Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 13

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

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170811-CAE-SpecNotice13.mp3 — Downloaded 6466 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 13

The matter of salvation is continually disputed by presumed Identity Christians, and those disputes are fraught with emotional arguments by people who are steeped in the teachings of the traditional churches, teachings which are often incorrect. Furthermore, the disputants are quite frequently invested with a desire to judge sinners for themselves, rejecting the judgement of Yahweh God if it does not agree with their own judgement. So they make what should be a rather simple doctrine into something very complicated, they end up with a proverbial bowl of spaghetti, and then they even disfellowship one another in their persistent arguing over the details of their own constructions. But the matter of salvation should be a simple issue, and it should not be at all complicated, if only we would accept and believe the Word of God.

The the biggest problem I see within the general Christian Identity community is indeed the fact that most of its adherents, as well as most of its preachers, have come from Judeo-Christian denominational churches. In turn, most of them have brought many of the doctrines of those denominational churches along with them on their Christian Identity journey. The Roman Catholic idea of heaven and hell comes straight from the beliefs of the Pharisees, and was retained in one form or another by the denominational churches. Many presumed Identity pastors have never let go of their seminary training, and that also exacerbates the divisions among Identity Christians.

So at Christogenea we suffer disputes, and we are even trolled and slandered on Social Media over this issue. Rather oddly, the same individuals who troll us on this issue do not troll or slander Jews, Catholics or Evangelicals for what they believe. However we have also observed one important aspect in the thinking of the people who dispute with us on this issue, and that is that they all have this idea that one verse of Scripture somehow actually cancels out what is said in another verse of Scripture. That is not the correct way to approach the Word of Yahweh our God, and as soon as anyone is infested with such a bone-headed idea they cannot ever divide the Word of God correctly.

Before we come to a conclusion on anything which is stated in any verse of Scripture, we must accept the fact that every verse of Scripture that comes from God is true. Of course, the words of men recorded in Scripture are not necessarily true, such as the sayings of Cain, the edicts of heathen kings, the sophistry of the friends of Job, or the contentions of the Pharisees. However every word of God is true. Verses of scripture may only be challenged if they are demonstrably corrupt or mistranslated or if they can be proven to be later interpolations. Without clear evidence of such things, every verse of Scripture must be accepted.

With this in mind, disputing the matter of salvation, I recently asked one of my Social media adversaries a series of questions, but not necessarily in this order. I will elaborate upon them here. This individual has trolled and slandered me relentlessly in relation to this single issue.

From Romans chapter 11 we read “26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob... 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” So before we contend with Scripture, we must ask ourselves, which part of this was Paul lying about? And where Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”, which part of that statement is a lie? One common argument made by these childish sophists is that Yahweh intended only to refer to “all the tribes of Israel”, as if He only meant to ensure that at least some members of each tribe would have eternal life. However that is not what the text infers in the context in which Paul made those statements.

In that manner we read in Isaiah 45:25 that “In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” Let’s read this passage in it’s own context, where Yahweh is addressing the dispersed of Israel, those who were being taken off into Assyrian captivity as the prophet was writing, and they are “the seed of Jacob” as they are referred to in verse 19 of the chapter, to whom He then 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: 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. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” So which part of Isaiah 45:25 is not true? Does the meaning of the phrase “all the seed of Israel” change because men feel that one Israelite or another is not worthy of such a salvation? In truth, the entire Biblical narrative informs us that NO Israelite is actually worthy of such a salvation!

In Micah chapter 7 we see a promise to the same children of Israel, which was also made as they were being taken off into Assyrian captivity, and the closing verses of the book of this prophet read: “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.” So we must ask, if any Israelite is going to be tortured eternally, or even completely destroyed for his sin, which part of Micah 7:19 is not going to happen? Why would the prophet lie where He spoke for Yahweh and said “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”? Have we stopped sinning, or have our sins been forgiven?

In Hosea chapter 13 we read another promise of mercy made to the same people of the Kingdom of Israel, written around the very same time as Isaiah and Micah, but whom the prophet Hosea had called after the name of Ephraim, their principle tribe, where he wrote that: “12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid. 13 The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for he should not stay long in the place of the breaking forth of children. 14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.” So which part of death and the grave are not going to be destroyed? Which part of death and the grave are going to prevail over the Word of God? This is a Messianic prophecy, meaning that it relates to the mercy and forgiveness which is extended to Israel through Christ. So we must ask, which part of Hosea 13:12-14 is going to fail?

