platonism, Gnosticism, Eastern Mysticism, Spinozism, Maimonides-ism and Kabbalism like those who are taught in seminaries, what good are they to the Almighty? I am fully persuaded that this “one seed” only teaching is coming from students trained in seminaries or by people under their influence. Manly P. Hall in his An Encyclopedic Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy page CXIV, shows that Hermeticism is considered synonymous with Qabbalism and that the tenets of Hermeticism are interwoven with Qabbalism:
“The theories of Qabbalism are inextricably interwoven with the tenets of alchemy, Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. The words Qabbalism and Hermeticism are now considered as synonymous terms covering all the arcana and esotericism of antiquity. The simple Qabbalism of the first centuries of the Christian Era gradually evolved into an elaborate theological system, which became so involved that it was next to impossible to comprehend its dogma.” (With all this, one can now better understand 1 Corinthians 1:19-31 and Romans 1:21.)
Romans 1: “21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
1 Corinthians 1: “19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
Evidently Manly P. Hall also took the lies of the Jews for granted, that the Kabbalah predates the 12th century, when it clearly does not. However it is derived from other philosophies which are of much greater antiquity. However for our purposes here, that is immaterial.
While some of the descriptions of modern Biblical Hermeneutics seem logical enough, in their application is found the systematization of deception embedded in rabbinical hermetics. And citing Augustine or Thomas Aquinas for Biblical understanding, one is in danger of acquiring the understanding of Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Learning about the God of the Bible from pagan Greeks is tantamount to learning about chastity from a whore! Note where Clifton had cited the 1894 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannaca, where it said in reference to the Kabbalah that “By the combinations and permutations of letters, the interchange of words of equal numerical value and similar artifices, new meanings were extracted where the proper sense seemed poor, and acceptable meanings found where offence was felt …” This is the way that the medieval Jewish rabbis interpreted Scripture, and this and their commentaries were carried into the churches.
So if in the result of one’s hermeneutics the word seed does not really mean seed, and a father is something other than an ancestor, and a bastard is something other than a mongrel, all so that some party or class of individuals won’t have their feelings hurt, then we must know that someone has employed the Jewish manner of hermeneutics which Clifton has described here. This is what the anti-seedliners have done, they have followed the treachery of the Jews, so that Christians are led to believe that Satan really does not exist, but in truth Satan is all around us. The result today is that Christians worship Satan – which is in part the Jews themselves – rather than worshipping Jesus, and the anti-seedliners are just as guilty of this as the denominational sects have been.