Likewise, there is a similar Messianic prophecy which appears in Isaiah chapter 28. So we must also ask, which part of Isaiah 28:15-18, spoken to the sinful rulers of the people at Jerusalem, is not going to be fulfilled? There we see that even if they wanted to destroy themselves, Yahweh would not let them be destroyed, where He said “15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. 18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.” So the people will suffer in the judgement to come, but ultimately their covenant with death shall be disanulled, fully indicating that it is the will of God that they live.

Which part of Matthew 12:30-31 was Jesus wrong about? There He is recorded as having said that “30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” Note that He said “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men”, and we cannot add to the list of what will not be forgiven on our own. The purpose of this life is greater than we are.

In Daniel chapter 12 we read concerning the people of Yahweh that “...thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” So who is it whom is resurrected to everlasting contempt? Mere shoplifters? People who do not go to a “church”? Or maybe pedophiles or other sorts of fornicators? What about murderers? Even King David was a murderer, and he was forgiven. So how can we insist upon these things, when Christ told us differently? Maybe only those who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit shall face eternal contempt, since that is the only sin which Christ said “shall not be forgiven unto men”. But facing eternal contempt, they must nevertheless live for eternity.

Neither can we ascribe every sin which we abhor to the category of “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”, as Christ defines that for us where He Himself used the term. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree good fruit. But don't try gathering grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, as anyone not gathering with Christ, is against Christ.

So at the end of the age, at the return of the Son of Man, which of the sheep goes off to the Lake of Fire along with the goats? Where it says in the words of Christ in Matthew 25: “33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world….”, there we do not see any of the sheep face destruction. And the sheep are entire nations and not merely individuals that have done good or evil.

Considering the matter of salvation, each of these passages must be evaluated, and there are others which make similar statements which may also have been included here. But being confronted with this, our adversaries have only resorted to a list of other passages by which, in their own small minds, all of these passages are somehow canceled out. But that is not the correct way to interpret Scripture, since Yahweh God does not change, and all of His words are true.

The first step to reconciling all of the Scriptures concerning the law, sin and punishment, is to realize that there is a temporal salvation, and there is an eternal salvation. The difference between temporal salvation and eternal salvation is illustrated in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, where speaking of a fornicator Paul had instructed the assembly “5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The fires of Gehenna are the punishments for sin which we face in this world, and there are trials which come upon us for both personal and national sin. When we repent from sin and seek after our God, we hope to escape punishment. However in the end we will all be saved, according to the promises.

The King James Version has another unfortunate translation: where we read the word damnation the true meaning of the original is merely judgment. Christ explains in John chapter 5 that some men receive a resurrection of life, and others a resurrection of judgment. For this Paul compares the repentant with the unrepentant in 1 Timothy chapter 5 and says “24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.” That word judgement comes from the same Greek word as damnation in John 5:29. Where Paul himself only hoped that he would be found worthy of resurrection, that does not mean that the alternative option is eternal suffering, or even destruction. It says in the Wisdom of Solomon: “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” If one Adamic man fails to be immortal, then we must ask whether God has failed in His design. Then it says in that same place “Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world...” and we read in 1 John chapter 3 that “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” He came not to destroy His people, but the “works of the devil”.

That a man has that eternal salvation regardless of what he has done in this life is evident in 1 Corinthians chapter 3: “13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” Neither is that eternal salvation based upon belief, as Paul had said in Romans 11:32, “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” However a belief in Christ in this life leads to a keeping of His commandments, and that helps to save us in this life. Furthermore, it permits us, as Paul had said, to have our sins “open beforehand, going before to judgment”, by giving us the opportunity for repentance.

So our race has a promise of eternal salvation in the Word of God, except that some men shall be resurrected to everlasting contempt, as Daniel states, or shall have no reward at all, as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians chapter 3. What these things mean to describe specifically cannot yet be told, as we read in the words of the apostle John that “2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

All of Israel shall indeed be saved. Only Jews and mongrels and other non-Whites would despise and reject Romans 11:26, 1 Corinthians 15:22 or Isaiah 45:25.

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


We need to understand again that we are at the very zenith of a 7,000 plus year-old WAR. Because of a misinterpretation of Genesis 3:15, many wrongly apply this passage to a war between the “spirit” against the “flesh.” While it is true there is a personal struggle between the spirit and the flesh (carnal mind), this Scripture does not refer to that type of conflict. The WAR in Genesis 3:15 is a “hate” WAR. It is totally preposterous, therefore, to try to apply Genesis 3:15 to Ephesians 2:15 or Romans 8. The “enmity” in Ephesians refers to something quite different! Actually, Genesis 3:15 speaks about two “hate groups” (a good “hate” group and a bad “hate” group). You probably have been told that only bad people “hate”, and that simply is not true. These two “hate groups” are at WAR with each other, and this WAR is not going to be over until one or the other is totally crushed, and you can mark that one down for posterity; our posterity.

In Romans 8 Paul discussed the advantage of those “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” This means that those who do not walk after the flesh will not be resurrected to judgment, but to eternal life. We would interpret this to mean that, having made manifest their sins beforehand and repenting, they would hope to receive a better resurrection. As for the race as a whole, Paul had already explained in Romans chapter 5 that, as it reads in the King James Version: “18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Or as he had put it in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “… as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

On the other hand, the enmity in Ephesians 2:15 is not an enmity between God and the flesh, or between the Spirit and the flesh. Rather, while in the flesh Yahweh destroyed the enmity which prevented the reconciliation of Israel, which was in the law forbidding a husband to take back a wife that had committed adultery or fornication. Israel had done these things, and as Paul explained in Romans chapter 7, Yahweh died, releasing Israel from the judgments of the law so that He may betroth Israel once again.

But the enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent of Genesis 3:15 is a different enmity altogether, and enmity which is never rectified until the beast, the false prophet, the devil and his angels all go to the Lake of Fire, along with all of the goat nations who are said to have that same fate.

Continuing with Clifton under the subtitle:


This is a very serious charge, yet it is true, as you will shortly see. Maybe it would be well if the term “one seedline” were defined. It also might be called “non-seedline” or “anti-seedline” depending to what extreme it might be taken. If it is taken to the extreme of reducing the “two seeds” of Genesis 3:15 to be the “flesh” and “spirit”, as Ted R. Weiland did, then it would have to be defined as “anti-seedline.” When this extreme position is taken, then even the “seed” of the Messiah is denied! Truthfully, this stance would have to be defined as “anti-seedline”, making their position not only “anti-seedline”, but also “antichrist.” I will now demonstrate why this is so.

Before we continue, let me say that Clifton’s argument here is predicated on the interpretation of Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy, that the bruising of the heel related to the Crucifixion of the Messiah. That is the way it has been interpreted traditionally by the denominational churches, and it leads to the assumption that Christ alone is the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. We reject that assumption. Even Paul of Tarsus described the seed promised to Sarah as a collective seed manifest in Isaac and his descendants. The seed of the woman is the entire collection of her descendants.

However we would agree that the crucifixion of the Messiah is a symbolic fulfillment of the bruising of the heel, since He was the first to arise from the dead to eternal life. The devil can cause the Adamic man to die physically, but that is only a heel-bruising, as the Adamic man escapes to life eternal by Yahweh’s design. That eternal life is the gift of God, and comes to us through Christ, who is its author. That is the symbolism which I see in Genesis 3:15. However while Clifton associated the bruising of the heel with the Messiah, unlike the denominational churches Clifton also properly understands that the seed of the woman are her collective descendants, and the seed of the serpent are the collective descendants of the serpent. We would also interpret that a little more broadly, however Clifton’s interpretation is not wrong. So we must keep all of these things in mind as we proceed through Clifton’s explanation, and we must not imagine that he is contradicting himself.

Continuing, Clifton says:

When I first started researching Two Seedline, and realizing how serious were the ramifications — also observing those who rejected this teaching — it did not occur to me that such a teaching might be “antichrist.” By delving into the position of the “one seedliners”, the thought that it could be “antichrist” gradually dawned on me, along with the realization that the subject of the two “seeds” of Genesis 3:15 is even more serious than I formerly considered. Let me put it this way: There are certain basic, fundamental tenets to our “Christian” faith. These beliefs are as follows: We believe that YHWH created all things, visible and invisible; that He became flesh and dwelt among us, and that He was of one substance being both man and YHWH when He took on that flesh; that He suffered and died in the flesh at the hands of unholy men; that He rose again in the flesh (John 2:19-21); that He ascended into Heaven in the flesh; that from thence He will return in the flesh to judge both the living and the dead. Every one of these tenets is essential and indispensable to the Christian Faith. Consequently, anyone denying these fleshly manifestations of YHWH is an “antichrist”, 1 John 4:3:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Christ (Yahshua) is come in the flesh is not of Yahweh: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

The denial of the TWO “seeds” mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is just as wicked, for if there were no “seed” of the serpent to bruise the heel of Messiah (betrayal and Crucifixion), we would have no Redemption. If He was not bruised for our iniquities, we have nothing to look forward to except the grave. It is blasphemous to even infer He was not bruised, and yet that is what the one seedliners, i.e. anti-seedliners, insist on doing. It is every bit as blasphemous to say that the Word was not made flesh as it is to imply that He was not bruised, yet the anti-seedliners position boils down to just that. To spurn “Two Seedline” is to reject Isaiah 53:5:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

To deny “Two Seedline” is to reject the “bruising” of our Redeemer, for it was the “seed” of the serpent that was to bruise Him. Judas Iscariot was of that “seedline.” If there was no “seed of the serpent” to bruise Him, we have no Redemption! In short, it’s an antichrist religion! And they should be ashamed! Again: If there’s no “seed” of the serpent, there was no bruising. If there was no bruising, there’s no Redemption. Therefore, I will repeat again, the one seedliners and anti-seedliners (or whatever you wish to call them) are teaching an “antichrist” (anti-Messiah) doctrine by denying “Two Seedline.” There are those who advocate that we Two Seedliners declare a truce with the one seedliners, i.e. anti-seedliners, for the good of the Identity Message. To that I reply: Should we also make a truce with those who declare YHWH did not come in the flesh?

Before continuing, it should be noted that since Part 11 of this series, Clifton has been addressing the postulation put forward by Ted Weiland and others, that “the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 are representative of the 'seeds of the flesh' and 'seeds of the spirit.'” This postulation is deserving of ridicule once it is examined in light of all subsequent Scripture. So Clifton continues his own ridicule:


While there are several doctrines taught in Genesis 3:15, three of these stand or fall together. These three fundamental doctrines are the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of our Messiah. They are mutually interdependent. Each one is equal in importance and cannot be separated from the other two. Since both the “bruising” (betrayal and Crucifixion) and the “birth” of Yahshua (His coming in the flesh) are prophesied in Genesis 3:15, they stand or fall together! We can see from this that the “bruising” and Incarnation are of equal importance, and to deny one is to deny the other. Therefore, I repeat, these three tenets in Genesis 3:15 stand or fall together. Without the Incarnation there could be no “bruising” — without the “bruising” there could be no significance to the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. Remove one element and we have nothing, zip, zero. Therefore, Genesis 3:15 incorporates the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection all in one verse. Why else would YHWH be so careful about preserving Cain and his posterity (Gen. 4:15, 23, 24) if it wasn’t to prevent the Serpent’s seed from being exterminated before the fulfillment of Gen. 3:15? In order for YHWH to keep his promise, the serpent’s seedline had to be preserved as well as the woman’s.

Let me interrupt to say that these last sentences are true whether or not we interpret Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy. Continuing with Clifton:

Genesis 3:15 is also somewhat unique inasmuch as it speaks both generally and specifically. It speaks generally of a “hate” WAR between two genetic groups of people — it speaks specifically of an individual “bruiser” (betrayer) from the one group and an individual Redeemer from the other. Among other things, Genesis 3:15 predicts the outcome of this seemingly unending war. While there are many conflicts in this war between the two “seeds”, there are two specific significant events; the “bruising of the heel” and the “bruising of the head.” The blow to the heel of our sinless Messiah was only temporary as He rose again. The blow to the head of the serpent and his seed will be fatal and final to all belonging to that genetic line. Resurrection is implied in Genesis 3:15 because the blow to the “heel” was not fatal to the Messiah. Again, I repeat, the Incarnation, Crucifixion and the Resurrection cannot be taught separately. We either have ALL three or we have none. To teach just one or two of these three elements alone is nonsense and heresy. This is, in essence, what the one seedliners, [or] anti- seedliners, are doing. What it all boils down to is: if one cannot understand the full implications of Genesis 3:15, one cannot comprehend the rest of the Bible. It is obvious, then, that the one seedliners with some of their irrational statements on that verse, do not fathom the implications of that crucial and pivotal passage. With the prophecy that the serpent’s seed (power) would be totally crushed, no wonder they are sensitive to the word “genocide” — and create so-called “hate” laws. No wonder they cry “never again.” It would seem that deep within their satanic spirit they are already aware of their final fate.

And of course that we would agree with wholeheartedly, but it is also prophesied in many other places in Scripture. Clifton then continues under the subtitle:


You can search in almost any Bible commentary and dictionary and the definition for the term “antichrist” is pretty much universally given as one who denies that YHWH came in the flesh. If this is a proper definition, then it follows that according to the “anti-seedliner’s” position, He also was not “bruised by the seed of the serpent” (betrayal and Crucifixion), nor did He rise from the dead after three days. This denial of a literal “seed” of the serpent, propounded by the one seedliners, forces the same conclusion as that defined as “antichrist”, putting them in the same category (that claim being: there never existed a literal “seed” to bruise His heel). In other words, by denying a literal “seed of the serpent” the one seedliners also become guilty of claiming that YHWH did not come in the flesh. While some commentaries point to the Gnostics of that day as being the “antichrists”, other commentaries point to the “Jews.” Actually, there were “Jewish” Gnostic groups, so both are probably true. Over the last approximately 2000 years the “Jews” have pretty much fulfilled this definition as being “antichrists.” If, then, the one seedliners want to take the same position as the “Jews”, let them be “marked” for what they really are! Since John Wilson and Edward Hine first brought us the Israel Identity message, we must pass through a refining process to clear away some false presuppositions: claiming today’s “Jews” as a part of true Israel being one of them. With the teachings of men like Bertrand L. Comparet, Wesley A. Swift and San Jacinto Capt, the “Jews” instead have been more properly identified as Israel’s formidable enemy. I admit that before knowing anything about the Israel Identity Message and the two seedlines of Genesis 3:15, I too, was ignorantly holding this same “antichrist” view herein described as “one seedline”, and didn’t know any better, as that’s all they ever taught in the churches that I attended until that time!

If I may summarize Clifton’s premise here, it is based upon the proposals that Genesis 3:15 prophesies a seed to come of the woman which would ultimately bruise the head of the serpent, and a seed to come of the serpent which would bruise the heel of the seed of the woman. But this seed to come of the woman is also the Messiah who would come in the flesh. These three concepts being tied together in Genesis 3:15, so it is Clifton's thesis that to deny one is tantamount to denying the other. If you deny that the serpent had physical seed which would bruise the heel of the Messiah, then in essence you are denying the Messiah Himself, because ostensibly you are denying important aspects of His purpose and mission as they were foretold in Scripture. Continuing with Clifton:

I should point out here that we owe a debt of deep gratitude to British Israel. While doing so, though, there are some areas in which we cannot agree: (1) We cannot take the position that the great German people are Assyrians as they are truly of the Tribe of Judah. (2) We cannot agree with British Israel that the Cainite “Jews” are under the Covenant of our fathers, and, (3) As British Israel is ignorant of Two Seedline, we cannot agree with that either [i.e. their ignorance].

The one thing that I learned when getting into this Israel Identity message is that it was necessary for me to unlearn many things that I thought I knew, and start all over from scratch. This is what a lot of people getting into this Message refuse to do. Paul, after his conversion, had to go to the desert for three years to be reeducated, Galatians 1:17-18. Three years would have been a reasonable amount of time for him to have reviewed all the Scriptures of the Old Testament in a new light. Why should we be any different than Paul? The problem in this Identity movement is there are a lot of people who haven’t been to the desert yet (Identity pastors not excepted).

This is exactly what we had endeavored to illustrate in the introduction to this program this evening, that many so-called Identity pastors have clung to the doctrinal baggage of the denominational churches from which they came. So we cannot really consider them Christian Identity. Rather, they are merely Baptists or Pentecostals or Catholics who have taken an Identity patch and applied to to a denominational cloth. What they need to do instead, is wipe their minds clear of the doctrines of their former churches, and weave a new tapestry of thought from scratch as they study Scripture anew with an improved Identity and Covenant Theology perspective. For my part, I was blessed not to have a mind full of church dogma when I began my own studies. Continuing with Clifton:

Let us read some commentary to help grasp the implications concerning what is considered “antichrist.” There are a lot of opinions along this line, but we will concentrate on the definition of denying that YHWH came in the flesh to dwell among us, and read the other three passages on this as found in 1st [and 2nd] John:

1 John 2:18: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

1 John 2:22: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Yahshua is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the son.”

2 John 7: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Yahshua the Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

Again, Clifton asserts that if Yahshua is the Messiah come in the flesh, he must be the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and he must have been bruised by a literal seed of the serpent of Genesis 3:15. The anti-seedliners, claiming that the seed of the serpent is not literal, in essence deny all of the related concepts as well. They may claim that Clifton is reaching, but denying any aspect of the Word of God is, in essence, a denial of Christ Himself. On the other hand, if Ted Weiland asserts that the “seed of the serpent” is the flesh, then Christ came in the seed of the serpent, and not of the seed of the woman, which is just as ridiculous a postulation. Weiland's position is certainly an anti-Christ position. Clifton continues and says:

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 1, page 179, says the following on the subject of Antichrist, under “References in Scripture”:

... First John 2:22 defines antichrist as one who ‘denies that Jesus is the Christ.’ Such a one also ‘denies the Father and the Son.’ According to John’s definition, an antichrist is anyone who denies that Jesus is God and Christ. In 1 John 4:3, reference is made to ‘the spirit of antichrist’ which again is described as coming in the future and also ‘now it is in the world already.’ In this passage, also, an antichrist is defined as one who is a denier of the deity of Jesus Christ.

In 2 John 7, a more specific reference is made to contemporary rejection of Christ by those who deny the reality of the Incarnation: ‘For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.’ John is anticipating docetism, the view that Christ merely appeared to be in the flesh and was not actually incarnate. From these four passages it is clear that antichrist, according to John’s definition, is a theological concept primarily and relates to rejection of Christ or heretical views concerning His person ...” [Ed. emphasis]

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume A-D, page 142 says this concerning “antichrist”: “... Polycarp, however, is in agreement with the Johannine letters that the Antichrist is the spirit of heresy, that everyone who denies the actual incarnation, is in fact, an antichrist, and that he who denies the resurrection and judgment is the first-born of Satan (Polyc. Phil. 7:1).” [Underlining mine]

From the Dictionary of the New Testament by Hastings, “The Apostolic Church”, volume 3, under the topic “Antichrist” we find some interesting information. While Hastings uses the words “Jewish” for Israelite and Judaism for the beliefs of the Israelites, he has some interesting statements to contribute to our enlightenment on this subject. Interestingly, Hastings connects the subject of “antichrist” with the Temptation in Genesis 3. Thus, there seems to be a close affinity of Two Seedline doctrine with the subject of “antichrist.” Reading excerpts now from pages 67-68:

... Although the word ‘Antichrist’ does not occur till we come to the Johannine Epistles, we have many evidences in the pre-Christian Jewish [rather Israelite] literature, canonical and extra-canonical, that there was a widely spread idea of a supreme adversary who should rise up against God, His Kingdom and people, or His Messiah. The strands that went to the composition of the idea were various and strangely interwoven, and much obscurity still hangs over the subject ... Traces of this dragon-myth appear here and there in the Old Testament, e.g. in the story of the Temptation in Genesis 3, where, as in Revelation 12:9; 20:2, the serpent = the dragon; and in the later apocalyptic literature a dragon represents the hostile powers that rise up in opposition to God and His Kingdom (Pss. Sol. ii. 29). But it was characteristic of the forward look of Prophetism and Messianism [prophets and Messiah] that the idea of a conflict between God [YHWH] and the dragon was transferred from cosmogony to eschatology and represented as a culminating episode of the last days (Isaiah 27:1; Daniel 7) ... Side by side with the dragon-myth must be set the Beliar (Belial) conception, a contribution to Jewish [rather Israelite] thought from the side of Persian dualism, with its idea of an adversary in whom is embodied not merely, as in the Babylonian Creation-story, the natural forces of chaos and darkness, but all the hostile powers of moral evil ... And in the interval between the Old Testament and New Testament Beliar is frequently used as a synonym for Satan, and Devil or arch-demon (e.g. Jubilees, 15; cf. 2 Cor. 6:15). The Beliar idea was a much later influence than the dragon-myth, for Babylonian religion offers no real parallel to a belief in the Devil, and Cheyne’s suggested derivation of the name from Belili, the goddess of the underworld ... has little to recommend it. But a subsequent fusion of Beliar with the dragon was very natural, and we have a striking illustration of it when in Wisdom 2:24 and elsewhere the serpent of the Temptation is identified with the Devil. Cf. Revelation 12:9; 20:2, where ‘the dragon, the old serpent’, is explained to be ‘the Devil and Satan’ ... But, so far as the New Testament is concerned, the earlier Antichrist tradition is taken over with important changes, due to the differences between Judaism [(the reference to Judaism is) correct this time] and Christianity, and especially to the differences in their conception of the Messiah Himself. At the same time it must be noted that nothing like a single consistent presentation of the Antichrist idea is given by the New Testament as a whole. Elements of the conception appear in the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Apocalypse, the Johannine Epistles, but in each group of writings it is treated differently and with more or less divergence from the earlier Jewish [Israelite] forms ... In the Synoptic Gospels it is everywhere apparent that Jesus recognized the existence of the kingdom of evil under the control of a supreme personality, variously called the Devil (Mt 4:1; 13:29, etc.). Satan (Mt 4:10; 12:26; Lk 10:18 etc.), or Beelzebub (Mt 12:24), who sought to interfere with His own Messianic mission (Mt 4:1-11; 16:23), and whose works He had come to destroy (... He 2:14) ....”

We would assert that Persian Dualism has similarities with Scripture because they have a common heritage: understanding the two seed-lines of Genesis 3:15 is proper Biblical dualism, while Persian dualism is more abstract. By cosmogony the writers are referencing ancient Egyptian and similar myths concerning the battle of the dragon, represented by the constellation Draco, with the sun god which the dragon attempted to swallow each night, and as the dragon made its attempt it was fought off and defeated by the god Set. Again, we would say that this and similar myths represent ancient truths held by the progenitors of Hebrews, Egyptians and others of these related peoples, and expressed variously in the myths of each group.

The reference to the Psalms of Solomon is a reference to a Deutero-canonical work which is generally thought to belong to the middle of the 1st century BC, but I have not yet determined that for myself. The pericope in question, which is from the 2nd of the 18 psalms in the collection, reads: “Do not delay, O God, to repay them on their heads, to declare in dishonor the arrogance of the dragon. And I did not wait long until God showed me his insolence, pierced, on the mountains of Egypt, more than the least despised on land and sea. His body, carried about on the waves in great insolence, and there was no one to bury, for he had rejected him in dishonor. He did not consider that he was a human, nor did he consider the hereafter. He said, ‘I will be lord of earth and sea,’ and he did not recognize that God is great, mighty in his great strength.” We would consider this a late poetic reference, the author likening the adversary herein described in the same manner as the Scripture likens the adversary of God. The reference to Wisdom chapter 2 is to that same verse from the Wisdom of Solomon which we had quoted in our introduction this evening and which says in part that “through envy of the devil came death into the world….”

We cannot agree with this commentary, that these things were interpreted differently in Old Testament or New, or among the writers of the books of either Testament. Rather, the commentators themselves do not understand the nature of the allegories and epithets, or what it is that they actually represent. Neither is Satan necessarily a supreme personality, but rather Satan is a historic entity, a collective of particular individuals, which are forever opposed to God, which is the “seed of the serpent”. Clifton continues:

With this quotation on the subject of “antichrist” we should be beginning to get a conception of what this whole thing is all about. In order to delve into this matter a little further, let’s consider the term “Belial.” For this I will quote again from the same volume in Hastings, page 146:

BELIAL ... Taking the meaning ‘worthlessness’, we note that the ordinary use of ‘Belial’ in the OT suits it very well; ‘sons of Belial’ or ‘men of Belial’ means ‘worthless or wicked men’, according to the common Hebrew idiom which substitutes a genitive for an adjective. The word is, however, twice used in the OT as a quasi-proper name. In Ps 18:4 we read of ‘the cords of death’, ‘the floods of Belial’, ‘the cords of Sheol’, ‘the snares of death’; here Belial = the under world. Again, in Nah 1:15 we read that Belial shall no more pass through Judah; he is utterly cut off. In this passage Belial almost exactly corresponds to the ‘man of lawlessness, the man of perdition’ of St. Paul (2 Th 2:3 ...) ... In the Sibylline Oracles ... where the reference to the ‘Augustans’ ... shows the passage to be a later interpolation, probably of 1st cent. A.D. ... Belial is Antichrist ... There are many forms of this name, chiefly due to the phonetic interchange of the liquids: Belial, Beliar, Beliam, Belian, Beliab, Belias, Berial.”

We would rather think that in Psalm 18:4 as well as in Nahum 1:15 the ungodly men, the wicked, or belial, which is the Hebrew word in either case, are the non-White and mixed races, the enemies of the Israelites mentioned in Psalm 18:3. Continuing with Clifton:

Conspicuously, “Belial” is #1100 in Strong’s, which is from the same root as #1098 meaning “mixed”, and therefore as we should know, “worthless” [such as the] (Kenites, Canaanites, Edomites etc.). Check #1100 in Psalm 18:4 and Nahum 1:15. For another definition of “Belial” we will use The Revell Bible Dictionary, page 143:

Belial ... As a proper noun, a name for Satan. In common use, a Hebrew word for ‘worthless.’ The phrase ‘sons of Belial’ appears several times in the OT (Deut. 13:13; 1 Sam. 2:12; 2 Chr. 13:7). Modern versions usually simply translate this [as] ‘worthless persons’, since belia’al means ‘worthless’ or ‘lawless.’ However, the proper name is retained in 2 Cor. 6:15 where Paul asks rhetorically, ‘What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?’ In Jewish literature from the second century on Belial (or Beliar) was a name for Satan. In the 2 Corinthians passage Paul urges Christians not to compromise with the ways, the practices, or the people of Satan.”

The end part of this was actually a good definition, even if the author did not intend for us to interpret it as we would, where he wrote that Belial represents the “people of Satan”. Clifton agrees, where he goes on to say:

Again, in The Revell Bible Dictionary there is a good definition for the word “antichrist” on page 73:

antichrist An opponent of Christ, or a substitute Christ. The name, coined by John and found only in his letters, is rooted in ancient biblical prophecies concerning an evil person who will appear at history’s end to rally mankind against God.

This was a supposition by the authors. The second part of their definition is better, as Clifton continues his citation:

John also speaks of ‘many antichrists’, and of a spirit of antichrist which is active even before the end times (1 John 2:18; 4:3). These antichristian false teachers can be recognized by their denial of Jesus as God in the flesh. Such persons are ‘deceivers’ who may masquerade as Christians, but whose true character is revealed by their refusal to affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ.”

I would point out here that to refuse to rightly identify the two “seeds” of Genesis 3:15 is to deny the deity of the Messiah. In order to rightly identify our Redeemer, it is necessary to profess Him not only as YHWH in the flesh, but also to identify Him as the One who was “bruised” by the serpent’s seed of Genesis 3:15 for our iniquities. If He was not bruised as such, He is not YHWH in the flesh! Further, we must recognize His Resurrection. If He was not bruised (dying in our place), He could not be resurrected. If He didn’t die in our place and resurrect to life again, He is not YHWH in the flesh! The one seedliners deny His bruising. If He suffered and died a literal physical death, then the serpent is also a literal physical seedline. By teaching against Two Seedline, the one seedliners, i.e. anti-seedliners, have made themselves ANTICHRISTS! And that by their own choice!

This would seem to depend on whether the anti-seedliners interpret Genesis 3:15 in the manner in which Clifton has here, however this interpretation is the same as that of the typical denominational church, so I may imagine they do accept genesis 3:15 as a Messianic prophecy, and if they do, then they deserve the descriptions Clifton has made for them here. Finally, Clifton proceeds to his conclusion of this part of his criticisms under the subtitle:


I do not believe that the average follower of the Nazarene has ever taken the time to contemplate the implications of the Almighty taking upon Himself a fleshly body. We could ponder why He did this, but that thought is not [set] before us. The question is, what happens when the Almighty El [God] entwines Himself in a fleshly body that is condemned to die? Yes, when He decided to do that, He knew He was going to die the death of a man. It wasn’t a question, then, of whether or not He was going to die, but how and when. Once committed, it was a one-way street; there was no turning back. The difference between our Messiah and man is, YHWH had the power to lay down his life and take it back up again, but nevertheless, He was going to die a man’s (an Adamite’s) physical death. The next important question is, did He die according to Scripture? Scripture says (Genesis 3:15), He would die, or be bruised by the seed of the “serpent.” If this is true, the “serpent” had to have literal children! This is the very CORNERSTONE of SCRIPTURE, and if our Redeemer didn’t die in that prescribed manner, the whole foundation of our FAITH is for naught!

There are certainly other Scriptures that indicate that Christ would die at the hand of His enemies. As we read in Psalm 22:16 and 20, it also happened that “dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet…. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” So Clifton concludes:

Conclusion: While it is paramount that we have faith that our Almighty came in the flesh, it is important to the same degree in what manner that flesh died and the fact that it rose to life again! The one seedliners (anti-seedliners) talk a lot about the “Sovereignty of God”, which is all well and good, but if Yahweh did not come in the flesh; be “bruised” and die in the flesh; resurrect to life again in the flesh; ascend to heaven in the flesh, He is not Sovereign. The one seedliners really don’t believe He is “Sovereign” for they deny His “bruising” inasmuch as they deny there was a literal seed of the serpent to bruise Him. How can anyone claim that the woman was to have a literal, fleshly seed (Yahshua), but then do a complete about-face and claim that the serpent’s seed is only figurative? Now, who’s not “consistent”?

Those anti-seedliners will probably try to disclaim any charge of teaching an “antichrist” doctrine! Any further effort on their part to explain away their position will only result in digging themselves into their own quagmire. Without their realizing it, they have earmarked themselves in unequivocal terms as “antichrist anti-seedliners.”

In our further estimation, if the serpent of Genesis 3:15 is the flesh, then by the Gospel according to Ted Weiland the Messiah came in the serpent, died in the serpent, and rose in the serpent, which is all absolutely ridiculous. Whether Clifton makes such an observation or not later in this series, I do not remember. In any case, Clifton will continue to demonstrate the faults of the anti-seedliners for 11 more of these essays, and Yahweh willing, we shall present the balance of them here in the months to come.

CHR20170811-CAE-SpecNotice13.odt — Downloaded 505 times